5 ms·

I felt Amazon had gained respect when they released their MP3 store without DRM. They have lost it today, utterly and likely irredeemably. There is no excuse f

by Elessar 17y ago

I felt Amazon had gained respect when they released their MP3 store without DRM. They have lost it today, utterly and likely irredeemably. There is no excuse for taking back what a customer has already purchased. None. And that they did so without even asking the customer? It should be considered outright criminal.

tomjen 17y ago
My guess is that it is actually illegal.
- frossie 17y ago
  I don't know whether it is illegal. I am trying to figure out if this violates their TOS: Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon" Is that "or" a get-out clause? Because the first part seems to quite definitively rule out what they did.
  - req2 17y ago
    A similar case, in which a comma allowed an escape from a 5-year contract: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article838561.ece http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article838...
  - kschults 17y ago
    The most logical reading of the or is that you are allowed to display the content as many times as you want, and those displays may either be on the screen or in another manner that has been authorized by Amazon. That said, I'm sure their lawyers will be able to spin it as meaning that they grant you the right to keep the copy as authorized by them.
  - jmtulloss 17y ago
    Is a TOS a legally binding contract?
- blhack 17y ago
  It is most definitely not illegal. When you "purchase a book" from the kindle store, all you are actually purchasing is a license to view the book that is bound by amazon's terms of use.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    Don't mark down his comment just b/c you disagree with it. He's accurate about the legal import of "buying" an e-book from Amazon.
  - reduxredacted 17y ago
    Criminally illegal, no. But that leaves open civil suits, which are sure to come. 1) You can sue anyone for anything. The US does not have a "loser pays" rule, though frivolous lawsuits can include attorney's fees. 2) Class action lawsuits are very profitable for lawyers when they win. They need to convince a jury of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty that "Big Corporation" was wrong. They get a percentage of the total judgment. My guess is that some lawyer will pick this one up. They'll sue Amazon based on "common sense" and Amazon will realize that a jury isn't going separate a "book" from an "e-book". The plaintiff's lawyers will equate it to removing a book from your bookshelf in your house. Amazon will argue commas in their TOS or Amazon will settle. On top of it all, Amazon demonstrates why I purchased a netbook instead of a Kindle for my e-book reading pleasure ... and why I don't buy e-books that I can't remove the DRM from.
    - reduxredacted 17y ago
      [edit] since I can't edit the original due to replies. I still think they stand a good chance of a class action lawsuit. The likelihood of it succeeding is less since it sounds like the issue relates to "who really owned the copyright" and they had to take down the content due to that ambiguity or fraud.
  - grellas 17y ago
    I concur - bonehead handling by Amazon perhaps, Exhibit A to why the copyright laws might need reforming, but not likely to lead to legal liabilities for Amazon given that they refunded everybody's payments. Amazon needs to make its licensing policies clear up front and not bury them in fine print. I may not like it when I only get a license that might be yanked, but I'll be a lot less upset about it the day it is yanked if I did the deal with open eyes at the start. Though Amazon may be technically correct, it deserves the drubbing it is getting by failing to make its DRM policies clear up front to its customers. It obviously obscured this issue to ensure that the issue would not harm Kindle sales. Now that this bomb has exploded, Kindle sales will be hurt anyway.
blhack 17y ago
My guess is that they either play nice with the publishing companies, or not at all. Believe me, amazon hates this as much as you do. They had to credit a bunch of people's accounts for the books. Amazon is a company. One that spends money. The publisher is not the ONLY person that is seeing a taste of the $9.99. They're out the money they had to give to sprint (is it sprint that provides the connectivity? somebody correct me if I'm wrong), and every other cost that was covered by the money you spent on the book. This was a horrible horrible move for all parties involved.
- anatoly 17y ago
  Sony is able to sell ebooks for its reader w/o being able to retroactively delete them. Why can't Amazon? I'm not sure they "hate it as much as I do". They may hate the fact that they're out of the refund money in this case, but love their ability to own the books on the customers' Kindles and be able to delete them at will.
  - lallysingh 17y ago
    The answer to your question correlates to the answers to "why does Amazon have so many more titles available than sony?"
    - anatoly 17y ago
      I don't think it does. Where Amazon is the single largest online player in the book business, Sony is a small-scale newcomer. Where Amazon can exert an extraordinary amount of pressure on book publishers, Sony can exert bupkis. These differences are probably much more important to Amazon's ability to muster an impressive list of titles than the fact that it can withdraw books already purchased. Amazon didn't have to put that ability in the Kindle. Without it, it'd still have a huge list of titles. Amazon wanted to have that kind of control.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        Amazon wanted to have that kind of control (1) Amazon makes money when it sells books (2) Amazon loses money when it "recalls" them (3) Amazon is a public company, hence it tries to maximize (1) and minimize (2) --- Hence, Amazon is really on the customers' side here when it comes to "buying" versus "refunding random books, rubbing hands together, and laughing manically". The only reason Amazon would want this kind of control is to extend it to publishers.
darreld 17y ago
I couldn't agree more. I saw the refund email this morning but didn't put it together until I read about it on the web (it didn't mention deactivating the book). I checked my iPhone Kindle app and, sure enough, "1984" had been removed. I almost can't believe it. They reached into my device and turned off a book I bought from them. I now know I'll never get a Kindle. Also I will not buy any more digital books from Amazon. It's a shame. I liked it.
rimantas 17y ago
DRM free Amazon music store was just a tool for the record industry to put pressure on Apple.

