

Amazon is not the enemy - randomwalker
http://arvindn.livejournal.com/112307.html

======
Skeuomorph
Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public
that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and
has said it will not take that action in the future.

[http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showAr...](http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227)

As for the enemy being DRM itself instead of Amazon, I'm not sure it's DRM as
much as fragmented or proprietary 'standards' that are the problem for casual
users just trying to experience frictionless media. Consider the cross-device
annoyances of _unprotected_ WMV, DIVX, or Flash, for example. I understand why
Amazon and Sony want to protect their "software" sales, but am disappointed
that these protected books are not cross compatible. Both ebook stores have a
limited selection, yet each device meets a usability niche.

On that point, I also would argue against the final jab from the article:

 _"can we stop making silly comparisons between the Kindle and Sony's or
whoever's two-bit book reader that no one's ever heard of?"_

In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader
since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold
189,000 units in 2008.

Originally, however, the Sony Reader was available only through Sony and
Borders. Sony began selling its Reader and related accessories in Target
stores at the end of 2008.

By mid-2009, Sony Readers are sold at Apple stores, Best Buy, Borders,
Brookstone, Costco, Fry's, Office Depot, Sam's Club, Sears, Staples, Target,
Walgreens, Walmart, and many web retailers including Amazon. It is also
available in the UK in Waterstone's, Dixons, and more. The Kindle is available
from Amazon.com in the US only.

Given the Sony Reader's wide retail distribution, it's unlikely "no one's ever
heard of" it, and purely anecdotally, I feel I see more of them on planes.

 _(Disclosure: I own an original Sony PRS-500, a newer Sony PRS-505, and a
Kindle DX. My leisure books are on the Sony Reader for ergonomics, battery
life, and travel. My technical books and documents, both Word and PDFs, are on
the Kindle DX for the screen size, though it needs to be recharged from dead
every few days.)_

~~~
randomwalker
"Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public
that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and
has said it will not take that action in the future."

I am aware of that, and indeed Amazon's ability to see right from wrong and
admit that they messed up is part of what prompted me to write the article.

"In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader
since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold
189,000 units in 2008."

Point taken. Perhaps I was biased by my own anecdotal observations. I've seen
half a dozen Kindles "in the wild," i.e, not counting early adopter friends,
but not one Sony Reader.

But in terms of the data, note that you're comparing Sony's worldwide sales
with Kindle sales in the U.S. Besides, the numbers you quote are from Mark
Mahaney, who later revised his estimates to 500k for 2008, which would mean
almost a million up until now. [http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-
says-amazon-so...](http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-says-amazon-
sold-500000-kindles-last-year-12-billion-business-next-year/)

------
Elessar
What an irrelevant article. There are two major points:

1) Amazon did something stupid.

Changing the adjective is clever, but it's still an outrageous act. They went
on YOUR machine and they DELETED something YOU PURCHASED. You BOUGHT IT. There
is nothing more to say here.

2) Apple had the same problem with DRM and bent over backwards to accommodate
labels. Now we're all happy.

Apple never DELETED files straight from people's computers. They never took
the step of taking away what you bought. There is absolutely no comparison
here.

The blogger also pleads for people to target the publisher. As if I can only
be outraged at one company! I'll target both, thank you very much.

~~~
zimbabwe
That's because Apple never sold an mp3 it didn't have the right to sell.
Amazon did, it realized it did, and it refunded people with an apology.

Think of it like a doctor selling you a medicine, then calling you up and
saying, "Oops, I wasn't authorized to give you those pills. I need them back,
and I'll refund you entirely."

There's a difference between removing an e-book and refunding it.

~~~
tjmc
I agree with your analogy, and it indicates the right thing to do here. Give
the refund and _ask_ people to delete the ebook themselves.

The doctor wouldn't break into your house and take the pills out of the
medicine cabinet.

~~~
zimbabwe
But "breaking in" indicates some disorder. I wouldn't trust a doctor to go
into my house without asking me first. I _would_ trust Amazon only to remove
the thing they're legally obligated to remove.

Perhaps I don't have the same feelings regarding owning a copy of somebody
else's work. I don't feel ownership towards ebooks. I feel ownership towards
the money I spend, but if I get that back I wouldn't be mad at what Amazon
did. That's a minority opinion, and I think it would be worth debating
somewhere that's not here.

~~~
aaronla
And this software recovery system Amazon has in place is foolproof? It can't
be hacked, it cannot be misused or accidentally cause harm? Then I applaud
their software expertise -- the rest of us have a hard time making such
perfect software.

This of course implies that the doctor would be within his rights if he caused
no disorder. "I wouldn't trust a doctor to...". You didn't trust Amazon to
either -- they just went in and did it, at someone's request.

Hmm.. why does this prescription bottle have an antenna on it...

~~~
zimbabwe
But see, I _do_ trust Amazon, and I trust that if they got hacked they would
fix their systems. I trust Amazon to handle my data more than I'd trust a
doctor to handle my house.

------
grandalf
I agree. I can't believe people are angry about it.

If you don't like DRM, buy paper books or only download those that are already
in the public domain.

