7 ms·

Reminder: Amazon once secretly remotely wiped 1984 from people’s kindles. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizm

by Joeri 4y ago

Reminder: Amazon once secretly remotely wiped 1984 from people’s kindles. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki... You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. I think there should be legislation that sets a minimum standard for the rights people acquire when they “buy” a digital work.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. Which is fine, as long as you know that going in and set your price expectations accordingly. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a backup with the rest of your digital data.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  I don't think that a reasonable person would assume that Amazon can and will (as evidenced by the OP) remove your entire library at their sole discretion.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    So improve the documentation then so it's more clear what you're getting. Instant access to a digital version of a book, for a non-expiring rental, from an organization that could go defunct in the future. It does not have a perfect analogy in the physical world.
    - xigoi 4y ago
      > from an organization that could go defunct in the future. If only there was a way to preserve digital data even if the company you got it from no longer exists…
- turminal 4y ago
  It's not fine, it's precisely the kind of thing that needs to be regulated because the average consumer is not capable of understanding the non-obvious long term consequences.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Exactly, it’s a play on a metaphor people know (“I bought a book”), yet one that’s doesn’t really apply (we “buy” nothing, it’s just revocable access). So it’s ever so slightly fraudulent.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    It’s not just “not understanding,” it’s a massive revocation of rights that consumers enjoyed with physical goods. That needs to be changed. If you buy a digital good, it’s yours. You own it, are able to resell it, and no later revocation of rights by media conglomerates should be allowed to change that.
- sidlls 4y ago
  This isn't fine, because the language used in the purchase is "buy", not "rent". People buy these e-books thinking it's the same as buying a physical book, except they can read it on their e-reader. It's deliberately misleading on the part of the sellers.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    There is no perfect analogy though, it is not the same as renting either. It is buying, with an asterisk. The company could go defunct. We can regulate the bit about their ability to revoke access to digital goods already purchased, but it's tough to do anything about the company itself going tits up. I just treat it as a open end rental. The ability to revoke my access to the book lowers the value. The ability to instantly get the book in seconds adds to the value. I keep my expectations clear from the beginning. Yes, we can argue that regular people are just too stupid to understand that. I don't really agree with that attitude.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Any company using the word "buy" for DRM-encumbered media should be required to put keys in escrow so that the DRM can be removed if the company fails to permanently maintain access. We shouldn't let marketers tell outright lies just because regular people are smart enough to recognize them for lies.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I don't disagree. My Kindle books are DRM free already as delivered by Amazon. If they were encumbered, I'd add that to my list of 'things which would reduce the value to me.' So I just back up the data.
- thecrash 4y ago
  It's fine that the bar could occasionally serve you poisoned whiskey, as long as you know that going in. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a friend with poison antidotes close at hand at all times.
josh_fyi 4y ago
Yet strangely, the word "buy" is used in the Kindle store. Seems like straight up commercial fraud.
- rpigab 4y ago
  Related : "Games as a service is fraud" by Ross Scott https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bhdkvo/comment/elsch29 https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bhdkvo/comment/el...
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  Eh, one “buys” the right to temporarily have the item on their device, until Amazon decides to revoke that right. As OP said, > I'm never buying e-books again. I do something similar. If the book is worth it, I buy it in material form. If it’s not worth the bookshelf clutter it’ll cause, I just skip it. But then again, most of my books aren’t on digital subjects, for that I usually rely on specs and articles, as tech is moving too quickly to be worth being nailed down on paper.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    > Eh, one “buys” the right to temporarily have the item on their device, until Amazon decides to revoke that right. Yeah, just like someone can "buy" an empty iPhone box on eBay for $800.
    - dspillett 4y ago
      Those listings are usually honest. Misleading, yes, but nowhere in them does it state you are buying anything other than a box. The even more misleading ones, helped by the product name, are selling x-box boxes. I'd argue that the “buy now” when viewing a Kindle edition listing, or Audible edition, is noticeably less honest, especially as you are usually at most on click away from the dead-tree editions where buy actually does mean buy. I'd have that iphone box that I'd legally bought for as long as I choose to own it, the seller can not revoke access to it arbitrarily like Amazon can, will, and sometimes has (1984 being the most famous and somewhat ironic example) with ebooks and audiobooks.
alexhsamuel 4y ago
Then how about banning the word "buy", and any other language that implies the transfer of property? The yellow button in the corner should say "Rent now a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration, which we may later modify... with 1-Click".
- brookst 4y ago
