Jeff Bezos apologizes for 1984-Kindle debacle(amazon.com)
amazon.com
Jeff Bezos apologizes for 1984-Kindle debacle
http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1FXQPSF67X1IU&displayType=tagsDetail
44 comments
When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context.
Actually, that's what you do when you purchase any copyrighted work. Copyright law prohibits you from doing a wide variety of things with some things you buy - copying and creating derivative works being the big ones.
Actually, that's what you do when you purchase any copyrighted work. Copyright law prohibits you from doing a wide variety of things with some things you buy - copying and creating derivative works being the big ones.
Except a physical copy doesn't disappear when the person who owns the copyright decides the store you bought it from didn't sell it to you the right way.
Not quite, copyright law prohibits you from doing some things with the presentation of the information such as distributing copies and creating certain types of derivative works.
I am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity, loan out relentlessly, sell, or chop into small sections and sell the sections.
I can even copy within certain contexts (archival copies of software, for example) and I can create certain types of derivative works (parodies and certain limited educational uses for instance).
I am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity, loan out relentlessly, sell, or chop into small sections and sell the sections.
I can even copy within certain contexts (archival copies of software, for example) and I can create certain types of derivative works (parodies and certain limited educational uses for instance).
> am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity
You are not allowed to show to an audience a movie you bought on a dvd. There may be other examples.
You are not allowed to show to an audience a movie you bought on a dvd. There may be other examples.
You are allowed to watch it with your friends though, of course that might depend on the country you live in. In Germany you are even allowed to give copies to close friends and family members (but you are not allowed to break copy protection).
You have a point that you can provide a "public performance", but as I understand it (clearly IANAL) that is defined quite strictly and you may show friends and colleagues in a private setting at will.
s/right/revocable privilege/
This apology doesn't fly for me. The issue is not with their use of discretion in yanking paid-for content off users' devices. The issue is that they gave themselves that ability to begin with. Once I see that "feature" removed, I'll be happy.
I actually think it is a textbook apology - short, no excuses and straight to the customers. I think having a quick apology is more important than presenting some kind of ten point plan as the first step.
But I agree that the end of the matter is the solution, not the apology, and we have yet to see how this ends.
But I agree that the end of the matter is the solution, not the apology, and we have yet to see how this ends.
If Bezos wanted to fuck around with his apology, he'd have used more cushiony words. "Stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles" doesn't allow for much leeway with how he views Amazon's actions here. He's saying straight out that they made a mistake.
They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution. They still have the ability to remotely wipe your books. I'm glad I never bought a kindle and will not buy one as long as it "licenses" me the books instead of selling them to me.
They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution.
Which is Jeff's modus operandi from way back. Remember the one-click patent, and how he agreed that it was a goofy thing to be allowed to patent, and how he promised to spearhead a patent-reform effort?
Which is Jeff's modus operandi from way back. Remember the one-click patent, and how he agreed that it was a goofy thing to be allowed to patent, and how he promised to spearhead a patent-reform effort?
I totally agree. I wonder what other unadvertised "features" the kindle has, which are transmitted secretly by the always on wi-fi.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
The Kindle has a switch on the back that turns off the whispernet. It saves battery life.
I may be wrong, but I read on LinuxJournal review of Kindle 2, that only first generation Kindles have a physical switch for the whispernet. New models activate whispernet automagically.
Perhaps someone with the new Kindle can comment?
Perhaps someone with the new Kindle can comment?
With the Kindle 2, you just hit the menu button and turn off Whispernet there.
I had no idea Jeff Bezos had a real Amazon account which he used to post reviews (guess that shouldn't come as such a surprise.)
Always entertaining to hear a man worth $8 billion call something expensive. :)
http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...
Always entertaining to hear a man worth $8 billion call something expensive. :)
http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...
Although he's a billionaire, I doubt his sense of value has changed. Especially since he is so close to retail.
It rings a little empty to me -- I mean, it's one thing to say you screwed up, but it's another to make it right. Has there been any actual action taken or is it really just: "Sorry, we shouldn't have done that... but we're not sorry enough to undo it."
My understanding is that the publisher said that Amazon didn't have the right to sell it. Amazon refunded all folks who bought it.
What more could Amazon do in this situation to appease you?
What more could Amazon do in this situation to appease you?
Allow people to keep their books; pursue the rogue publisher; pay requisite damages to the copyright holder.
pay requisite damages to the copyright holder
Do you realize how much those damages could be? Copyright violations have multiple tiers of damage that add up quite fast; the actual loss of sales is considered, and statutory damages sit atop that and can run into incredibly large sums for willful infringement.
