It isn't a hypothetical to say that the power amazon has asserted in this case is a bad thing for them to have. It isn't necessary to wait until it's exercised in a way that is less benign to see that it leaves a massive door open for that activity to happen.
The US government has the power to draft me into military service. I won't get mad until they start doing it.
analogy fail
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It isn't a hypothetical to say that the power amazon has asserted in this case is a bad thing for them to have. It isn't necessary to wait until it's exercised in a way that is less benign to see that it leaves a massive door open for that activity to happen.
The US government has the power to draft me into military service. I won't get mad until they start doing it.
analogy fail
That's a great explanation as to why. Truly you are an orator beyond your time.
It isn't a hypothetical to say that the power amazon has asserted in this case is a bad thing for them to have. It isn't necessary to wait until it's exercised in a way that is less benign to see that it leaves a massive door open for that activity to happen.
The US government has the power to draft me into military service. I won't get mad until they start doing it.
analogy fail
That's a great explanation as to why. Truly you are an orator beyond your time.
honestly, it was all I thought your comment was worth.
The state has the power to draft people into service because raising an army is sometimes necessary. I don't have to agree with every war to recognize that the draft is something the state should be able to do.
Amazon having the power to pull things off your kindle when they've told you they won't isn't something they should have the power to do, full stop.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It isn't a hypothetical to say that the power amazon has asserted in this case is a bad thing for them to have. It isn't necessary to wait until it's exercised in a way that is less benign to see that it leaves a massive door open for that activity to happen.
The US government has the power to draft me into military service. I won't get mad until they start doing it.
analogy fail
That's a great explanation as to why. Truly you are an orator beyond your time.
honestly, it was all I thought your comment was worth.
The state has the power to draft people into service because raising an army is sometimes necessary. I don't have to agree with every war to recognize that the draft is something the state should be able to do.
Amazon having the power to pull things off your kindle when they've told you they won't isn't something they should have the power to do, full stop.
But again, why get angry until they do. This isn't about the general issue, this is about what they've done. What they've done is revoked a specific publication of a book that they had no right to distribute in the first place while giving the consumer a choice of that book's other publications or a refund.
It doesn't matter if I agree with the draft or not. Until the Government does something I disagree with, why should I get mad about what they could theoretically do?
because you don't want them to be able to do bad things?
edit: and again, the proper solution here was for amazon and the publisher to work out appropriate recompense, not for amazon to go after it's own customers.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But this hasn't changed their ability to do bad things. This has simply shown people that given the possibility of doing bad things, they will do good things.
arguable, at best. And, in violation of their own user agreement.
the ability for amazon to unilaterally decide to remove things from a kindle should either go away or be enumerated more clearly. Somehow, this has managed to be controversial.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Amazon is relatively savvy. Yes, they had the whole "All gay-related books are THE DEVIL" fiasco...
I'd just like to point out that there never was a "All gay-related books are THE DEVIL" fiasco. There was a "Software mistake caused us to accidentally list GLBT books as adult" fiasco, which is a pretty different thing.
I'm extremely dubious about the legality of retroactively voiding a sale weeks, months, or possibly even years after it has been completed, regardless of any other factors. The refund is just a bit of PR fluff thrown on there for exactly the reason you can see here in this thread, to sow confusion among the inevitable critics.
It in no way lessens the fact we should all be extremely concerned about the fact that one of the biggest media providers in existence just set a precedent that any distributor of digital content can crack into your data storage and taken anything you've ever bought at their whim.
This exactly. The refund is just nice propaganda, and many people are apparently buying it.
Who IS to stop them from just removing books they don't approve of because of their content?
Their own niceness? Sorry, that is not something I want to put trust in.
It's a brave new world. You don't purchase property anymore; you purchase access.
I actually could care less about this. It's a shift that is going to happen for better or for worse. 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.
Screw. This.
If I buy something. I own it. I don't care what the corporations say with their unenforceable, likely illegal EULA's I own that software.
Pata on
Episode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
Software is another matter entirely, and so is music, and so are video games distributed over the Internet. In the case of software (like Photoshop or Maya) the concept of a license has better ground to stand on in comparison to something like a Kindle book.
I don't want to turn this into a general IP thread.
