

Jeff Bezos apologizes for 1984-Kindle debacle - blazamos
http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1FXQPSF67X1IU&displayType=tagsDetail

======
zacharypinter
Actually, I think Amazon did the anti-DRM crowd (myself included) a favor by
this whole debacle.

They gave a very public example of the problems with locked/controlled content
and how it tends to directly oppose the consumer.

When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're
buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context.

~~~
andreyf
_When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're
buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context._

Actually, that's what you do when you purchase _any_ copyrighted work.
Copyright law prohibits you from doing a wide variety of things with some
things you _buy_ \- copying and creating derivative works being the big ones.

~~~
timwiseman
Not quite, copyright law prohibits you from doing some things with the
presentation of the information such as distributing copies and creating
certain types of derivative works.

I am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all
eternity, loan out relentlessly, sell, or chop into small sections and sell
the sections.

I can even copy within certain contexts (archival copies of software, for
example) and I can create certain types of derivative works (parodies and
certain limited educational uses for instance).

~~~
ntoshev
> am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all
> eternity

You are not allowed to show to an audience a movie you bought on a dvd. There
may be other examples.

~~~
fno
You are allowed to watch it with your friends though, of course that might
depend on the country you live in. In Germany you are even allowed to give
copies to close friends and family members (but you are not allowed to break
copy protection).

------
dfranke
This apology doesn't fly for me. The issue is not with their use of discretion
in yanking paid-for content off users' devices. The issue is that they gave
themselves that ability to begin with. Once I see that "feature" removed, I'll
be happy.

~~~
frossie
I actually think it is a textbook apology - short, no excuses and straight to
the customers. I think having a quick apology is more important than
presenting some kind of ten point plan as the first step.

But I agree that the end of the matter is the solution, not the apology, and
we have yet to see how this ends.

~~~
zimbabwe
If Bezos wanted to fuck around with his apology, he'd have used more cushiony
words. "Stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles"
doesn't allow for much leeway with how he views Amazon's actions here. He's
saying straight out that they made a mistake.

------
hyperbovine
I had no idea Jeff Bezos had a real Amazon account which he used to post
reviews (guess that shouldn't come as such a surprise.)

Always entertaining to hear a man worth $8 billion call something expensive.
:)

[http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

~~~
mvg
Although he's a billionaire, I doubt his sense of value has changed.
Especially since he is so close to retail.

------
pmichaud
It rings a little empty to me -- I mean, it's one thing to say you screwed up,
but it's another to make it right. Has there been any actual action taken or
is it really just: "Sorry, we shouldn't have done that... but we're not sorry
enough to undo it."

~~~
potatolicious
Undo what? Give people back their illegal files?

~~~
vaksel
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
> 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
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...](http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-
Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248388330&sr=8-3)

~~~
jemmons
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.

------
aaroniba
Conspicuously absent from this apology is the explicit promise that they won't
do it again.

------
ube
Perhaps a little of Zappos' culture is filtering through (though I doubt it).
The most important thing that Amazon has not addressed is labeling the kindle
versions with clear and concise information as to the DRM that the publisher
chose (i.e. number of devices, limitations, "the publisher through us can
revoke this copy from you at anytime" blurb, etc..). If they did this then I'd
say they have integrity and sales of kindle versions of books would be
reflective of the publishers' use of DRM. By not doing this they're trying to
play both sides - appeasing the publisher at all cost and then giving a weak
apology to the customers with no concrete actions to address the problem
(saying "We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make
better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission" is just marketing
speak for - we'll continue doing what we're doing since we can't point you to
concrete steps that we have taken).

------
blazamos
Putting into practice "obsess over customers."

~~~
vaksel
protecting the customer from themselves

------
thras
_That's_ the best damage control they can come up with? I realize that Bezos
probably thinks he slumming when he delivers a personal apology, but I'm less
impressed with Bezos than Bezos is.

I would have liked an explanation for what happened. I would have liked to see
what steps were being taken to see that it never happens again and that it
couldn't happen again. I would like to see what is being done to recompense
the customers (have they been shipped complimentary hardcovers of the yanked
books yet?).

This apology fails on all three fronts.

------
onreact-com
It took him a week of bad press to apologize! This means it's not sincere but
just an attempt to appease the raging crowds. He just figured out after a week
of horrible publicity that no other tactic will work so he had to apologize.
Next time apologize immediately so I can believe you are truly sincere.

