Amazon Kindle doomed to repeat Big Brother moment

@Anonymous from Mars

You CLEARLY haven't followed this story in depth, or thought it through - one or the other.

You see, when Amazon when and deleted their customer's copies of 1984 and Animal Farm, they didn't only delete the contents of the books - they also deleted any notes the customers had made on these e-books. So tell me - does your husband write in a vacuum? As far as I'm aware, most authors are avid readers, and copious note takers. Would you want your husband's personal work destroyed by Amazon falling all over itself to protect other right holders?

I can understand the basic issue that Amazon faced here. However, their handling of it was horrible, and if I were one of their customers who lost my own personal work due to their fiasco, I would be seeing them in court. Probably small claims court, but still - they robbed me of my time and effort, and I'd insist on either being compensated, or at least costing them the fees of a paralegal to go argue the case before a judge.

-d

Amazon, meet bed

Amazon could tell people that they are buying a device onto which electronic books can be downloaded and read. The books are on an indefinite rental unless some unforseen circumstances, or announced changes in policy, said otherwise. Amazon would then cause the books to be removed and refunded. Otherwise they are yours to keep and read for as long as you want.

I reckon everyone who bought a Kindle would be happy because they would understand what they were getting. It's all spelled out at the advertising stage. If someone felt they did not want these terms, they wouldn't buy one. That's fine, it's a product which was not for them.

So let's see how Amazon are positioning the Kindle, the kind of perception they are creating when they encourage you to buy one.

"Automatic Library Backup: Download Your Books Anytime for Free ... even though you don't see it, you know your books are there"

"Your books and periodicals are delivered via Whispernet in less than 60 seconds."

"... and Kindle finds every instance in your book or across your Kindle library."

Yup, that sure looks like those are my books, all safe and sound in my library. I think Amazon want me to see this device as an electronic alternative to paper books sitting on a bookcase. All those paper books which I possess, all physically there, now replaced by electronic books which I possess and stored in a device instead of shelves.

Which is very different to the indefinite rental model at the start. In summary, if Amazon want people to see the Kindle package as an alternative to paper books and wooden shelves - and clearly they do - then they better start making it work that way, or else stop making me think that it does.

Or they could carry on lying and creating a warm, cosy, safe perception of a personal library stocked with my books, as long as they don't mind me naturally extending the feeling to one of being burgled and having them taken from me in the dead of night. It's a strange way to appeal to potential customers for sure.

I shan't be buying one.

@Jon Thompson

Suppose a republican billionaire buys the rights to Obama's book and tells Amazon to delete all the copies of it? Or Mitsubishi don't like the portrayal of their aircraft in a movie about Pearl Harbour and pay netflix to delete everyones copy of it.

Sufficiently Orwellian ?

@M man

"In this case you mean owner since you have to vend somthing to be a vender"

I still think it should be the vendor - he is pulling the strings here, not the rights-owner. Just like Steam controls the games you get from it, not the actual developers.

If that technology becomes ubiquitous there is only one small step before one government or another will decide to nationalize these vendors and take the control in its own hands. As usual, to fight terrorism and to protect children from paedophiles, no doubt. But also to protect the public from undue influence of irresponsible opposition, preserve cultural values and you name what.

So, imagine you publish a book criticizing the government handling of, say, Iraq war - then a minister decides he does not like it, presses a button and, voila! - your book is no longer published and is neatly deleted from everyone's e-readers.

@ Wolf 1

Good heavens there are some ridiculous comments here. Amazon did not extend the law. What was done was within the Ts & Cs of the contract which is about protection of copyright. It was the equivalent of an aillegally reproduced CD being provided to a customer. In that case, the intellectual property owner would have the legal right to require it to be returned and the customer's claim would then be against the supplier. Of course this was all done without recourse to the courts, but do we really want to pay yet more lawyers? Provided that Amazon refund their customers, and maybe provide a bit of compensation for inconveniance, then it seems reasonable. If the Ts & Cs are not reasonable in law, then I'm sure somebody will challenge it. As it is, if you don't like the terms, or the idea of a company having remote access to your kit, don't buy the product.

For those who care about these things, if you are knowingly in receipt of illegally reproduced copies of copyrighted material, then you are on dubious legal and ethical grounds anyway. You certainly do not have the legal right (in most western countries) to retain it once the breach of copyright has come to light, even if it was done in good faith.

