9 ms·

Could you ever imagine a local retailer in your area breaking and entering into your home, taking away all your books, and then not giving you a straightforward

by cs702 14y ago

Could you ever imagine a local retailer in your area breaking and entering into your home, taking away all your books, and then not giving you a straightforward explanation as to why they did so? Me neither. Breaking and entering into someone else's physical property, and talking away their physical possessions without explanation is so obviously wrong and illegal! Yet that's pretty much what Amazon did to this poor woman, except in the digital realm: Amazon 'broke and entered' into her Kindle, took away all her books, and then did not give her a straightforward explanation as to why they did so. More alarmingly, Amazon did this with impunity, because this woman never really owned "her" books or, for that matter, anything else she "purchased" on "her" Kindle. In the digital realm, what Amazon did to this woman is perfectly legal. Legal or not, this looks, smells, and feels so obviously wrong, it ought to be illegal.

pi18n 14y ago
It absolutely should be illegal to delete files from a device that is currently rented or owned by another party unless they give explicit permission. It should be wire fraud, just like hacking a server and forcing it to act in a way the owner does not desire.
- mdasen 14y ago
  The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). I'm sure there's a clause in the ToS that allows Amazon to delete content that you've purchased. I'm not the type to sound the drum saying that piracy isn't theft, but here it seems like it's trying to go both ways. It's property if you "steal" it and it isn't property if you've bought it. Part of the problem is that the law hasn't kept up with the digital age. Lawyers/judges are notably technophobes (as a whole) which I'm sure has kept it back. Plus, generally speaking, technology enjoys a nice balance of good companies, competition, and plenty of release valves (ie, piracy). In general, these events are rare and that keeps the world from addressing the underlying issues - it just rarely comes up as an issue for someone and when it does, they could find a way (like piracy) to make themselves whole again (and I know it isn't equivalent, but piracy is often a lower barrier than legal action). There are a lot of other issues where people are more likely to become un-whole with less easy recourse. Right now, issues of what a license to digital content offers is a bit in flux. I think a lot of us have a similar idea to what we think it should mean, but that doesn't mean that the legal system does or will acknowledge that. We sometimes get complacent because we're in a pretty positive industry and often times regulation can stifle innovation. However, this might be an area where we want a standard definition of term rental (for things like the Zune music service) and license purchase (like a Kindle Book) that would allow for things like re-selling and such. Otherwise, we'll likely continue to be beholden to the ToS that we all just click "accept" on.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    Yes, you are absolutely right. Of course there is a clause allowing them to do whatever they feel like with the books you get from them. I like the duality you've pointed out. They sure would love for a copy to qualify as property when determining punitive damages. It would be great to have legislation and precise definitions for digital rentals and purchases, so that your rental term or purchased content cannot be rescinded arbitrarily. And I think it would be great to have stronger legal restrictions on removing or altering content, or running software on a device when its renter or owner does not wish for that to occur.
  - vijayr 14y ago
    The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). This is probably the case. Amazon would've covered their bases strongly. What is super annoying is this - there are many many books, whose kindle editions cost more than their paperbacks. Imagine paying 13$ for a ebook (the same book in paperback costs 10$) and then losing that due to some arbitrary "rule" from Amazon. I love my Kindle, but this is really really bad.
    - gambiting 14y ago
      And there are many many books which are a lot cheaper on Kindle. I buy my programming and technical books almost exclusively on Kindle,since the difference is usually half the price of paperbacks.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        FYI there is a calibre plugin that will strip the DRM from kindle books. I use it to read books on my Sony e-reader.
      - vijayr 14y ago