by Elessar 17y ago

tomjen 17y ago

My guess is that it is actually illegal.

frossie 17y ago
I don't know whether it is illegal. I am trying to figure out if this violates their TOS: Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon" Is that "or" a get-out clause? Because the first part seems to quite definitively rule out what they did.
- req2 17y ago
  A similar case, in which a comma allowed an escape from a 5-year contract: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article838561.ece http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article838...
- kschults 17y ago
  The most logical reading of the or is that you are allowed to display the content as many times as you want, and those displays may either be on the screen or in another manner that has been authorized by Amazon. That said, I'm sure their lawyers will be able to spin it as meaning that they grant you the right to keep the copy as authorized by them.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  Is a TOS a legally binding contract?
blhack 17y ago
It is most definitely not illegal. When you "purchase a book" from the kindle store, all you are actually purchasing is a license to view the book that is bound by amazon's terms of use.
- fatdog789 17y ago
  Don't mark down his comment just b/c you disagree with it. He's accurate about the legal import of "buying" an e-book from Amazon.
- reduxredacted 17y ago
  Criminally illegal, no. But that leaves open civil suits, which are sure to come. 1) You can sue anyone for anything. The US does not have a "loser pays" rule, though frivolous lawsuits can include attorney's fees. 2) Class action lawsuits are very profitable for lawyers when they win. They need to convince a jury of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty that "Big Corporation" was wrong. They get a percentage of the total judgment. My guess is that some lawyer will pick this one up. They'll sue Amazon based on "common sense" and Amazon will realize that a jury isn't going separate a "book" from an "e-book". The plaintiff's lawyers will equate it to removing a book from your bookshelf in your house. Amazon will argue commas in their TOS or Amazon will settle. On top of it all, Amazon demonstrates why I purchased a netbook instead of a Kindle for my e-book reading pleasure ... and why I don't buy e-books that I can't remove the DRM from.
  - reduxredacted 17y ago
    [edit] since I can't edit the original due to replies. I still think they stand a good chance of a class action lawsuit. The likelihood of it succeeding is less since it sounds like the issue relates to "who really owned the copyright" and they had to take down the content due to that ambiguity or fraud.
- grellas 17y ago
  I concur - bonehead handling by Amazon perhaps, Exhibit A to why the copyright laws might need reforming, but not likely to lead to legal liabilities for Amazon given that they refunded everybody's payments. Amazon needs to make its licensing policies clear up front and not bury them in fine print. I may not like it when I only get a license that might be yanked, but I'll be a lot less upset about it the day it is yanked if I did the deal with open eyes at the start. Though Amazon may be technically correct, it deserves the drubbing it is getting by failing to make its DRM policies clear up front to its customers. It obviously obscured this issue to ensure that the issue would not harm Kindle sales. Now that this bomb has exploded, Kindle sales will be hurt anyway.

blhack 17y ago

My guess is that they either play nice with the publishing companies, or not at all. Believe me, amazon hates this as much as you do. They had to credit a bunch of people's accounts for the books. Amazon is a company. One that spends money. The publisher is not the ONLY person that is seeing a taste of the $9.99. They're out the money they had to give to sprint (is it sprint that provides the connectivity? somebody correct me if I'm wrong), and every other cost that was covered by the money you spent on the book. This was a horrible horrible move for all parties involved.

anatoly 17y ago
Sony is able to sell ebooks for its reader w/o being able to retroactively delete them. Why can't Amazon? I'm not sure they "hate it as much as I do". They may hate the fact that they're out of the refund money in this case, but love their ability to own the books on the customers' Kindles and be able to delete them at will.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  The answer to your question correlates to the answers to "why does Amazon have so many more titles available than sony?"
  - anatoly 17y ago
    I don't think it does. Where Amazon is the single largest online player in the book business, Sony is a small-scale newcomer. Where Amazon can exert an extraordinary amount of pressure on book publishers, Sony can exert bupkis. These differences are probably much more important to Amazon's ability to muster an impressive list of titles than the fact that it can withdraw books already purchased. Amazon didn't have to put that ability in the Kindle. Without it, it'd still have a huge list of titles. Amazon wanted to have that kind of control.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Amazon wanted to have that kind of control (1) Amazon makes money when it sells books (2) Amazon loses money when it "recalls" them (3) Amazon is a public company, hence it tries to maximize (1) and minimize (2) --- Hence, Amazon is really on the customers' side here when it comes to "buying" versus "refunding random books, rubbing hands together, and laughing manically". The only reason Amazon would want this kind of control is to extend it to publishers.

darreld 17y ago

I couldn't agree more. I saw the refund email this morning but didn't put it together until I read about it on the web (it didn't mention deactivating the book). I checked my iPhone Kindle app and, sure enough, "1984" had been removed. I almost can't believe it. They reached into my device and turned off a book I bought from them. I now know I'll never get a Kindle. Also I will not buy any more digital books from Amazon. It's a shame. I liked it.

rimantas 17y ago

DRM free Amazon music store was just a tool for the record industry to put pressure on Apple.