Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Amazon 451: Burning Books Remotely

1246

Posts

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    They didn't go through and delete each copy though, they deleted it from the system, which in turn removed it from all the accounts, which in turn removed it from the Kindles when they were synced with the system, which is how the system was designed to work from the start. And I'm guessing Amazon is going to go after the distributor at some point too, I doubt they'll just eat the loss, even if it was only 99 cents per book.

    I'm guessing they're also trying to save face with legitimate distributors and copyright holders too, proving that even in the case of a copyright screwup they have the ability to right the wrong, or something like that.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So the Kindle functions like I thought it have might then: rather than store the books on the Kindle themselves in a hard drive, people stream the content from the 'cloud' from an Amazon webserver?

    In that case, Amazon should have provided every effort to simply redirect people who had the book to a licensed version of the book as opposed to simply cutting them off. Even having a giant sign that says "This book is no longer available due to licensing issues, please click this button to provide you with a licensed copy."

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited July 2009
    If it's streamed content instead of a file you get to permanently hold on to, those prices better come down fast.

    That's my guess. Very few people are going to stop buying hard copies just to have something licensed and impermanent at 10$ a book. That's a horrible deal.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    So the Kindle functions like I thought it have might then: rather than store the books on the Kindle themselves in a hard drive, people stream the content from the 'cloud' from an Amazon webserver?

    In that case, Amazon should have provided every effort to simply redirect people who had the book to a licensed version of the book as opposed to simply cutting them off. Even having a giant sign that says "This book is no longer available due to licensing issues, please click this button to provide you with a licensed copy."
    It's more like the... Wal-Mart music store? Whichever one just recently went defunct and shut down its servers, thereby rendering all purchased songs unplayable. Maybe that was the MSN music store, I can't remember. Syncing is the Kindle checking in to make sure you still legitimately can read the book. If it doesn't find what its looking for, it removes the book from the Kindle.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    So the Kindle functions like I thought it have might then: rather than store the books on the Kindle themselves in a hard drive, people stream the content from the 'cloud' from an Amazon webserver?

    In that case, Amazon should have provided every effort to simply redirect people who had the book to a licensed version of the book as opposed to simply cutting them off. Even having a giant sign that says "This book is no longer available due to licensing issues, please click this button to provide you with a licensed copy."
    The problem there was the legitimate copies weren't the same 99 cents as the illegitimate copies were. And Amazon did email everyone affected by it.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    So the Kindle functions like I thought it have might then: rather than store the books on the Kindle themselves in a hard drive, people stream the content from the 'cloud' from an Amazon webserver?

    In that case, Amazon should have provided every effort to simply redirect people who had the book to a licensed version of the book as opposed to simply cutting them off. Even having a giant sign that says "This book is no longer available due to licensing issues, please click this button to provide you with a licensed copy."
    The problem there was the legitimate copies weren't the same 99 cents as the illegitimate copies were. And Amazon did email everyone affected by it.

    I think the best solution would have been to take away the unlicensed copies, give everyone a licensed copy to replace it, and charge the guys who claimed that they had the authority to sell the cheap Orwells for the difference. But that last step might have been tough to accomplish, would definitely require time and legal action, and depending on numbers, the bad guys might not have had the assets to cover the difference.

    I certainly do not think this is Amazon's fault - it's the fault of the guys who claimed they had the license to sell the Orwell books for $.99 per, and they are the guys who should be the target of our ire.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The even bigger problem is that in many countries, Canada included, 1984 and Animal Farm are in the public domain. I don't know of the company that sold them to Amazon here does so in other countries, but it really could just be an honest mistake. The thing to blame here is really draconian US copyright laws.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • DredZedDredZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    So the Kindle functions like I thought it have might then: rather than store the books on the Kindle themselves in a hard drive, people stream the content from the 'cloud' from an Amazon webserver?

    In that case, Amazon should have provided every effort to simply redirect people who had the book to a licensed version of the book as opposed to simply cutting them off. Even having a giant sign that says "This book is no longer available due to licensing issues, please click this button to provide you with a licensed copy."

    Not really. The Kindle does store everything locally. Each unit checks in with the Amazon servers to download any books you've bought but don't have on your local memory yet, or to delete anything that you shouldn't have on there.