        Yes, there are lots of books that are cheaper on kindle, but shouldn't all kindle books be cheaper than their dead tree brothers? May be someday.
    - 14y ago
- dorfsmay 14y ago
  The issue is not the user permission, the issue is that in the physical world, the retailer would have to go through the court system to take away a right or property. It's interesting how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig described this situation back in 2004 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29
beedogs 14y ago
It amazes me how the concept of "non-scarce" goods being a one-for-one substitute for physical items only seems to work in one direction in this brave new world in which we are unfortunately inhabiting, too. If she'd been caught torrenting those same books in the US or a growing list of other countries, she'd face fines and court fees. Her Internet browser could be diverted to "anti-piracy education" sites; perhaps one day, she could be disconnected altogether. Yet Amazon is allowed to arbitrarily remove those very same files with no explanation. Pretty mindblowing how severely copyright has been perverted from its original intent.
- pi18n 14y ago
  I'm one of the ones to leap out of the woodwork and shout that copying is not theft, so it's only fair that I point out this; torrenting is a massive copyright violation, as you are basically republishing the content. What Amazon did in this case is not against copyright, and the user had no claim to copyright of that work anyway. Make no mistake; I disagree with the humongous damages leveled against torrenters and I would be dead set against allowing an ISP to redirect or disconnect a user. But Amazon doing something they claimed rights to in their ToS and sharing a copyrighted work via torrent are quite different.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I feel that I need to point out that at no point did anyone accuse the lady in question of torrenting pirated content. In fact, that's part of the problem. Amazon refuse to say anything about why they took their action.
    - speleding 14y ago
      Yes. But as an aside, it's a good thing she lives in Norway and will have easy access to the pirate bay to get her books back.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    I'm not really arguing whether one action is any better or worse than the other; seeding a pile of ebooks isn't really something for which any valid defense can usually be given. My point is that there's clearly a very large amount of effort being expended protecting the ever-expanding rights of content owners, and -- near as I can tell -- zero effort being spent protecting content purchased by honest consumers from being taken from them without justification or recourse.
joshnerius 14y ago
I've often wondered about the viability of students purchasing or renting textbooks for the Kindle. Just imagine the panic/terror that would ensue if a student's collection of textbooks just disappeared in the middle of a semester. If my collection of novels disappears, I'm inconvenienced. If my collection of textbooks disappears, my academic progress is severely jeopardized. Both seem extremely wrong as you mention, but I see potential for situations that are life-ruiningly wrong.
- MrMember 14y ago
  When Amazon remotely deleted 1984 from people's Kindles a few years ago a student lost the digital notes he had been creating as he was reading it for a class. He ended up suing Amazon, but I have no idea if it was ever resolved or if it's still ongoing.
  - dtparr 14y ago
    Amazon settled fairly quickly: http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-terms-of-book-deletion-via-1984-settlement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-te... The most interesting/relevant bit from the article "In it, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that describe its content deletion policy. When it comes to blog and periodical content, as well as software, Amazon retains the right to perform a remote delete. But when it comes to books, deletions will only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user."
    - tomerv 14y ago
      Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they shouldn't have deleted the books in this case.
      - lambada 14y ago
        IIRC that case was based entirely in the US. As somehow Amazon UK seem to be involved in this case too, it's possible that those agreements don't apply to this case.
greenyouse 14y ago
DRM isn't exactly great for authors or artists either. Here's a Doctorow article on DRM implications for book authors: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/53544-doubling-down-on-drm.html http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blog... Why use DRM? Demand an alternative, buy a physical copy, or holdout. Hopefully the ship will begin turning around soon.