Personally I don't like DRM systems as they are inconvenient, and you are always in danger of losing access to the content you've paid for.

Copyright Infringement != Theft

I think a lot of the confusion over "if I steal a book from Waterstones/steal your TV" is down to the RIAA propaganda. IANAL, but I think it is true that if I steal your TV and then sell it it remains your TV.

However property rights following theft are irrelevant as there is no theft here. Amazon haven't stolen the content of the book from the right's holders, they've (allegedly) copied and sold the content of the book. In theory this leaves them guilty of large scale copyright infringement, which is probably why they went for such a knee jerk reaction, but that's all.

A better analogy would be buying a £20 Rolex at a market and then being mugged on the way home by three guys with Swiss accents.

Clever

I can't seem to find out who initiated this "product recall" (news reports all say "the publisher" or "the rights owner") but I think it was very clever and they did the world a service. As many have noted they were absolutely not interested in profiting via royalties they simply wanted the book destroyed. They must have known that furore would result.

A "book publisher" presumably owns the rights to a wide range of titles so surely this same copyright situation must have happened many times previously without incident. Is it not interesting that this particular title was selected for high-profile mass deletion? Perhaps someone wanted to draw parallels and wake people up.

Give the Kindle and its service the right name

The Kindle and its service is the same concept as the free libraries that are in the United States. You go into a branch, borrow a book and you have to return that book. The book is not yours from day one. Amazon is doing the same thing, but trying to milk more money out of citizens... I'm sorry.. consumers. More people are willing to spend money on books for the Kindle because they have the wording such as "buy" or "purchase".

The wording should change to "borrow", "rent" or what you're really doing, "licensing". That would clear them of any problems, because they can revoke a license easier than they can with a book that's said to be "purchased".

So in this situation, if the book had a license by a third-party vendor, than they can cancel that license and don't even have to give a refund. Although an explanation of why the license was revoked would still be necessary.

@Robert Long 1

Ts & Cs do form part of the contract. Read them first before you sign. As for the right of an Intellectual Property owner to have illegally made copies returned - well that right will apply in pretty well any country where copyright applies. The customer's claim will then be against the supplier. Of course the reason why this doesn't happen much in practice is that it is incredibly difficult to enforce. Hence the copyright holder will invariably go for compensation from the organisation or individual that breached copyright in the first place - it's probably the only practical approach. Of course a court would have to approve it - but there is very little doubt that they would do so.

There are lots of cases where counterfeit stock bought in good faith has been destroyed. Of course it's generally retailers that are targeted (of course they aren't always innocent buyers).

I'll repeat again - if you have an illegally copy in breach of copyright, you have no legal right to retain it. The fact you can is very simply that it is very difficult to track down and enforce the copyright in those cases. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm always astounded by the number of posters who think the law can just be got round by a narrow reading of law in their interests.

Anyone want a copy?

Orwell is out of copyright here in New Zealand (dead more than fifty years) so I guess if anyone wants a copy it is OK for me to make it. Dunno about the legality of sending it to another country of course. I did do the reverse once...I picked up a DVD copy of "Gone with the Wind" in Kuala Lumpur for $5, which is cheap enough to make me wonder if the vendor was actually legitimate. However, once I managed to bring it here, it would seem it is perfectly legitimate since that movie too is now well out of copyright. Incidently my understanding is that the customs folks here will confiscate illegal copies if they find them. I don't know how they would react to one that was actually out of copyright here but not in the country of origin, could be interesting!

@Steven Jones

"I'm always astounded by the number of posters who think the law can just be got round by a narrow reading of law in their interests."

An it is amazing to me how people think they are entitled to unilaterally widen the interpretation of a law in their own interests, which is what DRM is. No more no less.

"The fact you can is very simply that it is very difficult to track down and enforce the copyright in those cases."

That's why some of the provisions of these laws have been tolerated for so long. Things like the illegality of ripping your own CDs to fill up your MP3 player etc. Enforcement of these provisions goes against public interest. So is the abuse of "licensing" provisions as an excuse to wrestle post-sales control over content (Amazon, Apple Store, Steam etc).

The IP owners can shed crocodile tears over how much money they lose because of piracy but the truth of the matter is they have become parasites. Creating less and less value but trying to claim more and more compensation for their products. The effects of this behaviour range from increase in inflation to suppression of creativity.