Sarksus on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing. And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing. And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing. And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS. This wasn't a case where the distributor decided to distribute it, then changed their mind due to whims and fancy. The book was distributed by someone who didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing. And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS.
And I won't be. That still won't stop me from calling bullshit on their bullshit.
I wonder if Amazon maybe did this because they could have been sued for distributing media without the rights, and, once they discovered that they didn't have the rights, didn't do everything they could to prevent the propagation of said authorized media? No, obviously more nefarious motivations must be involved.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
If you really want to think of it that way, since the publisher who distributed the book didn't have the right to, hence Amazon didn't have the right to sell it, it could even be considered stolen property. No one acted maliciously (well, except possibly the original distributor, but we don't know that), but it doesn't matter. If you buy a car in good faith, and it turns out to be stolen, guess what? You lose the car, and get nothing. Instead of waiting for lawsuits and court orders, Amazon did what would've most likely happened in the end, and removed the stolen property. It had nothing to do with the content of the book, no matter how ironic the content of the book in this situation may be.
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing. And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
And if that's the case, then it sucks but at least it's legal. Amazon isn't the government and the fact you seem comfortable allowing them to assume the power to compel the turnover of property without any actual legal justification is exactly why this is a staggeringly horrible precedent. There are standards that need to be met. One entity doesn't just get to decide that the quickest solution is to punish another as part of an agreement with yet a third party.
I honest to god can't wrap my mind around the opinions some people are expressing in here. Between "rights are overrated as long as I get money" and "that whole law thing is over rated, let's just have private companies cut to the chase" either people are completely missing what's going on or I'm insane.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS. This wasn't a case where the distributor decided to distribute it, then changed their mind due to whims and fancy. The book was distributed by someone who didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
We are clear this isn't in their Terms of Service right? In fact they explicitly state they will never do anything like this and that you own the right to a digital copy of anything you've bought indefinitely. Completely leaving aside the legal and societal implications of this, Amazon violated their own contract with their customers.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS.
And I won't be. That still won't stop me from calling bullshit on their bullshit.
I sure hope you don't use Steam then, either.
I use Steam all the time. They've also never randomly deleted games that I own. And the first time they do is the moment I stop using it.
So it's not the TOS that bothers you then, it's them performing actions described in it that they're allowed to perform.
If the rolleyes were still here, I'd be using it right now.
Did you or did you not agree to a TOS when you downloaded and used the Steam service and games that only grants you a license to use said games, without the ability to transfer (sell) that license to anyone else?
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS.
And I won't be. That still won't stop me from calling bullshit on their bullshit.
I sure hope you don't use Steam then, either.
I use Steam all the time. They've also never randomly deleted games that I own. And the first time they do is the moment I stop using it.
So it's not the TOS that bothers you then, it's them performing actions described in it that they're allowed to perform.
If the rolleyes were still here, I'd be using it right now.
Did you or did you not agree to a TOS when you downloaded and used the Steam service and games that only grants you a license to use said games, without the ability to transfer (sell) that license to anyone else?
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.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS. This wasn't a case where the distributor decided to distribute it, then changed their mind due to whims and fancy. The book was distributed by someone who didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
We are clear this isn't in their Terms of Service right? In fact they explicitly state they will never do anything like this and that you own the right to a digital copy of anything you've bought indefinitely. Completely leaving aside the legal and societal implications of this, Amazon violated their own contract with their customers.
And they also said they reserve the right to "modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right."
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS.
And I won't be. That still won't stop me from calling bullshit on their bullshit.
I sure hope you don't use Steam then, either.
I use Steam all the time. They've also never randomly deleted games that I own. And the first time they do is the moment I stop using it.
So it's not the TOS that bothers you then, it's them performing actions described in it that they're allowed to perform.
If the rolleyes were still here, I'd be using it right now.
Did you or did you not agree to a TOS when you downloaded and used the Steam service and games that only grants you a license to use said games, without the ability to transfer (sell) that license to anyone else?
You are willfully ignoring the point. Stop it.
The point of what? That you've decided two services that operate under the same basic methods are somehow different, just because one performed an action allowed for in its TOS and another hasn't?
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing.