    For example, I once was looking to buy a particular book. I accidentally clicked on the one click buy for the wrong one. I emailed Kindle customer service about it, and they refunded the money I'd spent on that book, at the same time removing access to it from my account. The next time I had my Kindle's wireless turned on, it automatically deleted that book because it saw that I no longer had it on my list of accessible books.

    A very similar thing happened here on a bigger scale. Amazon sold a book to people, and those people downloaded it. When they found out that publishing of the book was illegal, Amazon removed it from their servers, and issued a refund to each account that had bought it. When each person's Kindle checked in on the servers, it would see that the book was no longer on the list of books that were allowed to be on the Kindle, and thus deleted them.

    Theoretically, some people who don't turn on their wireless much could still have copies of the book. Also, anyone can download copies of their books to their hard drive. Which means that they could keep an archived copy of the book on their computer, and put it back on their Kindle, though they'd have to make sure not to turn on their wireless switch, or it would get deleted again.

    Personally, I think what should have been done would probably be to switch the access on each account from the illegal copies over to the one that's legally there. Amazon would then just have to pay the publisher of that version whatever amount they normally would if someone bought it, instead of refunding the money everyone paid for the illegal copies.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    werehippy wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I find it amusing that people think this event somehow pulled the wool back off our eyes and exposed a major flaw of ebooks and kindles. Like anyone fucking cares. You think a consumer cares about theoretical concepts of ownership wrt the book they want to read at the pool? You think telling them that they don't really own it and Amazon can delete it at will is a legitimate criticism? More like, "oh really, when did they do that?" "when Amazon found out they unknowingly were selling illegal copies of a couple books. They deleted them and gave everyone a refund." "Oh... can you leave me alone now please?"

    And maybe we can worry about Amazon deleting things because they don't agree with it, you know, when that actually happens. Which I highly doubt.

    And this thread makes me even more depressed. We moved past it's alright as long as I get paid, past it's great when companies save me time by just taking the law into their own hands, into people are too stupid to care so what does it matter if it's right or wrong.

    A proud day for discussions everywhere.
    They are a Web site that sells crap on the Internet for Pete's sake! It was a "proud day" for discussions when people starting acting like they were the man, trying to keep us down.

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus I didn't want to wake you up but I really want to show you somethingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Yes, it's more like if I get sold a DVD that ended up being pirated from China. No one has the right to come repo it from the consumer, even if the seller and the distributor were in the wrong.

    You're pretty wrong here. Pirated content is illegal to own, and pirated DVDs are seized and destroyed all the time by police. If they know you have a library of pirated DVDs, they can legally enter your home and seize them. It doesn't matter that you paid for them if they were not purchased legally.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The thing that gets me is that they can censor kindles anytime, anywhere, for any reason. The fact that they had a "good" reason this time is no excuse. TOS and EULA's be damned, that is not something I want.

    Its setting yourself up for a major blow down the line, leaving a wideopen door to your books so that anyone can destroy them. Its a one-stop shop for censors, all they have to do is order Amazon and all your "anti-social" books go poof. Catcher in the Rye? Poof! To kill a Mockingbird? Poof!

    If they can remove books for a good reason, they can remove books for a bad reason.

    I am not arguing that this is going to happen(though there are people that would want too). I am arguing that letting people have such a power is a bad idea. The fact that they may never use this power is no argument for letting them have it.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Yes, it's more like if I get sold a DVD that ended up being pirated from China. No one has the right to come repo it from the consumer, even if the seller and the distributor were in the wrong.

    You're pretty wrong here. Pirated content is illegal to own, and pirated DVDs are seized and destroyed all the time by police. If they know you have a library of pirated DVDs, they can legally enter your home and seize them. It doesn't matter that you paid for them if they were not purchased legally.

    Sorry, but if I'm wrong it's only from a legal standpoint. Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. No one in the US has their DVDs repo'd due to piracy -- ever.

    From a consumer standpoint, I am absolutely right. Book buyers do not think of books as being licensed, and they won't accept buying digital content that can be wiped out later.

    What if I took notes on that file? The whole point of e-books is that you've got all the functionality of a computer (copy/pasting, clean annotation) added to your content. If it can be manipulated from a server, then people will collectively say 'right, I'll keep buying ink and paper until the digital versions are permanently and completely my property after I buy it'.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The following is from io9.com on the issue:

    Under the "right of first sale" in the U.S., people can do whatever they like with a book after purchasing it, including giving it to a friend or reselling it. There is no option for a bookseller to take that book back once it's sold.