It could be considered by the court to be an ongoing willful violation with fines assessed on a daily basis, per copy, if Amazon could stop the violations and didn't. It's extremely dangerous to go into a copyright case without having done everything you can to alleviate the damage to the copyright holder, because fines could be accruing throughout the trial.
Amazon could potentially have negotiated a deal with the copyright holder, but if they weren't in a negotiating mood, then there really wouldn't be much to be done other than fix the violation to the best of their ability. The fact that the system has mechanisms for removal of purchased books is probably something potential Kindle buyers should consider.
Do you realize how much those damages could be? Copyright violations have multiple tiers of damage that add up quite fast; the actual loss of sales is considered, and statutory damages sit atop that and can run into incredibly large sums for willful infringement.
It could be considered by the court to be an ongoing willful violation with fines assessed on a daily basis, per copy, if Amazon could stop the violations and didn't. It's extremely dangerous to go into a copyright case without having done everything you can to alleviate the damage to the copyright holder, because fines could be accruing throughout the trial.
Amazon could potentially have negotiated a deal with the copyright holder, but if they weren't in a negotiating mood, then there really wouldn't be much to be done other than fix the violation to the best of their ability. The fact that the system has mechanisms for removal of purchased books is probably something potential Kindle buyers should consider.
Do you realize how much those damages could be?
Yes. That Amazon chose to break the Kindle platform to the extent that they can't cease infringing by merely pulling the book from sale is their problem.
Yes. That Amazon chose to break the Kindle platform to the extent that they can't cease infringing by merely pulling the book from sale is their problem.
Undo what? Give people back their illegal files?
why not?
any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files.
For all intents and purposes Amazon "hacked" their customer's private property
any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files.
For all intents and purposes Amazon "hacked" their customer's private property
> why not?
Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know...
The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.
Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know...
The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.
because Amazon sells the legal version of 1984, surely they can cover the cost to give the customers what they paid for
http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
The 99¢ paid would only buy the first chapter of 1984. I'm not sure customers would appreciate getting what they paid for in this instance.
That's bullshit, they have many options -- sending a physical copy of the deleted book(s) is the least they could do at this point. Maybe if they did that and gave some credit to buy other kindle books, I'd think they were really trying to do the right thing.
Why on earth would you call shipping customers who bought a 99¢ illegal digital copy a $10 paperback "the least they could do"?
I mean the question honestly. I'm wondering where this sense of entitlement comes from.
I mean the question honestly. I'm wondering where this sense of entitlement comes from.
Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place? If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore - the bookstore would have had to deal with the problem to the legal rightsholders satisfaction _without_ taking the physical copies back from the customers who'd bought them (with the assumption that the bookseller was selling legal copies). Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. It wasn't the _customers_ mistake that led to them purchasing an illegal copy, it was Amazon's mistake - they need to fix it. In my opinion sending a free ~$10 copy isn't a particularly onerous requirement for Amazon. If I were the original rightsholder I'd consider insisting that they do that - they led customers into believing they were getting a fully legal version for $0.99 - it's up to them to bvand any profits _or_ eat any losses associated with that transaction.
And I can't resist the opportinity to RT @Mike_FTW "Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes." ;-)
And I can't resist the opportinity to RT @Mike_FTW "Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes." ;-)
This is actually a reply to jemmons to whom I can't reply directly because it's nested too deeply.
--
I can't disagree with you more on more levels than I can count.
1) Argument from Basic Economics: When I made a good faith purchase of an electronic copy of 1984 from a trusted book retailer, I did so because I value that book MORE than I value $.99. When Amazon "bought back" the book, they did so at a price lower than I would have agreed to ($.99)...
2) Argument from Hooliganism: ...They were able to do this because they could force the transaction without me or any authority stopping them. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I think that's called theft? Aren't those the basic facts of your average stick up?
3) Argument from Incentives: Especially with large organizations, laws are always tested. If there is a loop hole, it will be exploited. If the economic incentives for a big company are even a little out of line with the customers' or the public's interest, then customer and public will ALWAYS fall by the wayside.
That having been said, now that Amazon knows it can sell illegal files then just reverse the transaction later at no cost, they have full incentive to sell as many dubiously licensed books as they can in the hope that some rights-holders will not fight back.
By demanding they pay a penalty for this mistake, and especially for the subsequent mishandling of that mistake, we're ensuring that Amazon has sufficient incentive to stop this bad behavior. Right now, that have no such incentive.
3) Argument from a school boy: Enough of these economics, incentive, and hypothetical ethical concerns. In practical terms, it's possible that my high-school aged son could have had a copy of 1984 on his kindle for his AP English class. So here he is, reading the book, and he needs to write a paper about it. He tries to open it one day and it's gone. Just gone.