[citation needed]
And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
No, actually they're buying the book. Even according to Amazon. They just decided to ignore that little fact because they retained the power to violate their own EULA, TOS, and customer's property rights in the hardware. This isn't like netflix or a subscription to an online journal where you get access to their library so long as you pay the fee. This is purchasing a volume in toto and in perpetuity.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
Good, don't buy anything from the Kindle store then. That way, you're not agreeing to abide by their TOS. This wasn't a case where the distributor decided to distribute it, then changed their mind due to whims and fancy. The book was distributed by someone who didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
We are clear this isn't in their Terms of Service right? In fact they explicitly state they will never do anything like this and that you own the right to a digital copy of anything you've bought indefinitely. Completely leaving aside the legal and societal implications of this, Amazon violated their own contract with their customers.
That being the case, then they're probably going to get slapped with a massive, possibly class-action, lawsuit in the next couple of weeks, and will never, ever do anything like this again.
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.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing.
[citation needed]
And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
No, actually they're buying the book. Even according to Amazon. They just decided to ignore that little fact because they retained the power to violate their own EULA, TOS, and customer's property rights in the hardware. This isn't like netflix or a subscription to an online journal where you get access to their library so long as you pay the fee. This is purchasing a volume in toto and in perpetuity.
No, they grant you a "non-exclusive right". They don't grant you ownership.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing.
[citation needed]
And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
No, actually they're buying the book. Even according to Amazon. They just decided to ignore that little fact because they retained the power to violate their own EULA, TOS, and customer's property rights in the hardware. This isn't like netflix or a subscription to an online journal where you get access to their library so long as you pay the fee. This is purchasing a volume in toto and in perpetuity.
No, they grant you a "non-exclusive right". They don't grant you ownership.
Expand upon the difference, if you please, and explain how deleting it fails to violate personal property rights.
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.
Yeah, people seem to be getting worked up over a complete hypothetical here. The actual facts of the case are much more banal. I highly suspect something like this will never, ever happen again, yet people are sitting her wringing their hands over Amazon sneaking into their Kindles and taking back books whenever they feel like it.
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.
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.
Right, the police show up, take the car, and you get nothing.
[citation needed]
And you're still skipping the part where the "book" doesn't belong to you, you've only purchased access to it.
No, actually they're buying the book. Even according to Amazon. They just decided to ignore that little fact because they retained the power to violate their own EULA, TOS, and customer's property rights in the hardware. This isn't like netflix or a subscription to an online journal where you get access to their library so long as you pay the fee. This is purchasing a volume in toto and in perpetuity.
No, they grant you a "non-exclusive right". They don't grant you ownership.
Expand upon the difference, if you please, and explain how deleting it fails to violate personal property rights.
Because it's not your property. You've paid them so they'll say "Ok, you're allowed to use this on the device, barring any changes we see fit to make for any reason. As long as no reasons come up, use it all you want."
If it was your actual 'property', you could sell it to someone else, which is explicitly forbidden in the TOS also.
Posts
analogy fail
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That's a great explanation as to why. Truly you are an orator beyond your time.
honestly, it was all I thought your comment was worth.
The state has the power to draft people into service because raising an army is sometimes necessary. I don't have to agree with every war to recognize that the draft is something the state should be able to do.
Amazon having the power to pull things off your kindle when they've told you they won't isn't something they should have the power to do, full stop.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But again, why get angry until they do. This isn't about the general issue, this is about what they've done. What they've done is revoked a specific publication of a book that they had no right to distribute in the first place while giving the consumer a choice of that book's other publications or a refund.
It doesn't matter if I agree with the draft or not. Until the Government does something I disagree with, why should I get mad about what they could theoretically do?
edit: and again, the proper solution here was for amazon and the publisher to work out appropriate recompense, not for amazon to go after it's own customers.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
the ability for amazon to unilaterally decide to remove things from a kindle should either go away or be enumerated more clearly. Somehow, this has managed to be controversial.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'd just like to point out that there never was a "All gay-related books are THE DEVIL" fiasco. There was a "Software mistake caused us to accidentally list GLBT books as adult" fiasco, which is a pretty different thing.
This exactly. The refund is just nice propaganda, and many people are apparently buying it.
Who IS to stop them from just removing books they don't approve of because of their content?