    Apparently, until last week, Amazon claimed it wouldn't take back purchased books either: The New York Times' Brad Stone reports:


    Amazon's published terms of service agreement for the Kindle does not appear to give the company the right to delete purchases after they have been made. It says Amazon grants customers the right to keep a "permanent copy of the applicable digital content."

    So much for "you are only licensing" argument.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2009
    If it's streamed content instead of a file you get to permanently hold on to, those prices better come down fast.

    That's my guess. Very few people are going to stop buying hard copies just to have something licensed and impermanent at 10$ a book. That's a horrible deal.

    It's not streamed content. In fact, if one were so inclined, you can backup the files on your computer every time you download a book.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The following is from io9.com on the issue:

    Under the "right of first sale" in the U.S., people can do whatever they like with a book after purchasing it, including giving it to a friend or reselling it. There is no option for a bookseller to take that book back once it's sold.

    Apparently, until last week, Amazon claimed it wouldn't take back purchased books either: The New York Times' Brad Stone reports:


    Amazon's published terms of service agreement for the Kindle does not appear to give the company the right to delete purchases after they have been made. It says Amazon grants customers the right to keep a "permanent copy of the applicable digital content."

    So much for "you are only licensing" argument.
    True, but it remains that the purchase was never legal to begin with, and hence probably falls under some other section of the EULA, such as "we won't uphold this EULA if it puts us in violation of criminal law."

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The Right of First sale part says your wrong. They can stop selling it, but the deleting part is out.

    Remember its Amazon thats in the wrong here, they sold a book they shouldn't have. Their customers had no way of knowing this deal was not legit and no way of finding out either.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ....it was Amazon's supplier that actually fucked up initially. I mean, if we want to worry about facts and all.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Yes, it's more like if I get sold a DVD that ended up being pirated from China. No one has the right to come repo it from the consumer, even if the seller and the distributor were in the wrong.

    You're pretty wrong here. Pirated content is illegal to own, and pirated DVDs are seized and destroyed all the time by police. If they know you have a library of pirated DVDs, they can legally enter your home and seize them. It doesn't matter that you paid for them if they were not purchased legally.

    Sorry, but if I'm wrong it's only from a legal standpoint.
    Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. No one in the US has their DVDs repo'd due to piracy -- ever.

    From a consumer standpoint, I am absolutely right. Book buyers do not think of books as being licensed, and they won't accept buying digital content that can be wiped out later.

    What if I took notes on that file? The whole point of e-books is that you've got all the functionality of a computer (copy/pasting, clean annotation) added to your content. If it can be manipulated from a server, then people will collectively say 'right, I'll keep buying ink and paper until the digital versions are permanently and completely my property after I buy it'.
    I find it amusing that you don't seem to think this matters.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I find it amusing that you don't seem to think this matters.

    And we all know the law is never wrong.

    Spoiler:
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I find it amusing that you don't seem to think this matters.

    And we all know the law is never wrong.
    I never said it wasn't wrong. I mean personally, in this specific case, I believe what Amazon did is relatively harmless, but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying it isn't an insignificant barrier concerning the topic of conversation

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus I didn't want to wake you up but I really want to show you somethingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Yes, it's more like if I get sold a DVD that ended up being pirated from China. No one has the right to come repo it from the consumer, even if the seller and the distributor were in the wrong.

    You're pretty wrong here. Pirated content is illegal to own, and pirated DVDs are seized and destroyed all the time by police. If they know you have a library of pirated DVDs, they can legally enter your home and seize them. It doesn't matter that you paid for them if they were not purchased legally.

    Sorry, but if I'm wrong it's only from a legal standpoint. Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. No one in the US has their DVDs repo'd due to piracy -- ever.

    From a consumer standpoint, I am absolutely right. Book buyers do not think of books as being licensed, and they won't accept buying digital content that can be wiped out later.

    What if I took notes on that file? The whole point of e-books is that you've got all the functionality of a computer (copy/pasting, clean annotation) added to your content. If it can be manipulated from a server, then people will collectively say 'right, I'll keep buying ink and paper until the digital versions are permanently and completely my property after I buy it'.