Sure DRM is a hassle, but so are a lot of things. For the most part, though,
the problems with DRM are due to stupid business decisions and not even bad
technology implementation -- consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails
you have to re-purchase everything (with a single exception).

DRM just means that more content is available -- if DRM truly does impose
costs/hindrance, then eventually it will go away. In the meantime, you are
free to choose it if you want (or not to). There are many books that are in
the public domain that one might read as an alternative to 1984.

~~~
tumult
_consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails you have to re-purchase
everything_

Or you could, like, make backups. Which iTunes even pleads you to do.

~~~
randomwalker
I'm guessing his point was that it is perfectly technologically feasible for
iTunes to let you re-download songs if you lose them. The Kindle does that. I
have to agree that except for the occasional SNAFU (which affects a small
handful of users), the Kindle DRM doesn't inconvenience the user much, or at
all.

~~~
sjs382
_it is perfectly technologically feasible for iTunes to let you re-download
songs if you lose them_

They have let me do this once before.

~~~
grandalf
you get one per lifetime :) I used mine.

~~~
sjs382
Is that really a hard restriction? Curious whether anyone has tried to do it
more than once. I needed to do it for only a few songs because my backups were
corrupt (or incomplete) when a drive died.

------
nazgulnarsil
If it has DRM I will pirate it so I can get the DRM free version. If it has no
copy protection I will buy it in the store.

I support companies that recognize property rights.

~~~
electromagnetic
That's a little naive. You never copied a book a thousand times because you
don't own a printing press. There's no market capital overhead to prevent you
making a million copies of an e-book.

You obviously don't support property rights if you're willing to pirate
products. You can recognize property rights by not buying their product and
complain, that's your legal recourse for a market decision you don't like.

When you buy a creative product you are completely restricted in how you use
it, regardless of if you bought a book, an e-book, a song or a CD. You can't
use it for public events, you can't sell it on without the authors/publishers
permission (in books the permission is implied hence legal, with e-books the
permission is not implied hence illegal), you definitely cannot make copies.
These are _their_ property rights, they made it so they own every right and
those rights extend implicitly from every post-it you write on to every
photograph you take. Until you, or an author says, 'yes you can use that'
(when you buy their product you have automatic right of private use) and if
you ask an author if you can copy their book/song/movie and they say yes, well
then you have that right. Until then it's a crime, that's why people get
punished for it.

So please don't be ignorant and claim you support companies that recognize
property rights, they all fully recognize them because _they have ALL the
rights_. If PubCo Inc recalls its book it has to do everything in its power to
retrieve the book, which can include legal action. It can happen with
everything from cars to microwaves, it also could happen with a book. And it
happened with an ebook, Amazon had a recall obligation and they got every
single ebook recalled _like they're obligated to_.

Quit your whining, change the laws if you care so much because you obviously
don't understand property rights and obligations if you're complaining a
recall of a product goes against your rights.

If you own an illegal product through legal means, it's still an illegal
product! Microsoft offers to replace your OS with a legal one if you can prove
someone sold you an illegal copy of Windows and they've offered that for
years, because they'd rather get the distributor than the purchaser. However
it's _your legal obligation_ to make sure the products you buy are genuine.
Microsoft can still sue you for illegally owning a copy of their product, even
if you paid someone full price believing you bought a real MS Vista. It's then
your legal right to sue the person who defrauded you!

The only things in this world that you will legally own is your land and
house. God forbid the zoning laws change or someone wants to put a bypass
through your property. You can also own anything you make, so if you want to
own your books, make your own. You want to own your computer? Make your own,
out of parts you made yourself.

I don't even own my animals, because if I don't care for them like I'm legally
obligated to, they get taken away by the SPCA.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Intellectual property, all the uses you mentioned that are forbidden, is
completely insane. if the only way you can make a profit off your product is
to control how people use it after they purchase it from you then you need a
new business model. people published books and invented things before we ever
had copyrights and patents.

------
luchak
I don't buy the part about how the Kindle needs our support. Sure, I can buy
the hardware, that's nice. But it's useless to me without content (no, a
shitty web browser doesn't count, and I'm not swimming in book PDFs). So I
need to buy books, unless I want an expensive plastic brick, but these books
have DRM on them that's more restrictive than I'm willing to accept.

How would buying those books send the right message? The way it sounds to me
is "hey, take my books away any time you like, that's cool."

I mean, if you're happy with the Kindle DRM, sure, buy one. But if I'm not,
how is it (even marginally) in my interest for me to buy one?

------
Tichy
"books aren't magically going to become DRM-free without first becoming
digital, and there's no way that's going to happen except under whatever terms
the publishers choose to impose."

Oh, so to get rid of DRM, we should first swallow the pill and make ourselves
dependent on it. Then, when we are completely at the mercy of DRM, it will
magically go away over night. Makes sense - NOT!

------
Create
Just to retrieve stuff from the Memory Hole: Amazon's behaviour is not new,
neither borderline braindead by any standards widely accepted by society.