Their own niceness? Sorry, that is not something I want to put trust in.
Screw. This.
If I buy something. I own it. I don't care what the corporations say with their unenforceable, likely illegal EULA's I own that software.
I don't want to turn this into a general IP thread.
Now, between this and the homosexual thing a couple of months back, I am not really in the mood to defend Amazon blindly. However, considering you can buy the books in question on amazon from other vendors, I would say that this is somewhat less of an issue than you are making it out to be. Content isn't actually being limited as far as I can tell.
Did they break the EULA? Yeah, but users do it all the time as well, usually with the justification of the EULA is not really all that strong a legal document (at least, that's what I remember). Is the distributor ignoring it when it suits them hypocrisy? Yes, of course it is. Is it unexpected? Absolutely not.
No one cares about their motivations, we care about their actions. Amazon acted against their contract/agreement with a publisher and Amazon bears the consequences of those actions. Nothing in that previous sentence justifies, legally or in any other way, their violating end user's rights and taking their property. Everything else is just window dressing and details around that fact.
And it's a sign of how indefensible Amazon's actions are that "people violate their agreements all the time" is being used as an excuse. Some digital rights junky making extra copies on their digital devices is at best an act of civil protest and at worst some dumbass with too many ideas and not enough smarts breaking a contract; Amazon removing every instance of some digital work from consumers without their consent is a massive violation of property and privacy rights and a damn disturbing sign of things to come unless this is stomped on hard.
Now, trying to do the same thing digitally, I'd be called a criminal.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Except even under that wildly generous interpretation what Amazon did is illegal. If my car dealership sells me a car they shouldn't have (next years model before they street date, what have you) that doesn't mean when the manufacturer threatens to sue the dealership they send a guy into my driveway, break into my car, leave an envelope of cash in my mailbox, and drive away.
"This was going to happen eventually anyway" isn't a legal reason to violate people's rights and taken something of theirs, especially when one party unilaterally decides how they want to solve the issue and just goes ahead and does it without checking with anyone else first.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I pay money for something, it should be mine. It shouldn't be mine as long as the "real" owner wants it to be mine, privy to their whims and fancy.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And I won't be. That still won't stop me from calling bullshit on their bullshit.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I use Steam all the time. They've also never randomly deleted games that I own. And the first time they do is the moment I stop using it.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And if that's the case, then it sucks but at least it's legal. Amazon isn't the government and the fact you seem comfortable allowing them to assume the power to compel the turnover of property without any actual legal justification is exactly why this is a staggeringly horrible precedent. There are standards that need to be met. One entity doesn't just get to decide that the quickest solution is to punish another as part of an agreement with yet a third party.
I honest to god can't wrap my mind around the opinions some people are expressing in here. Between "rights are overrated as long as I get money" and "that whole law thing is over rated, let's just have private companies cut to the chase" either people are completely missing what's going on or I'm insane.
If the rolleyes were still here, I'd be using it right now.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
We are clear this isn't in their Terms of Service right? In fact they explicitly state they will never do anything like this and that you own the right to a digital copy of anything you've bought indefinitely. Completely leaving aside the legal and societal implications of this, Amazon violated their own contract with their customers.
You are willfully ignoring the point. Stop it.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
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.
[citation needed]
No, actually they're buying the book. Even according to Amazon. They just decided to ignore that little fact because they retained the power to violate their own EULA, TOS, and customer's property rights in the hardware. This isn't like netflix or a subscription to an online journal where you get access to their library so long as you pay the fee. This is purchasing a volume in toto and in perpetuity.
That being the case, then they're probably going to get slapped with a massive, possibly class-action, lawsuit in the next couple of weeks, and will never, ever do anything like this again.
Like when they took LGBT books off their site?
Expand upon the difference, if you please, and explain how deleting it fails to violate personal property rights.
Yeah, people seem to be getting worked up over a complete hypothetical here. The actual facts of the case are much more banal. I highly suspect something like this will never, ever happen again, yet people are sitting her wringing their hands over Amazon sneaking into their Kindles and taking back books whenever they feel like it.
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.
[citation needed]
If it was your actual 'property', you could sell it to someone else, which is explicitly forbidden in the TOS also.