  Should we eliminate the word “buy” from all licenses and rights-restricted transactions? So like concert tickets (you can’t take video at the concert), physical DVDs (you can’t stream them online for other people), airline tickets (airlines reserve all sorts of rights, and international treaties even more), and houses (even if you pay cash, the local government can take your property for a variety of reasons)? The ambiguity in digital purchases is a real problem, but if physical goods and services haven’t solved the problem with the semantics of “buy”, I’m not sure that’s a productive approach, unless the idea is to just scare people away from digital specifically by implying it’s materially different than other transactions where “buy” does not mean “receive irrevocable and unrestricted exclusive rights forever”.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    For tickets, the use is correct — you buy the ticket, the physical piece of paper, which gives you restricted access to a place.
  - yladiz 4y ago
    I think there is a clear distinction to be drawn here, the simplest being around a physical object or not. Looking at films or music, if you own the physical media and it can’t just be taken away from you (especially if you use a form of the media that is not internet connected, like a cassette tape). Buying the digital version is basically buying a revocable right to watch/listen to the media, rather than the media itself, so I would agree that the term buy is kind of misleading given the implied meaning of the word when it comes to this kind of thing. As the other commenter points out, buying a concert ticket isn’t implying buying the whole concert, and no one would think so, which is unlike what people think when they “buy” a digital movie from Amazon or Apple.
CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago
You know, for a while this seemed like a non-issue for me. I was naive. I just told myself "a company wouldn't do something like that, that's not how this stuff works". Boy was I wrong. 15 years ago I had nothing but glowing admiration for these large tech companies, now I avoid them at all costs. I pay for Kagi instead of using Google for free. I deleted my amazon account, and now just shop at normal retailers. It's not like the price is much different. I sold my Kindle, and just buy my books from Barnes and Noble. Oh, Netflix only has season 2 of Mr. Robot? Guess I'll just pirate that. I got rid of my Nest cameras (Google COMPLETELY ruined that product) and use Blue Iris locally now. Everything these companies touch turns to poison. Unfortunately, for now I'm still stuck with google / apple maps and Gmail.
- jrib 4y ago
  I dropped gmail for fastmail when google originally threatened to drop the grandfathered g-suite plans. Has worked great for me.
  - CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago
    Ugh I tried to get off of Gmail and went to Kolab. That did not work for me at all. The formatting abilities were severely lacking. Maybe I'll try again since I've spent so much energy on this rant at this point.
    - r3trohack3r 4y ago
      I successfully migrated to ProtonMail using a strangulation pattern. I set up a forwarding policy from GMail -> Protonmail. Whenever I would receive a forwarded email, Id go to the sender and update my email address. After about 6 months the only email coming from my Gmail account was spam. Then I turned off my forwarding policy and noticed something: I don't really get spam anymore. I don't know what it is about Gmail but it receives several of orders of magnitude more spam than any of my other email accounts. To drive that point home, to crack down on spam, I setup my own domain on protonmail and configured a catch-all. Now everyone gets their own email address (like homedepot@mydomain.com). It lets me reverse track who is sharing my personal info with who for marketing purposes. Turns out: in the 5 years I've been using Protonmail I've had two cases of someone sharing my email address. I had assumed all my spam was from people sharing my email - turns out it was just a Gmail problem. If your experience ends up being the same as mine, the time you save not dealing with spam on Gmail will cover your migration costs.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
There absolutely should be a legal clarification of what "buy" means with respect to digital goods. And then fine everyone who uses "buy" instead of "license" for false advertising.
- patentatt 4y ago
  Or just "rent" because that seems pretty close to the reality of the situation. Just have the rental term be long, and have it 'renew' for free. I'd be ok with that.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    > Or just "rent" because that seems pretty close to the reality of the situation. Rent has a defined time period. Buying a license in this case has an indeterminate time period. Buying a license is still very different from renting or leasing it.
    - quesera 4y ago
      Some rental agreements include automatic renewal unless cancelled by either party. So, a rental agreement for a defined period (very short, instantaneous even), with automatic renewal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ensignavenger 4y ago
Hogwash, the button on Amazon.com is clearly labelled "Buy". Amazon trying to take away something you have clearly bought is theft and fraud, and should be prosecuted as such.
pixxel 4y ago
> A company called MobileReference, who did not own the copyrights to the books 1984 and Animal Farm, uploaded both books to the Kindle store and started selling them. When the rights owner heard about this, they contacted Amazon and asked that the e-books be removed. And Amazon decided to erase them not just from the store, but from all the Kindles where they'd been downloaded. Amazon operators used the Kindle wireless network, called WhisperNet, to quietly delete the books from people's devices and refund them the money they'd paid. I’m adding this detail because it’s not as sinister as you alluded. You are correct with regard to renting, not buying. This is why I only buy paper books (with cash), and grab the corresponding digital version from the high seas.
nulbyte 4y ago
> You don’t actually buy digital books... From Amazon and the likes, no, not usually. But there are some sites that offer DRM-free copies to buy, rather than perpetually rent. Even on Google Play, authors/publishers can choose to go DRM-free. You can download those copies without having to be tied to the Google app. Sadly, however, I don't recall Google making it clear which ones were DRM-free before making a purchase.