cabalamat 14y ago
> Legal or not, this looks, smells, and feels so obviously wrong, it ought to be illegal. How many people, if they'd known this could happen, would have bought a Kindle in the first place? I suspect many would not. Digital rights activists need to educate the public that DRM = you have no rights.
otakucode 14y ago
Until someone rich enough to fight this to the Supreme Court is screwed by these policies, they will stand, it's as simple as that. These sorts of policies are NOT new. EVERY industry has tried to rob consumers of property rights. And every other industry has a collection of case law establishing that the types of contracts digital content distributors put forward are just illegal. But, since it hasn't been established for digital property yet, we need court cases. If Apple, Steam, and Amazon decided tomorrow that they wanted you to pay $10/item in your 'library' of things you have 'purchased' in order to be able to access it again, according to their contracts their users agreed to, they would be entirely within the contract to do that. Expect publishers and digital content providers to wail and gnash their teeth and swear that giving consumers actual property rights will completely destroy their business. Other industries tried the same scare tactics. They're just lies. Being able to transfer your property, sell it 'used', etc actually massively boosts the success of markets and hopefully it is inevitable that this kind of thing will be extended to digital content.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  I wonder what it would take to get the accounts of well known bloggers or Mr Bezos himself 'directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies'.
mightybyte 14y ago
I completely agree with you, but the consumer here isn't without fault. By purchasing a Kindle and DRM'd books for it, you're agreeing to Amazon's policies. It's true that kindle books don't work like regular books, but being ignorant of that fact isn't an excuse. This is why I categorically refuse to pay a single penny for any digital media that has DRM attached to it and might prevent me from playing it at any time in the future and that I can't back up to my own media.
- cloverich 14y ago
  > It's true that kindle books don't work like regular books, but being ignorant of that fact isn't an excuse. I very much doubt there's a plain english clause that goes a little something like: "If we think you have violated (our?) DRM policies, we will delete every book you've ever purchased, and close your current and future accounts. If you think this is done in error, you may not ask us why we closed the account. You may only sue us to get an answer" To call out a consumer for not being prepared for a no-warning, no explanation ban (and removal of all legally purchased content) seems extreme.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Here's what the License Agreement says: (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200501450 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId...) > Termination. Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement. In case of such termination, you must cease all use of the Software, and Amazon may immediately revoke your access to the Service or to Digital Content without refund of any fees. Amazons failure to insist upon or enforce your strict compliance with this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any of its rights.
    - frobozz 14y ago
      Individuals have the right to see any personal data that an organisation holds about them. If automated processing of such data leads to a legal or significant effect (e.g. you've violated our contract, so we're deleting everything you've bought from us, and you can't use our services ever again.), they also have the right to know what the logic was behind that processing. Amazon may have the right to terminate accounts and ban users, but when challenged by the user, they do not have the right to respond with "because I said so, so there!"
brokentone 14y ago
Should it really be illegal? Every time legislators get involved in these Internet legalities, they don't understand what they're doing. While we (technical young folks) understand the similarities to breaking and entering, somehow they end up seeing similarities to trucks and "series of tubes." Big business can be annoying, but they are nothing like big lobbyist groups like RIAA and MPAA, and as soon as legislation comes up, these people end up being primary influencers. Or the legislators push through favorable bills for these people and immediately leave and become their chairmen (Chris Dodd/MPAA anyone?).