Now he has to spend additional time and money to reacquire the book he already bought, which has economic value. If he's lucky it won't actually affect his grade because he'll have had enough lead time to get it before any important deadline, but maybe he's out of allowance and I'm a mean parent who won't buy the book for him. Who will compensate him (more likely me) for his inconvenience and expense? Not Amazon, apparently, even though they caused it.
--
I can't disagree with you more on more levels than I can count.
1) Argument from Basic Economics: When I made a good faith purchase of an electronic copy of 1984 from a trusted book retailer, I did so because I value that book MORE than I value $.99. When Amazon "bought back" the book, they did so at a price lower than I would have agreed to ($.99)...
2) Argument from Hooliganism: ...They were able to do this because they could force the transaction without me or any authority stopping them. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I think that's called theft? Aren't those the basic facts of your average stick up?
3) Argument from Incentives: Especially with large organizations, laws are always tested. If there is a loop hole, it will be exploited. If the economic incentives for a big company are even a little out of line with the customers' or the public's interest, then customer and public will ALWAYS fall by the wayside.
That having been said, now that Amazon knows it can sell illegal files then just reverse the transaction later at no cost, they have full incentive to sell as many dubiously licensed books as they can in the hope that some rights-holders will not fight back.
By demanding they pay a penalty for this mistake, and especially for the subsequent mishandling of that mistake, we're ensuring that Amazon has sufficient incentive to stop this bad behavior. Right now, that have no such incentive.
3) Argument from a school boy: Enough of these economics, incentive, and hypothetical ethical concerns. In practical terms, it's possible that my high-school aged son could have had a copy of 1984 on his kindle for his AP English class. So here he is, reading the book, and he needs to write a paper about it. He tries to open it one day and it's gone. Just gone.
Now he has to spend additional time and money to reacquire the book he already bought, which has economic value. If he's lucky it won't actually affect his grade because he'll have had enough lead time to get it before any important deadline, but maybe he's out of allowance and I'm a mean parent who won't buy the book for him. Who will compensate him (more likely me) for his inconvenience and expense? Not Amazon, apparently, even though they caused it.
1) You explicitly don't have the right to resell the electronic copy you licensed from Amazon. Therefore you do not get to set the price at which they "buy it back" (which is not what they're doing anyway. They're refunding you for a purchase. Big difference). You could argue that you want to have the right to resell, but Amazon is free to offer whatever products under whatever terms they like. If you find those terms distasteful, don't sign up. But once you do sign up, it's your fault and not Amazon's if you get burned by those terms (unless Amazon has misrepresented the terms. Which they have not).
2) You're not being dramatic, you're being inaccurate. They were able to do this because you explicitly gave them authorization to do so when you signed up. If I give my car to a friend, and he drives it somewhere without telling me, I cannot claim the car stolen.
3) What's the incentive here? How could Amazon in any way profit by putting a bunch of illegal books online, having people buy them, and then refunding people the money for them? Best case: They break even and have a lot of bad-will amongst publishers and customers alike. Worst case, they have all that and loose money due to credit transaction fees.
4) The book is not "just gone". Amazon notified the boy to let him know that the book had been removed and his account reimbursed. You can claim inconvenience at having to spend another minute downloading a legal copy of 1984. You cannot, in good conscience, claim that minute is equal to the value of shipping you a free $10 book. Just as a baseline: A person making a $100k/year is still only netting 20¢/minute before taxes. If Amazon decided to do such a thing, it would be well beyond "the least they could do".
2) You're not being dramatic, you're being inaccurate. They were able to do this because you explicitly gave them authorization to do so when you signed up. If I give my car to a friend, and he drives it somewhere without telling me, I cannot claim the car stolen.
3) What's the incentive here? How could Amazon in any way profit by putting a bunch of illegal books online, having people buy them, and then refunding people the money for them? Best case: They break even and have a lot of bad-will amongst publishers and customers alike. Worst case, they have all that and loose money due to credit transaction fees.
4) The book is not "just gone". Amazon notified the boy to let him know that the book had been removed and his account reimbursed. You can claim inconvenience at having to spend another minute downloading a legal copy of 1984. You cannot, in good conscience, claim that minute is equal to the value of shipping you a free $10 book. Just as a baseline: A person making a $100k/year is still only netting 20¢/minute before taxes. If Amazon decided to do such a thing, it would be well beyond "the least they could do".
Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place
Granted. But what are you really out? For them to provide absolutely full remuneration to you, they'd have to pay you 99¢ (which they did. Immediately). At that point all your losses are covered. You can go and buy another 99¢ book or put that 99¢ towards a fair and legal copy of 1984.