by Joeri 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

> You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. Which is fine, as long as you know that going in and set your price expectations accordingly. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a backup with the rest of your digital data.

ryanbrunner 4y ago
I don't think that a reasonable person would assume that Amazon can and will (as evidenced by the OP) remove your entire library at their sole discretion.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  So improve the documentation then so it's more clear what you're getting. Instant access to a digital version of a book, for a non-expiring rental, from an organization that could go defunct in the future. It does not have a perfect analogy in the physical world.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    > from an organization that could go defunct in the future. If only there was a way to preserve digital data even if the company you got it from no longer exists…
turminal 4y ago
It's not fine, it's precisely the kind of thing that needs to be regulated because the average consumer is not capable of understanding the non-obvious long term consequences.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  Exactly, it’s a play on a metaphor people know (“I bought a book”), yet one that’s doesn’t really apply (we “buy” nothing, it’s just revocable access). So it’s ever so slightly fraudulent.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  It’s not just “not understanding,” it’s a massive revocation of rights that consumers enjoyed with physical goods. That needs to be changed. If you buy a digital good, it’s yours. You own it, are able to resell it, and no later revocation of rights by media conglomerates should be allowed to change that.
sidlls 4y ago
This isn't fine, because the language used in the purchase is "buy", not "rent". People buy these e-books thinking it's the same as buying a physical book, except they can read it on their e-reader. It's deliberately misleading on the part of the sellers.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  There is no perfect analogy though, it is not the same as renting either. It is buying, with an asterisk. The company could go defunct. We can regulate the bit about their ability to revoke access to digital goods already purchased, but it's tough to do anything about the company itself going tits up. I just treat it as a open end rental. The ability to revoke my access to the book lowers the value. The ability to instantly get the book in seconds adds to the value. I keep my expectations clear from the beginning. Yes, we can argue that regular people are just too stupid to understand that. I don't really agree with that attitude.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Any company using the word "buy" for DRM-encumbered media should be required to put keys in escrow so that the DRM can be removed if the company fails to permanently maintain access. We shouldn't let marketers tell outright lies just because regular people are smart enough to recognize them for lies.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      I don't disagree. My Kindle books are DRM free already as delivered by Amazon. If they were encumbered, I'd add that to my list of 'things which would reduce the value to me.' So I just back up the data.
thecrash 4y ago
It's fine that the bar could occasionally serve you poisoned whiskey, as long as you know that going in. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a friend with poison antidotes close at hand at all times.

josh_fyi 4y ago

Yet strangely, the word "buy" is used in the Kindle store. Seems like straight up commercial fraud.

rpigab 4y ago
Related : "Games as a service is fraud" by Ross Scott https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bhdkvo/comment/elsch29 https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bhdkvo/comment/el...
MonkeyClub 4y ago
Eh, one “buys” the right to temporarily have the item on their device, until Amazon decides to revoke that right. As OP said, > I'm never buying e-books again. I do something similar. If the book is worth it, I buy it in material form. If it’s not worth the bookshelf clutter it’ll cause, I just skip it. But then again, most of my books aren’t on digital subjects, for that I usually rely on specs and articles, as tech is moving too quickly to be worth being nailed down on paper.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > Eh, one “buys” the right to temporarily have the item on their device, until Amazon decides to revoke that right. Yeah, just like someone can "buy" an empty iPhone box on eBay for $800.
  - dspillett 4y ago
    Those listings are usually honest. Misleading, yes, but nowhere in them does it state you are buying anything other than a box. The even more misleading ones, helped by the product name, are selling x-box boxes. I'd argue that the “buy now” when viewing a Kindle edition listing, or Audible edition, is noticeably less honest, especially as you are usually at most on click away from the dead-tree editions where buy actually does mean buy. I'd have that iphone box that I'd legally bought for as long as I choose to own it, the seller can not revoke access to it arbitrarily like Amazon can, will, and sometimes has (1984 being the most famous and somewhat ironic example) with ebooks and audiobooks.

alexhsamuel 4y ago

Then how about banning the word "buy", and any other language that implies the transfer of property? The yellow button in the corner should say "Rent now a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration, which we may later modify... with 1-Click".

