

What is Bezos apologizing for? - andreyf
http://andreyf.tumblr.com/post/147837007/what-is-bezos-apologizing-for

======
chez17
I think this article completely misses the point. He isn't apologizing for the
copyright laws, he is apologizing for how it was handled and most likely for
allowing it to happen in the first place. You can't escape the delicious irony
that this whole thing happened over 1984. Literally any other book would have
been better for Amazon, it just makes the story that much better. This whole
thing goes to show how DRM can negatively effect a consumer, not something
Amazon wants to do with their new device that sells DRM protected content.

~~~
andreyf
_he is apologizing for how it was handled and most likely for allowing it to
happen in the first place_

But it's copyright laws that allowed this to happen legally. How should Amazon
decide which legal rights publishers get to keep and which rights they don't?
And are corporations the right entity to decide what is moral and what isn't?
Would you blame chain manufacturers for slavery, or the laws which make
slavery legal?

 _This whole thing goes to show how DRM can negatively effect a consumer_

But DRM is just the mechanism for enforcing what people perceive as immoral
laws. If books were removed once-bought in a way without DRM, surely people
wouldn't be any less outraged, would they?

~~~
arohner
>But it's copyright laws that allowed this to happen legally. How should
Amazon decide which legal rights publishers get to keep and which rights they
don't?

Legally, you can write a contract that says Amazon has the right to break into
your house and repossess books they've sold you that they no longer have the
rights to. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good business.

~~~
andreyf
_Legally, you can write a contract that says Amazon has the right to break
into your house and repossess books they've sold you that they no longer have
the rights to._

Could you cite the law which would make such a contract enforceable?

~~~
arohner
Fine, IANAL. Maybe we can't have a contract that says Amazon can literally
break down doors but you can sign contracts that have physical analogs that
require you returning the book to Amazon. The core of my point still stands
though.

Amazon is using DRM and EULAs to accomplish things that people would not
normally expect when thinking about a book. Amazon wants people to think of
the things they "buy" on their kindle as books, but this incident demonstrates
that they are not.

Amazon is (probably) legally within their rights to do what they did according
to the kindle contract, but that doesn't mean it's good for business.

~~~
andreyf
_Amazon is using DRM and EULAs to accomplish things that people would not
normally expect when thinking about a book_

Just because people expect to have certain rights, doesn't mean they do. If
people expect to have rights (to keep copyrighted material indefinitely) that
the law of the land takes away from them, the problem isn't with the mechanism
through which that law is implemented, it's with the law itself!

------
crazyboblee
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
_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
Like I said, he didn't apologize because what they did was illegal. He
apologized because it was creepy and intrusive.

~~~
andreyf
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
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.

------
arohner
> Surely, it isn’t Amazon’s responsibility to judge which laws are moral and
> which aren’t - that’s what we pay all those people in Washington for.

No. We pay people in congress to decide what is _legal_ , not what is _moral_.

~~~
allyt
Ah, we're talking about Jurisprudence! According to wikipedia, the dominant
theory there is "legal positivism', where "laws are validly made in accordance
with socially accepted rules". See:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence#Legal_positivists>

------
ianbishop
I think the part that really pissed everyone off is the manner which it was
done and the fact that, while the illegal copies broke copyright, it isn't
Amazon who owns it.

What probably should have been done (and would have been done, if it weren't
for DRM/TOS) is that the book be removed from Amazon. Rather than to remove
all the infringed copies right from under the noses of Kindle owners and
essentially make them realize what exactly they signed up for when they got a
Kindle.

------
daleharvey
urm, people dont care about copyright laws, why should buying a book be any
different from buying a loaf of bread?

but even past that, I am sure if amazon pushed hard enough / paid some money
out then they would have been able to convince the publishers to allow the
bought books to, stay bought

~~~
andreyf
_why should buying a book be any different from buying a loaf of bread_

 _Great_ question - a question that would start a debate about the validity of
copyright law, a debate which goes back centuries, and a debate where I can
see both sides. But nobody is having this debate - they seem to be just taking
one side, the side opposite the one hundreds of years legal scholars have
taken.

 _if amazon pushed hard enough / paid some money out then they would have been
able to convince the publishers to allow the bought books to, stay bought_

Absolutely, they could also push hard enough/pay enough money and only allow
material onto the Kindle if copyright owners allow customers to make copies
and derivative works of their books. But why should they?

~~~
daleharvey
that was actually a typo I just edited, I meant buying a loaf of bread vs
book.

but even so, 1. I dont see what the length of time to start reading has to do
with anything.

2\. why should they? because they are a company who needs to serve their
customers interests or they will go out of business, thats a pretty compelling
reason in my opinion.

~~~
andreyf
_they are a company who needs to serve their customers interests or they will
go out of business_

Well, in this case, they have two sets of customers - publishers and readers.
Congress debated and decided that authors have certain rights - the right to
sell copyrighted work with protection from copying, production of derivative
works, performance, etc.

In particular, it includes the right to withdraw sold books.

How exactly should Amazon decide which of these rights are "moral" or
"immoral", and take them away from one set of customers for the sake of the
perceived rights of another set.

~~~
daleharvey
the same way every other company in the world does? by engaging with
customers, measuring feedback and common sense.

you seem to be confusing permissible with law with the right way for a company
to act, whay they did may have been legal, but it was very very obviously
wrong, they understand that, everyone else does.

changing the laws to be somewhat sensible would obviously be a better
solution, but amazon doesnt have that luxury, so they should strive to be
making the best judgement decisions they can.

------
gojomo
Copyright law said the sales of the unauthorized copies were illegal. It
didn't necessarily create an obligation for Amazon to use the remote content-
kill functionality to "undo" the sales.

Remote content-kill is such a dangerous and abuse-prone capability that even
if it is a 'tidy' way to undo a previous mistake, it still shouldn't be used.

The apology indicates Bezos at least at some level understands that.

------
quoderat
For being complete idiots and violating everyone's expectations of ownership?
Is that enough?

They've lost my business over this, that's certain.

