6 ms·

Microsoft announces will shut down eBook program, confiscate customer libraries

30 points by benologist 8y ago

bdcravens 8y ago
Nice headline, leaving out this detail until the second paragraph: "Customers will receive refunds."
- jhbadger 8y ago
  True, but even that detail doesn't stop people from being upset at this. I remember that early on in the Kindle's life Amazon had to buy back pirated books (including a version of 1984) that had been erroneously sold to customers, and even the refund didn't stop people from being angry about it.
- Nicksil 8y ago
  Because that bit of information has nothing to do with the point of the story. Folks don't want refunds, they want the item they paid for.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nikonyrh 8y ago
  Usually the decision of selling someting cannot be revoked by the selling party, at least not when we are talking of (physical) property. Licenses are trickier ;)
- deogeo 8y ago
  Yet if the person who sold you a bicycle decided to take it back, it would still be theft, even if they left in its place the exact cash amount you paid for it. What other items should corporations be able to confiscate (with a refund!) without your consent? Everything they sold you? If so, what would you have left?
  - drewmol 8y ago
    Fraud is a better term than theft but this probably does not constitutes fraud, that would depend on the terms of license and sale. MS is not confiscating physical property just discontinuing a service that was hosting digital books (I presume if they are confiscating them) and unlocking DRM for those licensed books to be readable. I'm not advocating MS's play here I just don't agree the term theft is accurate for this, just as an individual is not stealing by reading/hearing/watching/witnessing copywrighted information no matter anyone's terms.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Of course legally it's not theft - all those lengthy licenses and disclaimers drawn up by legal departments that you have to agree to for an alarmingly large and growing list of goods and services make sure of that. But legal or not, the effect is the same - they took your stuff. Unless we do something, this, and the violations of other rights you signed away, will become ever more commonplace. Right to a fair trial is already heavily restricted by omnipresent mandatory arbitration agreements. The fact that it's totally legal is of little comfort.
      - drewmol 8y ago
        >the effect is the same - they took your stuff. After I wrote my reply I reflected that in this case MS is actively, directly depriving you of access to the your content, a required component of theft, but IMO if a refund is issued before access is revoked then the requirmemts for theft still seem unmet. I also feel customers should be free to circumvent DRM technologies... which would allow the market to help mitigate this type of decieptful, manipulative licensing of content. Seems pretty shitty to not refund the device purchases though.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- yellowapple 8y ago
  Yes, because when I buy a book I'm totally okay with reading a handful of dollar bills instead.
coverband 8y ago
This is a very stupid move by Microsoft, at least they should have arranged a customer/inventory handover with an alternate provider (like Amazon Kindle) to minimize the inconvenience.
yellowapple 8y ago
I just wanna give a quick word of appreciation to the precision and tact of that rather-well-deserved F-bomb. Discriminate, precise, no collateral damage. Just a perfect emphasis upon the absurdity that is DRM.
CM30 8y ago
And this is why streaming services, digital 'media', etc are a terrible deal for the customer. If the service goes down, you can basically lose everything, and even a refund is unlikely in other cases.
- Crontab 8y ago
  I am going to disagree with you where pure steaming services like Netflix and Spotify are concerned. Everyone understands they are just renting access. But otherwise I totally agree with you.
  - CM30 8y ago
    Of course, people usually understand they're renting stuff on services like Netflix and Spotify. Though even then, it still raises one issue. Namely, how it seems basically every company now has realised that they get more money/power by endlessly renting things rather than selling them to the customer. Feels like ownership is being quickly killed off.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
class action required
intopieces 8y ago
The comparison to physical books is not apt. Physical books cannot be easily and for almost no cost reproduced and distributed the way ebooks can. In the end, did Nook Media have the only license to distribute some of these books? If not, the customers actually come out ahead here: they got to read the books for free, as many times as they wanted, as their leisure, since purchasing it. They are now free to use that money to repurchase the same title at a competitor, if they like. Or a different title. Having said that, a better way to make this right for customers would be to offer them either a refund OR a DRM-Free copy.
vegasdew 8y ago
In principle it may be wrong, but in reality I'll like it as I don't re read lots of books, so getting money back on all read books is nice.
sohkamyung 8y ago
Off topic, but for those looking for DRM-free bookshops, check out this list maintained by Libreture [1] Personally, I never buy DRM encumbered books. I started buying from Fictionwise, then moved on the Weightless Books. I also only buy non-DRM books from Google Play. [1] https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/ https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/

