4 ms·

Why Amazon pulled 1984 off users' Kindles

12 points by andreyf 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago
From the article: Amazon says that that the books in question were added to its catalog using the company's self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. And it says it will no longer delete books in this manner. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
- frossie 17y ago
  If true, this is poor customer relations - they should have said that upfront, rather than just implying that the publisher changed their minds. And really, they should have just compensated the publisher and left the customers alone, since it was their mistake, not the customers'.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  "We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances." I would prefer "We are changing our systems so that in the future we can not remove books from customers' devices in any circumstances."
  - reduxredacted 17y ago
    I'd prefer "We are adjusting our software in such a way that it is impossible for us to remove books from our customers' devices". I don't know that I'd trust the statement after the text-to-speech functionality adjustments on some titles, but it would be a start. Hey, it's software with compulsory updates via an uncontrollable backchannel. I was furious when I first read about this situation, despite not owning a Kindle (for this precise reason), but I understand the position that Amazon was in. Hopefully they vet their third parties better, or hopefully copyright law changes in such a way that it is actually possible to vet copyright owners better. Or maybe we just lose the classics because it's too difficult to figure out which heir or organization owns the intellectual property they didn't produce.
rglullis 17y ago
1986? Is that a sequel to 1984 that I'm not aware of?
- zandorg 17y ago
  There's an old Sinclair Spectrum game called 1994 - ten years after. I don't think it has much to do with the novel 1984 though. http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-after http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-aft...
- ableal 17y ago
  There's a new 'Natural Intelligence' technology doing the rounds. It transforms the string "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (the real book title) into a number, then adds an off-by-two error (superior to the off-by-one error achievable with A.I.)
DanielStraight 17y ago
Who cares? Honestly, does it matter? If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok, no prob, I wouldn't want a stolen car! Thanks!" Of course not. Amazon should pay back the cost of the book AND give free access to a legal version to anyone who bought the other one.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  I think it would be nice of them, though I don't think it's quite as imperative as you suggest. Amazon needs to have a method of preventing people from illegally selling books they have no rights to.
  - DanielStraight 17y ago
    In my mind, nothing is more imperative than customer service.
    - zimbabwe 17y ago
      And Amazon usually agrees. I wouldn't be surprised if they take a similar approach here. I just don't like the suggestion that the customer is entitled to both the book and a refund at once.
      - DanielStraight 17y ago
        I didn't say the customer was entitled to it. I said Amazon should offer it.
        zimbabwe 17y ago
        Whoops! In that case I misread.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok..."? In point of fact, you'd say nothing at all. You'd hire a lawyer to speak for you. Because you're at very serious risk of being charged with felonious possession of stolen property: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-proper... Note the last sentence: A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner. So, from what I can tell, even if you are found to be completely innocent of any crime, when it turns out that your car is stolen property the police will still come and take it away very suddenly without asking your permission, and they won't give you anything in return. That's exactly how it works. I presume you're then free to sue the shady used-car dealer who sold it to you. But if that dealer turns out to be bankrupt because he already spent all your money on crack, I believe you are out of luck. This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)
Sidnicious 17y ago
This is fucking scary. No one ever considers that this kind of thing is possible, or doesn't believe that anyone would let it happen. Sure, the deletion was fairly innocent this time, but it does not bode well for the future.
jrockway 17y ago
FWIW, I keep the wireless on my Kindle off unless I need it on for some purpose. The battery lasts forever that way, and Amazon can't delete my stuff either.
smithjchris 17y ago
Equilibrium anyone?

12 points by andreyf 17y ago

From the article: Amazon says that that the books in question were added to its catalog using the company's self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. And it says it will no longer delete books in this manner. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.

frossie 17y ago
If true, this is poor customer relations - they should have said that upfront, rather than just implying that the publisher changed their minds. And really, they should have just compensated the publisher and left the customers alone, since it was their mistake, not the customers'.
sailormoon 17y ago
"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances." I would prefer "We are changing our systems so that in the future we can not remove books from customers' devices in any circumstances."
- reduxredacted 17y ago
  I'd prefer "We are adjusting our software in such a way that it is impossible for us to remove books from our customers' devices". I don't know that I'd trust the statement after the text-to-speech functionality adjustments on some titles, but it would be a start. Hey, it's software with compulsory updates via an uncontrollable backchannel. I was furious when I first read about this situation, despite not owning a Kindle (for this precise reason), but I understand the position that Amazon was in. Hopefully they vet their third parties better, or hopefully copyright law changes in such a way that it is actually possible to vet copyright owners better. Or maybe we just lose the classics because it's too difficult to figure out which heir or organization owns the intellectual property they didn't produce.

rglullis 17y ago

1986? Is that a sequel to 1984 that I'm not aware of?

zandorg 17y ago
There's an old Sinclair Spectrum game called 1994 - ten years after. I don't think it has much to do with the novel 1984 though. http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-after http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-aft...
ableal 17y ago
There's a new 'Natural Intelligence' technology doing the rounds. It transforms the string "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (the real book title) into a number, then adds an off-by-two error (superior to the off-by-one error achievable with A.I.)

DanielStraight 17y ago

Who cares? Honestly, does it matter? If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok, no prob, I wouldn't want a stolen car! Thanks!" Of course not. Amazon should pay back the cost of the book AND give free access to a legal version to anyone who bought the other one.

zimbabwe 17y ago
I think it would be nice of them, though I don't think it's quite as imperative as you suggest. Amazon needs to have a method of preventing people from illegally selling books they have no rights to.
- DanielStraight 17y ago
  In my mind, nothing is more imperative than customer service.
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    And Amazon usually agrees. I wouldn't be surprised if they take a similar approach here. I just don't like the suggestion that the customer is entitled to both the book and a refund at once.
    - DanielStraight 17y ago
      I didn't say the customer was entitled to it. I said Amazon should offer it.
      - zimbabwe 17y ago
        Whoops! In that case I misread.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok..."? In point of fact, you'd say nothing at all. You'd hire a lawyer to speak for you. Because you're at very serious risk of being charged with felonious possession of stolen property: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-proper... Note the last sentence: A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner. So, from what I can tell, even if you are found to be completely innocent of any crime, when it turns out that your car is stolen property the police will still come and take it away very suddenly without asking your permission, and they won't give you anything in return. That's exactly how it works. I presume you're then free to sue the shady used-car dealer who sold it to you. But if that dealer turns out to be bankrupt because he already spent all your money on crack, I believe you are out of luck. This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)

Sidnicious 17y ago

This is fucking scary. No one ever considers that this kind of thing is possible, or doesn't believe that anyone would let it happen. Sure, the deletion was fairly innocent this time, but it does not bode well for the future.

jrockway 17y ago

FWIW, I keep the wireless on my Kindle off unless I need it on for some purpose. The battery lasts forever that way, and Amazon can't delete my stuff either.

smithjchris 17y ago

Equilibrium anyone?