

Why Amazon pulled 1984 off users' Kindles - andreyf
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227

======
andreyf
From the article:

Amazon says that that the books in question were added to its catalog using
the company's self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the
rights to the books. And it says it will no longer delete books in this
manner.

 _When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal
copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers.
We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books
from customers' devices in these circumstances._

~~~
sailormoon
_"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books
from customers' devices in these circumstances."_

I would prefer "We are changing our systems so that in the future we can not
remove books from customers' devices in any circumstances."

~~~
reduxredacted
I'd prefer "We are adjusting our software in such a way that it is impossible
for us to remove books from our customers' devices".

I don't know that I'd trust the statement after the text-to-speech
functionality _adjustments_ on some titles, but it would be a start.

Hey, it's software with compulsory updates via an uncontrollable backchannel.
I was _furious_ when I first read about this situation, despite not owning a
Kindle (for this precise reason), but I understand the position that Amazon
was in.

Hopefully they vet their third parties better, or hopefully copyright law
changes in such a way that it is actually _possible_ to vet copyright owners
better. Or maybe we just lose the classics because it's too difficult to
figure out which heir or organization owns the intellectual property they
didn't produce.

------
Sidnicious
This is fucking scary. No one ever considers that this kind of thing is
possible, or doesn't believe that anyone would let it happen. Sure, the
deletion was fairly innocent this time, but it does not bode well for the
future.

------
jrockway
FWIW, I keep the wireless on my Kindle off unless I need it on for some
purpose. The battery lasts forever that way, and Amazon can't delete my stuff
either.

------
rglullis
1986? Is that a sequel to 1984 that I'm not aware of?

~~~
zandorg
There's an old Sinclair Spectrum game called 1994 - ten years after. I don't
think it has much to do with the novel 1984 though.

[http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-
aft...](http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-after)

------
DanielStraight
Who cares? Honestly, does it matter? If you bought a car and it turned out it
was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would
you say "Ok, no prob, I wouldn't want a stolen car! Thanks!" Of course not.

Amazon should pay back the cost of the book AND give free access to a legal
version to anyone who bought the other one.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it
without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok..."?_

In point of fact, you'd say nothing at all. You'd hire a lawyer to speak for
you. Because you're at very serious risk of being charged with felonious
possession of stolen property:

[http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-
proper...](http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/)

Note the last sentence:

 _A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty
of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner._

So, from what I can tell, even if you are found to be completely innocent of
any crime, when it turns out that your car is stolen property the police will
still come and take it away very suddenly without asking your permission, and
they won't give you anything in return. That's exactly how it works.

I presume you're then free to sue the shady used-car dealer who sold it to
you. But if that dealer turns out to be bankrupt because he already spent all
your money on crack, I believe you are out of luck.

This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but
because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just
as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this
move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future,
either. ;)

~~~
reduxredacted
"This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but
because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just
as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this
move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future,
either. ;)"

Precisely. It's not a stolen car, it's a technicality of overly complex
copyright law that resulted in a bunch of paying customers having something
removed from a device that they thought was as safe as their bookshelf.

Scale is important here. If I purchased a ten dollar book from Barnes and
Noble that was later determined to be part of a hijacking of a delivery truck,
they wouldn't go through the trouble. Paper is cheep, books are stolen and
you'll sell more.

On one hand you have the scale of distribution that is much greater than what
could be attained by jacking a delivery truck. On the other hand you have a
pile of customers that have just discovered that they don't actually have any
guarantees that the things they purchased on their Kindle are going to
continue to be there when they wake up in the morning.

~~~
andreyf
I think when technology makes certain laws enforceable, it's missing the point
to complain about the technology (as people have been doing).

------
smithjchris
Equilibrium anyone?

