3 ms·

why not? any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files. For all intents a

by vaksel 17y ago

why not? any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files. For all intents and purposes Amazon "hacked" their customer's private property

potatolicious 17y ago
> why not? Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know... The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.
- vaksel 17y ago
  because Amazon sells the legal version of 1984, surely they can cover the cost to give the customers what they paid for http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248388330&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
  - jemmons 17y ago
    The 99¢ paid would only buy the first chapter of 1984. I'm not sure customers would appreciate getting what they paid for in this instance.
- pmichaud 17y ago
  That's bullshit, they have many options -- sending a physical copy of the deleted book(s) is the least they could do at this point. Maybe if they did that and gave some credit to buy other kindle books, I'd think they were really trying to do the right thing.
  - jemmons 17y ago
    Why on earth would you call shipping customers who bought a 99¢ illegal digital copy a $10 paperback "the least they could do"? I mean the question honestly. I'm wondering where this sense of entitlement comes from.
    - bigiain 17y ago
      Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place? If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore - the bookstore would have had to deal with the problem to the legal rightsholders satisfaction _without_ taking the physical copies back from the customers who'd bought them (with the assumption that the bookseller was selling legal copies). Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. It wasn't the _customers_ mistake that led to them purchasing an illegal copy, it was Amazon's mistake - they need to fix it. In my opinion sending a free ~$10 copy isn't a particularly onerous requirement for Amazon. If I were the original rightsholder I'd consider insisting that they do that - they led customers into believing they were getting a fully legal version for $0.99 - it's up to them to bvand any profits _or_ eat any losses associated with that transaction. And I can't resist the opportinity to RT @Mike_FTW "Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes." ;-)
      - jemmons 17y ago
        Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place Granted. But what are you really out? For them to provide absolutely full remuneration to you, they'd have to pay you 99¢ (which they did. Immediately). At that point all your losses are covered. You can go and buy another 99¢ book or put that 99¢ towards a fair and legal copy of 1984. But you ask for more. You seem to say that in addition to their error in selling an illegal book, Amazon's also offended your sensibilities in their handling of the situation. They've issued you a frank apology and promised to do better in the future, but that's still not enough for you. You want free stuff. I can't help but see this as greedy and overreaching. If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore... The customer could have kept the book or returned it to the bookstore for a refund. Not both. It's true that Amazon made the choice for you, forcing you to return the book for a refund (which was in bad taste and they've apologized). But it should be pointed out that if these hypothetical people had decided to keep their book instead of returning it for a refund, the book would be no less illegal. They are still at this point guilty of possessing bootlegged material. The publisher could, in theory, still go after them in a court of law. So it can at least be said that, in choosing between these two alternatives, Amazon chose the legally unambiguous one. That may turn out to not have been the best choice, but it's certainly understandable, is it not? Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. You're saying they're not allowed to build the device they want or write the software they want? You're so filled with righteous indignation over Amazon's invasion of your perceived "rights" that you think they should send you free books. Yet you think nothing of oppressing their own freedoms. Self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical at worst. Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

by vaksel 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

> why not? Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know... The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.

vaksel 17y ago
because Amazon sells the legal version of 1984, surely they can cover the cost to give the customers what they paid for http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248388330&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
- jemmons 17y ago
  The 99¢ paid would only buy the first chapter of 1984. I'm not sure customers would appreciate getting what they paid for in this instance.
pmichaud 17y ago
That's bullshit, they have many options -- sending a physical copy of the deleted book(s) is the least they could do at this point. Maybe if they did that and gave some credit to buy other kindle books, I'd think they were really trying to do the right thing.
- jemmons 17y ago
  Why on earth would you call shipping customers who bought a 99¢ illegal digital copy a $10 paperback "the least they could do"? I mean the question honestly. I'm wondering where this sense of entitlement comes from.
  - bigiain 17y ago
    Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place? If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore - the bookstore would have had to deal with the problem to the legal rightsholders satisfaction _without_ taking the physical copies back from the customers who'd bought them (with the assumption that the bookseller was selling legal copies). Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. It wasn't the _customers_ mistake that led to them purchasing an illegal copy, it was Amazon's mistake - they need to fix it. In my opinion sending a free ~$10 copy isn't a particularly onerous requirement for Amazon. If I were the original rightsholder I'd consider insisting that they do that - they led customers into believing they were getting a fully legal version for $0.99 - it's up to them to bvand any profits _or_ eat any losses associated with that transaction. And I can't resist the opportinity to RT @Mike_FTW "Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes." ;-)
    - jemmons 17y ago
      Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place Granted. But what are you really out? For them to provide absolutely full remuneration to you, they'd have to pay you 99¢ (which they did. Immediately). At that point all your losses are covered. You can go and buy another 99¢ book or put that 99¢ towards a fair and legal copy of 1984. But you ask for more. You seem to say that in addition to their error in selling an illegal book, Amazon's also offended your sensibilities in their handling of the situation. They've issued you a frank apology and promised to do better in the future, but that's still not enough for you. You want free stuff. I can't help but see this as greedy and overreaching. If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore... The customer could have kept the book or returned it to the bookstore for a refund. Not both. It's true that Amazon made the choice for you, forcing you to return the book for a refund (which was in bad taste and they've apologized). But it should be pointed out that if these hypothetical people had decided to keep their book instead of returning it for a refund, the book would be no less illegal. They are still at this point guilty of possessing bootlegged material. The publisher could, in theory, still go after them in a court of law. So it can at least be said that, in choosing between these two alternatives, Amazon chose the legally unambiguous one. That may turn out to not have been the best choice, but it's certainly understandable, is it not? Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. You're saying they're not allowed to build the device they want or write the software they want? You're so filled with righteous indignation over Amazon's invasion of your perceived "rights" that you think they should send you free books. Yet you think nothing of oppressing their own freedoms. Self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical at worst. Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.