30 points by benologist 8y ago

bdcravens 8y ago

Nice headline, leaving out this detail until the second paragraph: "Customers will receive refunds."

jhbadger 8y ago
True, but even that detail doesn't stop people from being upset at this. I remember that early on in the Kindle's life Amazon had to buy back pirated books (including a version of 1984) that had been erroneously sold to customers, and even the refund didn't stop people from being angry about it.
Nicksil 8y ago
Because that bit of information has nothing to do with the point of the story. Folks don't want refunds, they want the item they paid for.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nikonyrh 8y ago
Usually the decision of selling someting cannot be revoked by the selling party, at least not when we are talking of (physical) property. Licenses are trickier ;)
deogeo 8y ago
Yet if the person who sold you a bicycle decided to take it back, it would still be theft, even if they left in its place the exact cash amount you paid for it. What other items should corporations be able to confiscate (with a refund!) without your consent? Everything they sold you? If so, what would you have left?
- drewmol 8y ago
  Fraud is a better term than theft but this probably does not constitutes fraud, that would depend on the terms of license and sale. MS is not confiscating physical property just discontinuing a service that was hosting digital books (I presume if they are confiscating them) and unlocking DRM for those licensed books to be readable. I'm not advocating MS's play here I just don't agree the term theft is accurate for this, just as an individual is not stealing by reading/hearing/watching/witnessing copywrighted information no matter anyone's terms.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Of course legally it's not theft - all those lengthy licenses and disclaimers drawn up by legal departments that you have to agree to for an alarmingly large and growing list of goods and services make sure of that. But legal or not, the effect is the same - they took your stuff. Unless we do something, this, and the violations of other rights you signed away, will become ever more commonplace. Right to a fair trial is already heavily restricted by omnipresent mandatory arbitration agreements. The fact that it's totally legal is of little comfort.
    - drewmol 8y ago
      >the effect is the same - they took your stuff. After I wrote my reply I reflected that in this case MS is actively, directly depriving you of access to the your content, a required component of theft, but IMO if a refund is issued before access is revoked then the requirmemts for theft still seem unmet. I also feel customers should be free to circumvent DRM technologies... which would allow the market to help mitigate this type of decieptful, manipulative licensing of content. Seems pretty shitty to not refund the device purchases though.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
yellowapple 8y ago
Yes, because when I buy a book I'm totally okay with reading a handful of dollar bills instead.

coverband 8y ago

This is a very stupid move by Microsoft, at least they should have arranged a customer/inventory handover with an alternate provider (like Amazon Kindle) to minimize the inconvenience.

yellowapple 8y ago

I just wanna give a quick word of appreciation to the precision and tact of that rather-well-deserved F-bomb. Discriminate, precise, no collateral damage. Just a perfect emphasis upon the absurdity that is DRM.

CM30 8y ago

And this is why streaming services, digital 'media', etc are a terrible deal for the customer. If the service goes down, you can basically lose everything, and even a refund is unlikely in other cases.

Crontab 8y ago
I am going to disagree with you where pure steaming services like Netflix and Spotify are concerned. Everyone understands they are just renting access. But otherwise I totally agree with you.
- CM30 8y ago
  Of course, people usually understand they're renting stuff on services like Netflix and Spotify. Though even then, it still raises one issue. Namely, how it seems basically every company now has realised that they get more money/power by endlessly renting things rather than selling them to the customer. Feels like ownership is being quickly killed off.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

class action required

intopieces 8y ago

The comparison to physical books is not apt. Physical books cannot be easily and for almost no cost reproduced and distributed the way ebooks can. In the end, did Nook Media have the only license to distribute some of these books? If not, the customers actually come out ahead here: they got to read the books for free, as many times as they wanted, as their leisure, since purchasing it. They are now free to use that money to repurchase the same title at a competitor, if they like. Or a different title. Having said that, a better way to make this right for customers would be to offer them either a refund OR a DRM-Free copy.

vegasdew 8y ago

In principle it may be wrong, but in reality I'll like it as I don't re read lots of books, so getting money back on all read books is nice.

sohkamyung 8y ago

Off topic, but for those looking for DRM-free bookshops, check out this list maintained by Libreture [1] Personally, I never buy DRM encumbered books. I started buying from Fictionwise, then moved on the Weightless Books. I also only buy non-DRM books from Google Play. [1] https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/ https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/