4 ms·

It's not a legal issue. If I bought a paper book, and it turned out that the publisher didn't have rights to the material, Amazon wouldn't break into my home an

It's not a legal issue. If I bought a paper book, and it turned out that the publisher didn't have rights to the material, Amazon wouldn't break into my home and take the book back. They should compensate the actual rights holder instead. The Kindle is no different. Regardless of the law, customers feel just as violated.

andreyf 17y ago
Amazon wouldn't break into my home and take the book back ...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it. A remote self-wipe mechanisms which turned all of the pages of a book blank at the request of the copyright holder would be just as legal.
- crazyboblee 17y ago
  Like I said, he didn't apologize because what they did was illegal. He apologized because it was creepy and intrusive.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Precisely! But it isn't Amazon's responsibility to decide what is "creepy and intrusive" it's your congressman's responsibility to make sure laws which explicitly allow "creepy and intrusive" violations of your rights to not be passed. The EPIC FAIL here is in Washington, with a minor FAIL in Amazon's PR, and nowhere else.
    - jp_sc 17y ago
      Just because Amazon can do it, it doesn't mean they can be forced to by a publisher. The copyright laws are broken, but in this case it was Amazon's mistake.
- pyre 17y ago
  Right, but I don't think that even the publisher/rights-holder could _sue_ you to force you to return the book based just on the fact that it was an illegally sold copy. _Stolen_ goods that are resold can be repossessed, but that is because they have a 'rightful owner' of a physical item. The publishers aren't trying to repossess ebooks in an attempt to fill their shelves so that the ebooks can be resold... In cases like this, the 'best' course of action is just for Amazon to eat the costs since it was their mistake and not to punish their customers for it. Instead of just pulling the book and refunding them their money, Amazon could have sent them a print copy of 1984 and/or given them some store credit for the trouble. Even if there was no reason for Bezos to apologize for action of pulling the book, the fact that the book was being sold illegally and Amazon had to inconvenience its customers in trying to rectify the situation demands an apology. Well 'demands' from a customer service perspective... Amazon is welcome to treat its customer-base like crap, but they'll have to deal with the consequences. I think it's telling that Bezos didn't really put much content into the apology as to which parts -- specifically -- he is apologizing for. He could just be apologizing that the company didn't do more to compensate the affected customers per my suggestion above. {edit} Furthermore, you say '...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it,' but so far as I know copyright law does _not_ grant rights-holders the ability to repossess illegally produced copies from unsuspecting purchasers. And the way you state this is rather disingenuous. You seem to be implying that copyright-holders can take the book back from you, it's just that the 'breaking and entering' part is illegal, so they have to use some other means. {/edit}
  - andreyf 17y ago
    so far as I know copyright law does _not_ grant rights-holders the ability to repossess illegally produced copies from unsuspecting purchasers IANAL, but it would seem Amazon's law team disagrees...

andreyf 17y ago

Amazon wouldn't break into my home and take the book back ...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it. A remote self-wipe mechanisms which turned all of the pages of a book blank at the request of the copyright holder would be just as legal.

crazyboblee 17y ago
Like I said, he didn't apologize because what they did was illegal. He apologized because it was creepy and intrusive.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- andreyf 17y ago
  Precisely! But it isn't Amazon's responsibility to decide what is "creepy and intrusive" it's your congressman's responsibility to make sure laws which explicitly allow "creepy and intrusive" violations of your rights to not be passed. The EPIC FAIL here is in Washington, with a minor FAIL in Amazon's PR, and nowhere else.
  - jp_sc 17y ago
    Just because Amazon can do it, it doesn't mean they can be forced to by a publisher. The copyright laws are broken, but in this case it was Amazon's mistake.
pyre 17y ago
Right, but I don't think that even the publisher/rights-holder could _sue_ you to force you to return the book based just on the fact that it was an illegally sold copy. _Stolen_ goods that are resold can be repossessed, but that is because they have a 'rightful owner' of a physical item. The publishers aren't trying to repossess ebooks in an attempt to fill their shelves so that the ebooks can be resold... In cases like this, the 'best' course of action is just for Amazon to eat the costs since it was their mistake and not to punish their customers for it. Instead of just pulling the book and refunding them their money, Amazon could have sent them a print copy of 1984 and/or given them some store credit for the trouble. Even if there was no reason for Bezos to apologize for action of pulling the book, the fact that the book was being sold illegally and Amazon had to inconvenience its customers in trying to rectify the situation demands an apology. Well 'demands' from a customer service perspective... Amazon is welcome to treat its customer-base like crap, but they'll have to deal with the consequences. I think it's telling that Bezos didn't really put much content into the apology as to which parts -- specifically -- he is apologizing for. He could just be apologizing that the company didn't do more to compensate the affected customers per my suggestion above. {edit} Furthermore, you say '...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it,' but so far as I know copyright law does _not_ grant rights-holders the ability to repossess illegally produced copies from unsuspecting purchasers. And the way you state this is rather disingenuous. You seem to be implying that copyright-holders can take the book back from you, it's just that the 'breaking and entering' part is illegal, so they have to use some other means. {/edit}
- andreyf 17y ago
  so far as I know copyright law does _not_ grant rights-holders the ability to repossess illegally produced copies from unsuspecting purchasers IANAL, but it would seem Amazon's law team disagrees...