    The point here is that you have no right to stolen content. It doesn't matter if it is a digital "license" or a physical object. If the seller had no right to sell it, you have no right to own it. These books were stolen property since the publisher was distributing them without the legal ownership of the content. It doesn't matter if you've scribbled all over them or whatever, you cannot legally own stolen content.

    What you're describing is not going to happen. If people were concerned about the ownership of digital content, they wouldn't buy from iTunes or buy clothes for their avatars on XBox Live. This situation is an extremely specific instance of a company trying to avoid culpability for illegal activity, not a warning shot for Orwellian control of digital media.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    The entire reason the absurd idea of "licensing" exists is because software companies find it a wonderful excuse to try and take away consumer rights

    Spoiler:
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sorry, but if I'm wrong it's only from a legal standpoint. Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. No one in the US has their DVDs repo'd due to piracy -- ever.
    Because due to the inability to track them it was a pain in the ass and not worth it the vast majority of the time, not because it wasn't illegal.

    PSN: allenquid
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    The entire reason the absurd idea of "licensing" exists is because software companies find it a wonderful excuse to try and take away consumer rights
    Don't ever buy a house.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    That depends a great deal on what you're buying.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus I didn't want to wake you up but I really want to show you somethingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

    You said it yourself. Stolen goods, bootlegged goods, and illicit drugs are confiscated all the time - by the police. That is not what happened here.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    The entire reason the absurd idea of "licensing" exists is because software companies find it a wonderful excuse to try and take away consumer rights
    The concepts of licensing and usage rights have been integral to property law for hundreds if not thousands of years.

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus I didn't want to wake you up but I really want to show you somethingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

    You said it yourself. Stolen goods, bootlegged goods, and illicit drugs are confiscated all the time - by the police. That is not what happened here.

    I don't see why the distinction is important. A corporation is expected to follow the law just as much as an individual would be.

    Imagine a pawn shop owner who discovers that an item he sold was stolen property. Would he be abusing his power to call up the buyer of the item and ask him to return to his store to be refunded his money in return for the stolen item? Admittedly, Amazon took the content without the consent of the buyers, but does a buyer of illegal goods really have the right to object to those goods being taken away?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

    You said it yourself. Stolen goods, bootlegged goods, and illicit drugs are confiscated all the time - by the police. That is not what happened here.

    I don't see why the distinction is important. A corporation is expected to follow the law just as much as an individual would be.

    The distinction isn't between corporations and individuals but between corporations/individuals and the State.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

    You said it yourself. Stolen goods, bootlegged goods, and illicit drugs are confiscated all the time - by the police. That is not what happened here.

    I don't see why the distinction is important. A corporation is expected to follow the law just as much as an individual would be.

    Imagine a pawn shop owner who discovers that an item he sold was stolen property. Would he be abusing his power to call up the buyer of the item and ask him to return to his store to be refunded his money in return for the stolen item? Admittedly, Amazon took the content without the consent of the buyers, but does a buyer of illegal goods really have the right to object to those goods being taken away?

    Yes. If said pawn broker broke into your house and took back the stolen goods and left the refund on the table, he would be way, way outside what he should be reasonably allowed to do.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Clipse wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aye, the interesting thing about this story isn't anything to do with some sort of fascist media control framework, it's more about how fucked up everything to do with IP is right now and how terrible our laws currently are at handling it.

    Qingu nailed it perfect in the first post:
    We all should just start getting used to the fact that our traditional conceptions of property are going to have to evolve. The concept of property is based on physical things you can hold, not infinitely replicable code floating in the æther of the internet.

    And I still say screw that.

    If I buy something, I own it.

    You really need to explain yourself further instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. Explain why you would have the right to own stolen or illegal goods. Just because you bought it doesn't cut it. People buy marijuana all the time, but that doesn't keep the police from taking it away if they find it.

    You said it yourself. Stolen goods, bootlegged goods, and illicit drugs are confiscated all the time - by the police. That is not what happened here.

    I don't see why the distinction is important. A corporation is expected to follow the law just as much as an individual would be.

    Imagine a pawn shop owner who discovers that an item he sold was stolen property. Would he be abusing his power to call up the buyer of the item and ask him to return to his store to be refunded his money in return for the stolen item? Admittedly, Amazon took the content without the consent of the buyers, but does a buyer of illegal goods really have the right to object to those goods being taken away?