brookst 4y ago
Should we eliminate the word “buy” from all licenses and rights-restricted transactions? So like concert tickets (you can’t take video at the concert), physical DVDs (you can’t stream them online for other people), airline tickets (airlines reserve all sorts of rights, and international treaties even more), and houses (even if you pay cash, the local government can take your property for a variety of reasons)? The ambiguity in digital purchases is a real problem, but if physical goods and services haven’t solved the problem with the semantics of “buy”, I’m not sure that’s a productive approach, unless the idea is to just scare people away from digital specifically by implying it’s materially different than other transactions where “buy” does not mean “receive irrevocable and unrestricted exclusive rights forever”.
- xigoi 4y ago
  For tickets, the use is correct — you buy the ticket, the physical piece of paper, which gives you restricted access to a place.
- yladiz 4y ago
  I think there is a clear distinction to be drawn here, the simplest being around a physical object or not. Looking at films or music, if you own the physical media and it can’t just be taken away from you (especially if you use a form of the media that is not internet connected, like a cassette tape). Buying the digital version is basically buying a revocable right to watch/listen to the media, rather than the media itself, so I would agree that the term buy is kind of misleading given the implied meaning of the word when it comes to this kind of thing. As the other commenter points out, buying a concert ticket isn’t implying buying the whole concert, and no one would think so, which is unlike what people think when they “buy” a digital movie from Amazon or Apple.

CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago

You know, for a while this seemed like a non-issue for me. I was naive. I just told myself "a company wouldn't do something like that, that's not how this stuff works". Boy was I wrong. 15 years ago I had nothing but glowing admiration for these large tech companies, now I avoid them at all costs. I pay for Kagi instead of using Google for free. I deleted my amazon account, and now just shop at normal retailers. It's not like the price is much different. I sold my Kindle, and just buy my books from Barnes and Noble. Oh, Netflix only has season 2 of Mr. Robot? Guess I'll just pirate that. I got rid of my Nest cameras (Google COMPLETELY ruined that product) and use Blue Iris locally now. Everything these companies touch turns to poison. Unfortunately, for now I'm still stuck with google / apple maps and Gmail.

jrib 4y ago
I dropped gmail for fastmail when google originally threatened to drop the grandfathered g-suite plans. Has worked great for me.
- CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago
  Ugh I tried to get off of Gmail and went to Kolab. That did not work for me at all. The formatting abilities were severely lacking. Maybe I'll try again since I've spent so much energy on this rant at this point.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    I successfully migrated to ProtonMail using a strangulation pattern. I set up a forwarding policy from GMail -> Protonmail. Whenever I would receive a forwarded email, Id go to the sender and update my email address. After about 6 months the only email coming from my Gmail account was spam. Then I turned off my forwarding policy and noticed something: I don't really get spam anymore. I don't know what it is about Gmail but it receives several of orders of magnitude more spam than any of my other email accounts. To drive that point home, to crack down on spam, I setup my own domain on protonmail and configured a catch-all. Now everyone gets their own email address (like homedepot@mydomain.com). It lets me reverse track who is sharing my personal info with who for marketing purposes. Turns out: in the 5 years I've been using Protonmail I've had two cases of someone sharing my email address. I had assumed all my spam was from people sharing my email - turns out it was just a Gmail problem. If your experience ends up being the same as mine, the time you save not dealing with spam on Gmail will cover your migration costs.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

There absolutely should be a legal clarification of what "buy" means with respect to digital goods. And then fine everyone who uses "buy" instead of "license" for false advertising.

patentatt 4y ago
Or just "rent" because that seems pretty close to the reality of the situation. Just have the rental term be long, and have it 'renew' for free. I'd be ok with that.
- vel0city 4y ago
  > Or just "rent" because that seems pretty close to the reality of the situation. Rent has a defined time period. Buying a license in this case has an indeterminate time period. Buying a license is still very different from renting or leasing it.
  - quesera 4y ago
    Some rental agreements include automatic renewal unless cancelled by either party. So, a rental agreement for a defined period (very short, instantaneous even), with automatic renewal.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ensignavenger 4y ago

Hogwash, the button on Amazon.com is clearly labelled "Buy". Amazon trying to take away something you have clearly bought is theft and fraud, and should be prosecuted as such.

pixxel 4y ago

> A company called MobileReference, who did not own the copyrights to the books 1984 and Animal Farm, uploaded both books to the Kindle store and started selling them. When the rights owner heard about this, they contacted Amazon and asked that the e-books be removed. And Amazon decided to erase them not just from the store, but from all the Kindles where they'd been downloaded. Amazon operators used the Kindle wireless network, called WhisperNet, to quietly delete the books from people's devices and refund them the money they'd paid. I’m adding this detail because it’s not as sinister as you alluded. You are correct with regard to renting, not buying. This is why I only buy paper books (with cash), and grab the corresponding digital version from the high seas.

nulbyte 4y ago

> You don’t actually buy digital books... From Amazon and the likes, no, not usually. But there are some sites that offer DRM-free copies to buy, rather than perpetually rent. Even on Google Play, authors/publishers can choose to go DRM-free. You can download those copies without having to be tied to the Google app. Sadly, however, I don't recall Google making it clear which ones were DRM-free before making a purchase.