by cs702 14y ago

pi18n 14y ago

It absolutely should be illegal to delete files from a device that is currently rented or owned by another party unless they give explicit permission. It should be wire fraud, just like hacking a server and forcing it to act in a way the owner does not desire.

mdasen 14y ago
The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). I'm sure there's a clause in the ToS that allows Amazon to delete content that you've purchased. I'm not the type to sound the drum saying that piracy isn't theft, but here it seems like it's trying to go both ways. It's property if you "steal" it and it isn't property if you've bought it. Part of the problem is that the law hasn't kept up with the digital age. Lawyers/judges are notably technophobes (as a whole) which I'm sure has kept it back. Plus, generally speaking, technology enjoys a nice balance of good companies, competition, and plenty of release valves (ie, piracy). In general, these events are rare and that keeps the world from addressing the underlying issues - it just rarely comes up as an issue for someone and when it does, they could find a way (like piracy) to make themselves whole again (and I know it isn't equivalent, but piracy is often a lower barrier than legal action). There are a lot of other issues where people are more likely to become un-whole with less easy recourse. Right now, issues of what a license to digital content offers is a bit in flux. I think a lot of us have a similar idea to what we think it should mean, but that doesn't mean that the legal system does or will acknowledge that. We sometimes get complacent because we're in a pretty positive industry and often times regulation can stifle innovation. However, this might be an area where we want a standard definition of term rental (for things like the Zune music service) and license purchase (like a Kindle Book) that would allow for things like re-selling and such. Otherwise, we'll likely continue to be beholden to the ToS that we all just click "accept" on.
- pi18n 14y ago
  Yes, you are absolutely right. Of course there is a clause allowing them to do whatever they feel like with the books you get from them. I like the duality you've pointed out. They sure would love for a copy to qualify as property when determining punitive damages. It would be great to have legislation and precise definitions for digital rentals and purchases, so that your rental term or purchased content cannot be rescinded arbitrarily. And I think it would be great to have stronger legal restrictions on removing or altering content, or running software on a device when its renter or owner does not wish for that to occur.
- vijayr 14y ago
  The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). This is probably the case. Amazon would've covered their bases strongly. What is super annoying is this - there are many many books, whose kindle editions cost more than their paperbacks. Imagine paying 13$ for a ebook (the same book in paperback costs 10$) and then losing that due to some arbitrary "rule" from Amazon. I love my Kindle, but this is really really bad.
  - gambiting 14y ago
    And there are many many books which are a lot cheaper on Kindle. I buy my programming and technical books almost exclusively on Kindle,since the difference is usually half the price of paperbacks.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      FYI there is a calibre plugin that will strip the DRM from kindle books. I use it to read books on my Sony e-reader.
    - vijayr 14y ago
      Yes, there are lots of books that are cheaper on kindle, but shouldn't all kindle books be cheaper than their dead tree brothers? May be someday.
  - 14y ago
dorfsmay 14y ago
The issue is not the user permission, the issue is that in the physical world, the retailer would have to go through the court system to take away a right or property. It's interesting how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig described this situation back in 2004 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29

beedogs 14y ago

It amazes me how the concept of "non-scarce" goods being a one-for-one substitute for physical items only seems to work in one direction in this brave new world in which we are unfortunately inhabiting, too. If she'd been caught torrenting those same books in the US or a growing list of other countries, she'd face fines and court fees. Her Internet browser could be diverted to "anti-piracy education" sites; perhaps one day, she could be disconnected altogether. Yet Amazon is allowed to arbitrarily remove those very same files with no explanation. Pretty mindblowing how severely copyright has been perverted from its original intent.

pi18n 14y ago
I'm one of the ones to leap out of the woodwork and shout that copying is not theft, so it's only fair that I point out this; torrenting is a massive copyright violation, as you are basically republishing the content. What Amazon did in this case is not against copyright, and the user had no claim to copyright of that work anyway. Make no mistake; I disagree with the humongous damages leveled against torrenters and I would be dead set against allowing an ISP to redirect or disconnect a user. But Amazon doing something they claimed rights to in their ToS and sharing a copyrighted work via torrent are quite different.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I feel that I need to point out that at no point did anyone accuse the lady in question of torrenting pirated content. In fact, that's part of the problem. Amazon refuse to say anything about why they took their action.
  - speleding 14y ago
    Yes. But as an aside, it's a good thing she lives in Norway and will have easy access to the pirate bay to get her books back.
- beedogs 14y ago
  I'm not really arguing whether one action is any better or worse than the other; seeding a pile of ebooks isn't really something for which any valid defense can usually be given. My point is that there's clearly a very large amount of effort being expended protecting the ever-expanding rights of content owners, and -- near as I can tell -- zero effort being spent protecting content purchased by honest consumers from being taken from them without justification or recourse.

joshnerius 14y ago

I've often wondered about the viability of students purchasing or renting textbooks for the Kindle. Just imagine the panic/terror that would ensue if a student's collection of textbooks just disappeared in the middle of a semester. If my collection of novels disappears, I'm inconvenienced. If my collection of textbooks disappears, my academic progress is severely jeopardized. Both seem extremely wrong as you mention, but I see potential for situations that are life-ruiningly wrong.

