4 ms·

This is like saying that someone who takes notes on paper, then subsequently loses those notes when the paper manufacturer steals the paper back, is to blame fo

This is like saying that someone who takes notes on paper, then subsequently loses those notes when the paper manufacturer steals the paper back, is to blame for losing the notes because they didn't take a photo copy. It's a total cop-out.

andreyf 17y ago
This is like saying that [...] the paper manufacturer steals the paper back No, it's really nothing like that. Semantics aside, intellectual property is not like physical property: it's not subject to the laws physical property is subject to, nor to the right of physical property.
- naz 17y ago
  It was Amazon who made it like physical property by applying all the DRM in the first place.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    DRM and physical properties are not applicable to the same objects. DRM refers to data+software to unlock that data. A physical device could be the carrier of a DRM'd piece of data but it has nothing to do with the carrier itself. Data is just streams of bits no matter what carrier they're on. That data could be encumbered with DRM or it could be 'plain'. You never 'own' a piece of DRM'd data, these are almost exclusively limited use sublicenses. It's not like buying a book or a record (the vinyl kind). It's more like buying a movie ticket.
- ekiru 17y ago
  You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them. I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside". Are you intentionally saying something that is equivalent to "Ignoring the meaning of 'intellectual property' and 'physical property', intellectual property is not like physical property?" I assume not, but I'm not sure what you meant to say there.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Agreed, this is a much better comparison! :) I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside" By "semantics", I was referring to the word "property". I mean that if I sell you a loaf of bread, it's a transaction governed by a nearly disjoint set of laws than if I sell you a poem or program that I wrote. For example, I can't sell you a loaf of bread and force you to eat it on a Monday, but I can sell you a DRM-ed program that only runs on Mondays (enforced by people with heavy sticks and shiny guns ;)). If our goal is creating a productivity-maximizing society, I think enforcing some restrictions of copyright are a good idea, as long as they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1], but current copyright law seems as if it might over-reach that. What I would love to see is a real debate about where the line should be drawn. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them." The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      The annotations still exist, amazon claims they make backups of user annotations on their servers.
    - ekiru 17y ago
      Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.
jacquesm 17y ago
No, that is not at all like that. Paper has one expected set of behaviours, and paper manufacturers stealing back the paper is not entering into the equation. Paper is subject to other kinds of 'dataloss', such as but certainly not limited to fading, burning, tearing and so on. So if notes on paper are very important to you you keep them in a safe place and you make sure you do have that copy in case it gets lost. The kindle is not a piece of paper. It's a digital device that has some absolutely draconian measures built in to its software. You lease the books until amazon decides to yank them back. Maybe you'll get your money back. They can reverse the deal any time they see fit. Your 'bookshelf' on their servers loses books magically after you've reloaded them a couple of times. It's an absolute piece of shit from a rights perspective, and I really think they ought to be sued in to the ground and boycotted over this. If you use the kindle to annotate a book and that book gets yanked back to amazon - for whatever reason - you lose your notes. This is purposefully built in to the device and it is a direct consequence of the way amazon manages its publishers rights. I think that on e-books the right of first sale doctrine should apply just as it should on 'paper books'. But if you annotate a digital book on a digital device that has these 'features' and you have been advised about them in amazons terms of service, quoted: "Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content" In other words you never 'bought' an e-book you licensed a limited right to use. and then: "The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice." Amazon claims they make a backup for you. So, in short, contact their customer service and ask for a copy of your notes, that's in their terms of service. And never ever buy an amazon product again. And never subscribe to a service without reading the terms of use.

andreyf 17y ago

This is like saying that [...] the paper manufacturer steals the paper back No, it's really nothing like that. Semantics aside, intellectual property is not like physical property: it's not subject to the laws physical property is subject to, nor to the right of physical property.

naz 17y ago
It was Amazon who made it like physical property by applying all the DRM in the first place.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  DRM and physical properties are not applicable to the same objects. DRM refers to data+software to unlock that data. A physical device could be the carrier of a DRM'd piece of data but it has nothing to do with the carrier itself. Data is just streams of bits no matter what carrier they're on. That data could be encumbered with DRM or it could be 'plain'. You never 'own' a piece of DRM'd data, these are almost exclusively limited use sublicenses. It's not like buying a book or a record (the vinyl kind). It's more like buying a movie ticket.
ekiru 17y ago
You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them. I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside". Are you intentionally saying something that is equivalent to "Ignoring the meaning of 'intellectual property' and 'physical property', intellectual property is not like physical property?" I assume not, but I'm not sure what you meant to say there.
- andreyf 17y ago
  A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Agreed, this is a much better comparison! :) I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside" By "semantics", I was referring to the word "property". I mean that if I sell you a loaf of bread, it's a transaction governed by a nearly disjoint set of laws than if I sell you a poem or program that I wrote. For example, I can't sell you a loaf of bread and force you to eat it on a Monday, but I can sell you a DRM-ed program that only runs on Mondays (enforced by people with heavy sticks and shiny guns ;)). If our goal is creating a productivity-maximizing society, I think enforcing some restrictions of copyright are a good idea, as long as they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1], but current copyright law seems as if it might over-reach that. What I would love to see is a real debate about where the line should be drawn. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them." The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    The annotations still exist, amazon claims they make backups of user annotations on their servers.
  - ekiru 17y ago
    Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.

jacquesm 17y ago

No, that is not at all like that. Paper has one expected set of behaviours, and paper manufacturers stealing back the paper is not entering into the equation. Paper is subject to other kinds of 'dataloss', such as but certainly not limited to fading, burning, tearing and so on. So if notes on paper are very important to you you keep them in a safe place and you make sure you do have that copy in case it gets lost. The kindle is not a piece of paper. It's a digital device that has some absolutely draconian measures built in to its software. You lease the books until amazon decides to yank them back. Maybe you'll get your money back. They can reverse the deal any time they see fit. Your 'bookshelf' on their servers loses books magically after you've reloaded them a couple of times. It's an absolute piece of shit from a rights perspective, and I really think they ought to be sued in to the ground and boycotted over this. If you use the kindle to annotate a book and that book gets yanked back to amazon - for whatever reason - you lose your notes. This is purposefully built in to the device and it is a direct consequence of the way amazon manages its publishers rights. I think that on e-books the right of first sale doctrine should apply just as it should on 'paper books'. But if you annotate a digital book on a digital device that has these 'features' and you have been advised about them in amazons terms of service, quoted: "Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content" In other words you never 'bought' an e-book you licensed a limited right to use. and then: "The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice." Amazon claims they make a backup for you. So, in short, contact their customer service and ask for a copy of your notes, that's in their terms of service. And never ever buy an amazon product again. And never subscribe to a service without reading the terms of use.