“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”
This is a quote from George Orwell’s 1984, which—along with Animal Farm—was unceremoniously removed from Kindles of people who had purchased the digital editions of these books. Oh, the irony.
Why did they do this? Because the publisher changed their mind about offering these books in Kindle format.
Amazon, of course, claims that this is “rare,” but it should never be able to happen at all. Selling something to someone is a final transaction, regardless of whether that thing is physical or digital. Amazon exploited the fact that they have a data connection to every Kindle to basically sneak into these people’s homes and forcibly remove their property. Giving them a refund is entirely irrelevant. Once you’ve sold someone something, it’s theirs. They didn’t rent the right to have a Kindle edition of 1984, contingent on the publisher continuing to think selling such a thing was a good idea. They bought it.
Amazon really needs to get their shit together on this kind of thing and start advocating for their customers.
via Pogue – and thanks to Slog-tipper John
“They didn’t rent the right to have a Kindle edition of 1984, contingent on the publisher continuing to think selling such a thing was a good idea.”
You must not be familiar with this strange new world in which e-distributed ANYTHING is never sold, but licensed. Even the discs of video games I receive these days have notes in the booklets specifying that the buyer merely licenses the game, and they have within 14 days of opening the box to mail the game back to the publisher for a refund if they do not agree to this license.
You read that correctly. The disc in your hand is merely LICENSED to you.
“Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.”
Yet another reason to have nothing to do with Kindle. The list is starting to get pretty long.
You don’t go far enough in your laughably hyperbolic metaphor. You should have said that Amazon kicked in the front doors of their homes dressed like Lee Marvin in The Wild One and took a dump in grandmother’s urn and then raped their wives and children. And then deleted some shit off their Kindle and gave them a refund.
You could get that guy who does the editorial cartoons for The Onion to give you a proper illustration to go with your histrionic outrage.
“Never” just isn’t an emphatic enough word to describe how soon I’m going to buy me a Kindle.
Also, what the hell were the marketing folks at Amazon thinking when they named their product to sound sort of like kindling (hello, Fahrenheit 451) and kindergarten.
does the kindle support gutenberg.org content?
It’s unclear whether the publisher, MobileReference, had the right to distribute the works, which are apparently in the public domain in some countries, but not in the US. Which means that if Orwell’s estate contacted Amazon and said, our rights are being violated, and Amazon pulled the books as a result — well, that’s what a responsible bookseller does. They should have informed the bookbuyers via email (since they have everyone’s) and given them coupons to buy the electronic edition or print edition or something.
But if it turns out to be a rights issue, then this is precisely what happens when booksellers are shipped books that aren’t legal to sell because of rights. Booksellers destroy them or return them. They don’t go into people’s homes, of course, which is a significant difference. But because Amazon can destroy the e-copies, they are certainly obliged by law to do so. Or face a lawsuit they would lose.
Am I the only one not even remotely bothered that all this stuff is merely “licensed” to me? It’s a copyrighted work, not a chair or something. You’re paying for the right to consume the work, not do whatever you please with it. If the publisher wants to revoke that right for whatever reason I don’t really see what’s the big deal.
I guess my point is: be aware of WHAT you’re buying before you buy it. If you’re buying a license, be aware of your rights and the rights of the licensor with respect to your license.
@8: Are you crazy?
I had been thinking of getting a Kindle since the price drop, but now… not-so-much.
@8: Are you crazy?
I had been thinking of getting a Kindle since the price drop, but now… not-so-much.
@9: The Kindle doesn’t really present your purchases as licenses — it’s not supposed to be a rental, but a permanent library.
@9: EULAs make liars of us all.
If they’re going to take stuff back whenever they feel like it, I’m going to make a copy of it and stash it where they can’t find it, just in case. Do they think they’re dealing with children?
@14, how do you do that with the Kindle?
Every time someone leaves their Kindle lying on the seat, I toss it in the trash, since it’s not recyclable like paper is.
Why am I crazy? If they want to revoke my license and give a refund then fine.
If someone did this to my paper copy of 1984, it would be “breaking and entering,” and “theft.”
@17, read Kindle’s terms of use in post #2 and you’ll see that Amazon was breaking its own license with its readers.
@13 are you alluding to the fact that you can’t read the EULA until you buy the product? Or that no one reads the EULA? You can always return the product if you don’t agree to the EULA.
@13: Yes, and “thus conscience does make cowards of us all.”
Or at least yours truly. No Kindle for me until I see how some of this stuff sorts out.
@7 – It seems far from clear to me that Amazon had any responsibility or obligation to pull the books from devices that had already purchased them, even if they were faced with a DMCA takedown request. If iTunes sold a song and later legal wranglings produced a takedown notice, I find it hard to believe that anyone would support them removing the song from people’s computers or remotely disabling playback. Their obligation is to stop distributing the book in that format, for sure, but I would be very surprised if they had any obligation to try to get back any copies that may have already gotten out.
#19, I’m wondering about this language:
“or as authorized by Amazon”
“unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon”
like w7ngman, i don’t mind that i can license stuff, but i do mind that the only way to get some material (more and more each day) is via license. maybe i’m a bad person, maybe a little to “materialistic”, but i like to own things sometimes.
Don’t look at me. I didn’t buy one and I sure as hell wasn’t endorsing the damn thing.
Orwell must be punching himself in the face while either laughing hysterically or crying uncontrollably.
Unless he was cremated….then not.
@1, “these days”? I can’t think of a time when software didn’t have a EULA that explicitly stated that you purchaed a license only. Kindle books are software.
@18, only if when you purchased the book you agreed to a contract that allowed the bookseller to break into your home, take the books, and leave the money you paid for it.
@27: “Kindle Books are software”? Kindle books are as much “software” as a text file, or word document is. The Kindle Operating system is software. Is an mp3 “software?” An avi file? A video cassette?
I know we’re splitting technological and legal hairs, but I think applying a EULA to something that’s explicitly content falls into a grey area.
@23: can you really say that if you “bought” a song from the iTunes (or a similar service) and woke up to find it gone, you wouldn’t feel troubled at all?
The language that allows them to do this seems to be “Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.” [emphasis mine]
I’m not a lawyer but I have issues with describing something as a “permanent copy” when it in reality is only licensed to you at Amazon’s whim. I hope theirs a lawsuit over this, or at the very least that the terms or changed to more accurately reflect the situation, and replace “permanent copy” with “long-term lease.”
@27, from the same:
Amazon considers the OS software, but not the “books.”
@30, that seems to cover the software that the Kindle comes with. Do you have a EULA for and downloaded software (i.e. the “books”) we can look at?
@31: My paragraph on 29 addresses that. It’s all here at http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/d….
The “books” aren’t software, they’re defined by Amazon as “digital content.”
Content != software.
Guess the Kindle is one less item on my wish list
So if I purchase something from a store and decide I don’t want it, can I got the store, leave the item and remove my cash from the register, without speaking to a salesperson?