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.
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.
Is this different from flipping a bit on a server when I discover your registration key is illegit? If so, why exactly? How about if flipping the bit constructively deletes your file, i.e. if I disable your access to my encryption keys it might as well be 600MB of /dev/rand?
I really don't have too much sympathy for people who think they have absolute property rights because they're putting the data they stole on hard disks they own, darn it.
"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.
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.
Withdraw the book from further sales? Absolutely and no doubt. Withdraw it from people who already purchased it without doing anything wrong? Absolutely not. The legal questions are complicated and IANAL, but morally they had no right to remove something that was rightfully purchased and in use from people who had done no wrong.
letting people keep illegal content was out of the question here.
Hardly. The users did nothing wrong. Amazon (or arguably the publishers) made the mistake, the purchasers did nothing wrong. Any penalties (if proper) to be born should have been born by and only by Amazon.
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.
This is getting off on a tangent since this case is not about piracy (the customers did everything right and purchased the book, Amazon thought they were doing everything at the time).
But to go off on that tangent, no one should have the ability or right to delete anything or deliver any form of "punishment" without a judge being involved, and once it got to that point then simply deleting the files wouldn't be nearly enough.
The legal questions are complicated and IANAL, but morally they had no right to remove something that was rightfully purchased and in use from people who had done no wrong.
But why not? Morally it would have been wrong to allow a leak of something that wasn't rightfully theirs when they had such a simple system set up to fix it all. It would have been wrong if they hadn't emailed every person who owned the book. It would have been wrong if they hadn't offered a refund. But they did, and they did. Amazon's been transparent about all of this.
Any penalties (if proper) to be born should have been born by and only by Amazon.
And they bore it, offered a refund, and sent out an apology. What sort of punishment do you expect them to have suffered otherwise? "Amazon must hang its head and look guilty cos it did a bad thing"?
But to go off on that tangent, no one should have the ability or right to delete anything or deliver any form of "punishment" without a judge being involved, and once it got to that point then simply deleting the files wouldn't be nearly enough.
I said on a separate thread of comments that I don't hold a very firm belief in ownership of data, unless there's money involved. In this case, Amazon gave me the data, encoded to work on their hardware, so I hold that they have the right to do whatever they want with the content on it so long as they don't take my money needlessly. They didn't.
But why not? Morally it would have been wrong to allow a leak of something that wasn't rightfully theirs when they had such a simple system set up to fix it all. It would have been wrong if they hadn't emailed every person who owned the book. It would have been wrong if they hadn't offered a refund. But they did, and they did. Amazon's been transparent about all of this.
Yes, morally it was wrong (though only by accident) for them to allow the leak. The problem is that they did allow the leak. It was done. You can't unbreak an egg and the only people for whom this came close to "fixing it all" where the publishers. The end users now do not have something they rightfully purchased. Yes, Amazon gave a refund, but that is not the same. Clearly the users valued having that book more than they valued the money otherwise they would never have purchased the book, so Amazon then took something without right or permission that was more valuable than what they gave back.
And they bore it, offered a refund, and sent out an apology. What sort of punishment do you expect them to have suffered otherwise? "Amazon must hang its head and look guilty cos it did a bad thing"?
I expect them to have worked out everything with the publisher so that the users who already made the purchase would not be bothered. This means paying any and all fees and fines applicable under copyright laws (or whatever they settled for with the publisher) for their accidental breach without the end users who already purchased in good faith being bothered in the slightest.
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.
I couldn't disagree more with that. With the greater freedom of the electronic world comes a greater ability for people working within the law to do their jobs.
We should firmly be on the lookout for abuses of this power, but in this case:
* Amazon found out that they were accidentally distributing something illegal
* Amazon happened to have the power to fix their problem entirely, without missing a single copy of the illegally-published book
* This happened near-instantaneously, without anybody's time being wasted
* Amazon refunded every single person their money back, so they lost no money whatsoever
Amazon doesn't look scary, they didn't come in armed with weapons, they didn't illegally access anything. 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.
You know how we like to loudly trumpet that PIRACY IS NOT STEALING! because there's no physical copy and therefore no cost to how many times a file can be replicated? Well, that works both ways. When you're dealing with a thin sliver of data which can be modified without even a chance of damage to any other data, and when you have a moral imperative to remove that data and can do it without harm to anybody, then you have every right to jump back in and edit that data, precisely because it isn't meatspace.
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.
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.)
That's true, but I see no reason for that not to be the case. If I've got access to books from anywhere, it makes sense that Amazon should have the right to access me as well. Then the rules of the free market dictate that if people should be offended by Amazon doing that, another company could make money from choosing a different path, and then Amazon would be forced to change its policy.
I'm about to partially violate "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading" - but on behalf of zimbabwe.
I vehemently disagree with almost everything he is saying about Amazon deleting an ebook that I've purchased, but, he is _absolutely_ adding to the discussion in an clear, concise, and interesting manner.
Sometimes the HN "I disagree with this person so I'll try and make his comments dissapear" attitude drives me absolutely nuts.
I don't mind. Sometimes the downvotes are indicators that the argument's not worth it. I figure I'll bow out of this thread of conversation. I'll disagree quietly and stick to my Kindle.
My right to the book provided to me straight from Amazon's private store, delivered to Amazon's private device, which I paid money and signed a contract to use? Do I have a right to it because somebody illegally published copyrighted work and handed it to me?
I just said I was going to bow out of this conversation, so I'll end my line of thought with this: A company has the right to do what it wants with its products, and when that company is Amazon and has made countless innovations that help me find the stuff that I want, when it gave me my second-favorite gizmo, and when it has not once in the near-decade I've been a member violated my trust, when it's one above and beyond to make me happy, then I'm going to look with skepticism upon claims that Amazon's removing an illegal book and offering a refund equates to a sacrilege of justice. The people comparing this with 1984 are bizarrely wrong.
A company has the right to do what it wants with its products, and when that company ..., when it ..., and when it ..., when it's ..., then I'm going to look with skepticism upon claims that Amazon's removing an illegal book and offering a refund equates to a sacrilege of justice.
All of the elided content in the above quote is presumably good stuff Amazon did for the commenter.
It is my impression that the commenter has just admited to being driven by personal experience (instead of objectively judging) when he said that Amazon removing an "illegal" book from the Kindle is not unjust.
You know you're allowed to address me, right? Since I'm, you know, a user on the site?
I would have argued this position no matter what company had done it, because I think it's the right of the company. Mind you, if certain other companies has done this my stance would have been more along the lines of "They're allowed to do it, but they're assholes." Amazon, on the other hand, has never once done something to violate my trust. So when they do it, my reaction is "They're allowed to do it, and I can understand what made them do it."
I still have a copy of the NetShare tethering host that the App Store accidentally posted for about two hours soon after they opened for business. Apple yanked it from the store in a hurry but they've made no attempt to delete it from my phone. I have to believe that AT&T tried very hard to talk/threaten them into doing just that.
I'm quite glad Apple decided that myself, and I'd have liked Amazon not to delete this book. What I'm saying, though, is that if Apple had wanted to delete NetShare remotely and offer a refund, I wouldn't have considered them doing that to be at all offensive. It would have been their right.
No, but that is their right. They're not required to continue to support the app forever with their own network resources, but they don't get to physically (logically?) yank it off my phone.
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.