But you ask for more. You seem to say that in addition to their error in selling an illegal book, Amazon's also offended your sensibilities in their handling of the situation. They've issued you a frank apology and promised to do better in the future, but that's still not enough for you. You want free stuff. I can't help but see this as greedy and overreaching.
If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore...
The customer could have kept the book or returned it to the bookstore for a refund. Not both. It's true that Amazon made the choice for you, forcing you to return the book for a refund (which was in bad taste and they've apologized).
But it should be pointed out that if these hypothetical people had decided to keep their book instead of returning it for a refund, the book would be no less illegal. They are still at this point guilty of possessing bootlegged material. The publisher could, in theory, still go after them in a court of law. So it can at least be said that, in choosing between these two alternatives, Amazon chose the legally unambiguous one. That may turn out to not have been the best choice, but it's certainly understandable, is it not?
Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different.
You're saying they're not allowed to build the device they want or write the software they want? You're so filled with righteous indignation over Amazon's invasion of your perceived "rights" that you think they should send you free books. Yet you think nothing of oppressing their own freedoms. Self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical at worst.
Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Granted. But what are you really out? For them to provide absolutely full remuneration to you, they'd have to pay you 99¢ (which they did. Immediately). At that point all your losses are covered. You can go and buy another 99¢ book or put that 99¢ towards a fair and legal copy of 1984.
But you ask for more. You seem to say that in addition to their error in selling an illegal book, Amazon's also offended your sensibilities in their handling of the situation. They've issued you a frank apology and promised to do better in the future, but that's still not enough for you. You want free stuff. I can't help but see this as greedy and overreaching.
If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore...
The customer could have kept the book or returned it to the bookstore for a refund. Not both. It's true that Amazon made the choice for you, forcing you to return the book for a refund (which was in bad taste and they've apologized).
But it should be pointed out that if these hypothetical people had decided to keep their book instead of returning it for a refund, the book would be no less illegal. They are still at this point guilty of possessing bootlegged material. The publisher could, in theory, still go after them in a court of law. So it can at least be said that, in choosing between these two alternatives, Amazon chose the legally unambiguous one. That may turn out to not have been the best choice, but it's certainly understandable, is it not?
Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different.
You're saying they're not allowed to build the device they want or write the software they want? You're so filled with righteous indignation over Amazon's invasion of your perceived "rights" that you think they should send you free books. Yet you think nothing of oppressing their own freedoms. Self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical at worst.
Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
> That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I wish people would refrain from saying this. Sure, it sounds so deliciously dismissive that it may be hard to resist, but really, it just can't be true.
FWIW, I agree with most of what you said though.
I wish people would refrain from saying this. Sure, it sounds so deliciously dismissive that it may be hard to resist, but really, it just can't be true.
FWIW, I agree with most of what you said though.
Comp them one of the many legit copies for sale on his site?
Conspicuously absent from this apology is the explicit promise that they won't do it again.
Perhaps a little of Zappos' culture is filtering through (though I doubt it). The most important thing that Amazon has not addressed is labeling the kindle versions with clear and concise information as to the DRM that the publisher chose (i.e. number of devices, limitations, "the publisher through us can revoke this copy from you at anytime" blurb, etc..). If they did this then I'd say they have integrity and sales of kindle versions of books would be reflective of the publishers' use of DRM. By not doing this they're trying to play both sides - appeasing the publisher at all cost and then giving a weak apology to the customers with no concrete actions to address the problem (saying "We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission" is just marketing speak for - we'll continue doing what we're doing since we can't point you to concrete steps that we have taken).
[deleted]
That's the best damage control they can come up with? I realize that Bezos probably thinks he slumming when he delivers a personal apology, but I'm less impressed with Bezos than Bezos is.
I would have liked an explanation for what happened. I would have liked to see what steps were being taken to see that it never happens again and that it couldn't happen again. I would like to see what is being done to recompense the customers (have they been shipped complimentary hardcovers of the yanked books yet?).
This apology fails on all three fronts.
I would have liked an explanation for what happened. I would have liked to see what steps were being taken to see that it never happens again and that it couldn't happen again. I would like to see what is being done to recompense the customers (have they been shipped complimentary hardcovers of the yanked books yet?).
This apology fails on all three fronts.
It took him a week of bad press to apologize! This means it's not sincere but just an attempt to appease the raging crowds. He just figured out after a week of horrible publicity that no other tactic will work so he had to apologize. Next time apologize immediately so I can believe you are truly sincere.
They gave a very public example of the problems with locked/controlled content and how it tends to directly oppose the consumer.
When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context.