MrMember 14y ago
When Amazon remotely deleted 1984 from people's Kindles a few years ago a student lost the digital notes he had been creating as he was reading it for a class. He ended up suing Amazon, but I have no idea if it was ever resolved or if it's still ongoing.
- dtparr 14y ago
  Amazon settled fairly quickly: http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-terms-of-book-deletion-via-1984-settlement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-te... The most interesting/relevant bit from the article "In it, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that describe its content deletion policy. When it comes to blog and periodical content, as well as software, Amazon retains the right to perform a remote delete. But when it comes to books, deletions will only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user."
  - tomerv 14y ago
    Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they shouldn't have deleted the books in this case.
    - lambada 14y ago
      IIRC that case was based entirely in the US. As somehow Amazon UK seem to be involved in this case too, it's possible that those agreements don't apply to this case.

greenyouse 14y ago

DRM isn't exactly great for authors or artists either. Here's a Doctorow article on DRM implications for book authors: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/53544-doubling-down-on-drm.html http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blog... Why use DRM? Demand an alternative, buy a physical copy, or holdout. Hopefully the ship will begin turning around soon.

cabalamat 14y ago

> Legal or not, this looks, smells, and feels so obviously wrong, it ought to be illegal. How many people, if they'd known this could happen, would have bought a Kindle in the first place? I suspect many would not. Digital rights activists need to educate the public that DRM = you have no rights.

otakucode 14y ago

Until someone rich enough to fight this to the Supreme Court is screwed by these policies, they will stand, it's as simple as that. These sorts of policies are NOT new. EVERY industry has tried to rob consumers of property rights. And every other industry has a collection of case law establishing that the types of contracts digital content distributors put forward are just illegal. But, since it hasn't been established for digital property yet, we need court cases. If Apple, Steam, and Amazon decided tomorrow that they wanted you to pay $10/item in your 'library' of things you have 'purchased' in order to be able to access it again, according to their contracts their users agreed to, they would be entirely within the contract to do that. Expect publishers and digital content providers to wail and gnash their teeth and swear that giving consumers actual property rights will completely destroy their business. Other industries tried the same scare tactics. They're just lies. Being able to transfer your property, sell it 'used', etc actually massively boosts the success of markets and hopefully it is inevitable that this kind of thing will be extended to digital content.

kybernetikos 14y ago
I wonder what it would take to get the accounts of well known bloggers or Mr Bezos himself 'directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies'.

mightybyte 14y ago

I completely agree with you, but the consumer here isn't without fault. By purchasing a Kindle and DRM'd books for it, you're agreeing to Amazon's policies. It's true that kindle books don't work like regular books, but being ignorant of that fact isn't an excuse. This is why I categorically refuse to pay a single penny for any digital media that has DRM attached to it and might prevent me from playing it at any time in the future and that I can't back up to my own media.

cloverich 14y ago
> It's true that kindle books don't work like regular books, but being ignorant of that fact isn't an excuse. I very much doubt there's a plain english clause that goes a little something like: "If we think you have violated (our?) DRM policies, we will delete every book you've ever purchased, and close your current and future accounts. If you think this is done in error, you may not ask us why we closed the account. You may only sue us to get an answer" To call out a consumer for not being prepared for a no-warning, no explanation ban (and removal of all legally purchased content) seems extreme.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Here's what the License Agreement says: (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200501450 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId...) > Termination. Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement. In case of such termination, you must cease all use of the Software, and Amazon may immediately revoke your access to the Service or to Digital Content without refund of any fees. Amazons failure to insist upon or enforce your strict compliance with this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any of its rights.
  - frobozz 14y ago
    Individuals have the right to see any personal data that an organisation holds about them. If automated processing of such data leads to a legal or significant effect (e.g. you've violated our contract, so we're deleting everything you've bought from us, and you can't use our services ever again.), they also have the right to know what the logic was behind that processing. Amazon may have the right to terminate accounts and ban users, but when challenged by the user, they do not have the right to respond with "because I said so, so there!"

brokentone 14y ago

Should it really be illegal? Every time legislators get involved in these Internet legalities, they don't understand what they're doing. While we (technical young folks) understand the similarities to breaking and entering, somehow they end up seeing similarities to trucks and "series of tubes." Big business can be annoying, but they are nothing like big lobbyist groups like RIAA and MPAA, and as soon as legislation comes up, these people end up being primary influencers. Or the legislators push through favorable bills for these people and immediately leave and become their chairmen (Chris Dodd/MPAA anyone?).