    Yes. If said pawn broker broke into your house and took back the stolen goods and left the refund on the table, he would be way, way outside what he should be reasonably allowed to do.
    But what they did was modify access on servers Amazon owns. Yes, they were for personal accounts, but it isn't that clear cut

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The Customers did nothing wrong. let me repeat that the Customers did nothing wrong.

    They bought a book from someone they thought was legit. They acted in good faith.

    Its the corporation's responsibility to determine whether or not said good was legitimate before sale.
    This applies to pawnshops as well, since there is a time between when something is pawned until it is sold.

    Any lawsuit can not be directed at Amazon's customers as a result. Amazon may have had to pay damages for any books sold to customers, but the customers would have been clear.

    This was a dick move to save money on Amazon's part, not any "stop the spread of illegal books".

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The Customers did nothing wrong. let me repeat that the Customers did nothing wrong.

    They bought a book from someone they thought was legit. They acted in good faith.

    Its the corporation's responsibility to determine whether or not said good was legitimate before sale.
    This applies to pawnshops as well, since there is a time between when something is pawned until it is sold.

    Any lawsuit can not be directed at Amazon's customers as a result. Amazon may have had to pay damages for any books sold to customers, but the customers would have been clear.

    This was a dick move to save money on Amazon's part, not any "stop the spread of illegal books".

    A dick move on Amazon's part to save money would've been to delete the books form people's kindles and issued a press release of "Fuck you we're allowed to"

    They didn't do that. Sure, they didn't just sit there with their thumbs up their asses saying "Well golly gee, we're getting sued for distributing goods that I guess we didn't have rights to distribute. I'm sure our shareholders will be happy", but they certainly didn't make any money off of this, and the consumer didn't lose anything!

    Let me repeat: The Consumer didn't lose anything.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Actually thats what they did, they deleted it without any announcement(as far as I can tell). And the fuck you we can do what we want? People are arguing that the TOS and EULA says just that.
    They could have stopped selling the book. They could have offered a refund on a voluntary basis. They could have granted acess to a legitimate copy. They could have give the consumers a chance to give informed consent

    The Consumers lost a book they bought for no reason of their own.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus I didn't want to wake you up but I really want to show you somethingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The Consumers lost a book they bought for no reason of their own.

    Sometimes, things happen you don't have any control over. That doesn't mean you have a right to own something sold to you illegally.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Actually thats what they did, they deleted it without any announcement(as far as I can tell). And the fuck you we can do what we want? People are arguing that the TOS and EULA says just that.
    And they didn't say that. This shouldn't be an argument about what they could've done if they felt like being jackasses, it should be about what actually happened.
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    They could have stopped selling the book. They could have offered a refund on a voluntary basis. They could have granted acess to a legitimate copy. They could have give the consumers a chance to give informed consent

    The Consumers lost a book they bought for no reason of their own.


    No, the consumers lost a specific copy of a book they bought for no reason of their own while being able to rebuy the book instantly if they wanted. They can be reading the book they "lost" in, what 5 minutes?
    Essentially, they did offer a refund on a voluntary basis, with a very slight inconvenience, in return for the consumer, you know, actually legally having the rights to the book now. They did this by granting access to a legitimate copy.


    They did not delete books from the kindle store. What they deleted from the kindle store were specific publications. They gave the consumer a full refund as well as the ability to instantly re-download a publication they had the rights to distribute. The consumer did not lose their books. They lost their publications of the book, with others available


    This is an extreme case of how, with the way digital rights currently work, exactly how companies should behave in the situation. Yes, digital rights are pretty screwed up, but this isn't a case for that, this is a case of how the company should handle it. They allowed the customers the goods that that customer "lost", or, if the customer chooses, a simple cash refund.



    You have to be stretching things to stupid absurd degrees to say that deleting a specific publication that they lost rights to distribute, while allowing customers to instantly re-download the book, or take a refund, is taking away the book and saying "Fuck you" It's so incredibly not the same thing it's not even funny.

    It's like saying that walking up to someone, pulling a gun on them, and saying "Give me that Purse! And I'll pay you for it! Or give you my completely identical purse!" is the same as stealing.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Informed consent dude. They did it without informed consent. If you don't understand that ,you don't understand anything.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Please explain how that has anything remotely to do with this, since the consumer agreed to the TOS and EULA.

    If you're just going to start spouting terms that have no bearing on your argument you'll look pretty dumb.

Sign In or Register to comment.