Life always worked like this. Digital Restrictions Management stakeholders,
like SONY rootkits are colluding with all _antimalware_ vendors and major OS
suppliers to be _trusted_ (see HDCP, miniDP). The _standard_ procedure in case
of deadtree books [1], which are democratically banned by Human Rights
Champions, is to wipe off the shelves wholesale by the censors, on consensus.
And block any dissemination by showing no interest, like CW/YRO/Story Nobody
Wanted. Although the _information age_ makes old techniques more cumbersome,
they still work surprisingly well, perhaps because of a lack of active
interest from most people. And stuff just gets more complicated from this
point...

[1] Look for this on Amazon:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt:_Me_and_War_criminals>

~~~
scscsc
I'm curious about the book. Why not simply publish it digitally? Why go
through "traditional" publishers?

------
andreyf
PS - Sony's reader supports publishers' DRM-content rights [1] just as well as
Kindle, apart from the parts that _can't_ be technically enforced by the lack
of always-tethered-ness.

The rule in the e-readers market is clear: do anything it takes to get content
for your device.

1\. Yes, they are _rights_ protected by copyright law.

~~~
billswift
No they are NOT rights. They are monopoly privileges granted by the gov't.

------
jsz0
I agree with this for the most part. Amazon doesn't publish books or make
copyright law. It's really up to the consumers/voters to change the law or
vote with their dollars. In this case I'm sure it's not too hard to track down
a PDF copy of 1984. No real harm done except to the publisher who will
ultimately have to change their ways. No justice, no peace.

------
TweedHeads
If something erases data from my computer without my consent, yes, it is my
enemy!

~~~
zimbabwe
His point is that Amazon's not the company we should be pissed off at right
now.

If they want to provide us with their Kindle store, which 99% of the time is
excellent and wonderful (I just got the Kindle iPhone app and I love that it
syncs with my Kindle and with the web reader), they have to deal with
publishers that are antique and ignorant and full of themselves. Think the
RIAA is tyrannical? The publishing industry is ten times worse.

It sucks that Amazon had to do this, but given a choice between a terrific
store that's subject to the whims of publishers and no store at all, I'll take
the terrific store, and hope that my Shakespeare and Austen remain intact.

Amazon is one of the few companies that I trust almost wholeheartedly. I don't
think they're fuck-something-up-proof, but I believe firmly that the company
as a whole cares about its users and about giving them the best experience
possible, even when it's at cost to them. I've never had a bad experience with
Amazon, whether it was as a customer or as a seller. I understand the kneejerk
impulse here, which is to call Amazon an Evil Big Corporation, but I find it
sad that a decade of building trust can be so quickly thrown out the door.

~~~
TweedHeads
I don't care if the kindle store is excellent.

I don't care if amazon is good 99% of the time.

I don't care if BigPrint is the devil and amazon was coerced.

Nobody should EVER under any circumstance delete ANYTHING from my computer,
even if I bought it or not, if it is pirated or not, if it is stolen or not.

If it was your mistake to allow that to happen you should ask politely and we
should be able to decide what to do.

I hope Apple takes notices, I know they have a remote shut-down switch in
every iphone. They better never use it.

~~~
zimbabwe
"I'm sorry, but we sold you a book that _we didn't have rights to_ and
violated copyright. Can we please have it back?"

Doesn't work like that. If you're a major digital salesperson and somebody's
transmitting data illegally, as they were in this case, then it's your
responsibility to withdraw the book. Amazon should have been much more polite
about what was happening, but letting people keep illegal content was out of
the question here. I understand that.

If this had been a legal publisher of 1984 suddenly switching positions, I'd
agree that the user should have the choice. Considering it wasn't an
authorized publisher, Amazon did the one thing they could.

 _Nobody should EVER under any circumstance delete ANYTHING from my computer,
even if I bought it or not, if it is pirated or not, if it is stolen or not._

Really? Because I've always thought that deleting pirated content would be a
great punishment for piracy. If I've stolen something, I have no right to it.
That's implicit in the idea of piracy. Deleting the stuff I pirated seems like
a harmless punishment.

~~~
CamperBob
Scary-looking guy with tire iron and Barnes & Noble-embroidered balaclava,
when caught breaking into your house at 3 AM: "I'm sorry, but we sold you a
book whose North American rights the publisher failed to secure in time for
publication. I'll just take it back now, and be on my way. Thank you for
shopping at Barnes & Noble, here's your $6.95 back."

What's unacceptable in meatspace is unacceptable in DRM-space. Stay out of my
computer.

~~~
CamperBob
_If I was in Barnes & Noble and bought a book, then was approached by an
employee saying "We weren't actually allowed to sell you that copy of the
book, here's your money back," I might be disappointed at not having the book,
but Barnes & Noble retains the right to take that book back from me if they're
also returning my money._

That argument would make more sense if Barnes & Noble owned my computer, or if
I were still physically present on their store's property.

~~~
zimbabwe
But why should you have to be? With my Kindle, I am _always_ in Amazon's
store, as close to physically as matters. I can buy a book from anywhere. Why,
then, _shouldn't_ they feel free to approach me, so long as I'm still on
Amazon's property?

(I'll also clear up, since I figure it'll be brought up in a moment anyway,
that if Amazon had targeted copies of 1984 that _weren't_ from their
Whispernet store then I'd be more offended.)

