Peter Kafka parses this lawyerspeak and winces, saying it doesn't seem to match Amazon's license terms, which seem to offer permanent access to the files you download onto your Kindle.These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
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.I agree with Kafka that there seems to be a bizarre chain of events here. First, Amazon promises that you keep what you buy on their devices, permanently. Second, it deletes two George Orwell books. Third, it promises it will "not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances" ever again. That sequence should not instill confidence in Kindle readers that their downloads are guaranteed to be permanent.
Of course, we should expect more media piracy in books, just as illegal downloads have impacted movies and music downloads. As Jack Shafer wrote in Slate, there's no reason why the book industry won't face it's own Napster conundrum -- that is, the launching of an illegal e-book channel that customers use in lieu of Amazon's platform. Will Amazon maintain the right to reach into your reader and yank out the offending titles as you read them? I can imagine something like that being 1) Somewhat terrifying; and 2) A good reason for
A good reason for hoards of young people to switch to an e-reader that supports pirated books.
Hordes?
As always, my phonetic typing fails. Thanks, eigenman.
I should probably comment on something more substantial than homophonic errors. Sorry to be a niggler ^^
I find it to be double-plus interesting that someone named Kafka is commented in the article.
Peter Kafka's article says the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Kafka points out that Amazon's terms do NOT give them the right to do what they just did.
I'm also unclear on why you bold-faced the "non-exclusive license" reference in those terms. This is a normal term of art, which once again has nothing to do with Amazon being able to pry back into your device. It simply means that Amazon is free to sell other copies to other buyers. If you had an "exclusive license", then Amazon would NOT be able to sell other copies to other people.
I think we all agree. From my piece: "Peter Kafka parses this lawyerspeak and winces, saying it DOESN'T seem to match Amazon's license terms, which seem to offer permanent access to the files you download onto your Kindle."
Caps lock mine.
If the Amazon chiefs were smart, they'd organize some manner of massive redistribution of the novel - at a considerable discount.
Though, even displaying they possess this remote deletion capacity indicates a certain lack of foresight.
I am not comforted by Amazon saying they "will not" do this again. Promises are worth the paper they're written on. I would much prefer they tie themselves to the mast and say "We will change our software so we CAN NOT do this again."
The RIAA has admitted that DRM is dead and that it's better for producers of content (not just consumers) to sell DRM-free media. How long until the publishers industry wises up to the same truth?
Whoa everyone. Let's go back to physical items and think about how this would be handled before we go accusing Amazon of doing the wrong thing. If you are in possession of provably stolen property, even if you bought it unknowingly and legally, you lose the property. You may not even be entitled to a refund (depending on how many hands the property passed through on its way to you).
According to Amazon (if we take their response at face value) the books were put on the Kindle site by someone who did not have the rights to do so: thus it is stolen property.
Once this case is proved, then the stolen property can be seized, typically by law enforcement officials. Are people really saying it would have been a better solution for Amazon to turn over customer data to the rights holder and have the rights holder send law enforcement to each buyer's house to make sure the files were deleted?
Could Amazon have handled this better? Absolutely they could have told customers what was happening and explained much better what actions they were taking and why. But in the end, stolen property is stolen property.
"If you are in possession of provably stolen property, even if you bought it unknowingly and legally, you lose the property."
Yes, this is true. However, you're missing several vital points.
1. Only the government has authority to confiscate stolen property. They can delegate this authority, but only explicitly.
2. Copyrights are not equivalent to physical property, no matter what the media industry says. Totally different statutes, different in pretty much every possible way.
There are laws (part of the Copyright Act) that would allow the /government/ to confiscate infringing books (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#503). This requires a court order, which of course there is not here. Amazon can no more do this unilaterally (in violation of their own TOS), then Borders can break into my house and take a physical book I purchased in good faith.
Moreover, in /practice/ the government would very rarely confiscate a single cheap stolen physical book purchased in good faith. And I can't recall any case of the government confiscating digital copies in this manner.
Finally, Amazon also confiscated notes and annotations (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1) which neither they nor any publisher owned and under no legal theory infringed copyrights. With a physical book the notes might be written directly on the pages. Here, there is no reason they had to confiscate the notes.
Tim:
Your analogy doesn't work. It wasn't a stolen book, it was a pirated book. You have to compare apples to apples: pirated print book to pirated digital book.
With a pirated print book, the copyright holders will shut down the publisher, but will not hunt down and retrieve every purchased copy sold. The pirate publisher is the one punished, not the end customer that bought the pirated product.
With the pirated Kindle book here, the copyright holder was able to get Amazon, the publisher, to stop issuing digital copies of the book. However, since the Amazon has remote control over the DRM product it sells, it was able to "unsell" every digital copy they had sold.
With a printed book, one can have near 100% certainty that once a book is bought and in one's possession, it's your possession forever, not subject to any forced recall. With DRM material, there's no such assurance.
Jay:
the difference between pirated and stolen is semantic--it's a distinction we've created to deal with the messy present reality. I don't think many creators of intellectual capital would buy the idea that pirated and stolen are different. (Have you ever heard someone say, "He pirated my idea!"?)
In regard to what would happen with a copyright infringing or "pirated" print book, the difference, I would hazard is largely a question of plausible action. In the past, it was not plausible that every copy of a pirated/stolen work could be tracked down and reclaimed, and the infringer was then held responsible for the economic loss to the rights owner. In a digital world, tracking down the pirated goods is plausible and economically feasible.
Suffice it to say we're in a whole new world and Amazon's reaction is by no means beyond the pale, though practice may ultimately evolve in a different direction.
So...all ebooks are equal, some are just MORE equal?
So...all ebooks are equal, some are just MORE equal?
all commments are equal, but your comment was more equal than others.
Or I could go the library, and read the book for FREE.
I have to agree, and state that this reinforces my distaste for the Kindle. Not only am I not a fan of DRMd equipment or content, but being so closely tied to Amazon always made me nervous for exactly these reasons.
Did they eff up by doing this? Absolutely. They could have/should have warned customers first. They've proven they can reach into people's devices - why not pop up an alert saying "We're sorry. This book is pirated and we just found out. Here's a refund, now we need the book back, kthxbai." But to just wipe it from the system is absurd.
I also agree with the earlier sentiment about the value of promises and the value of paper. I think even the fact Amazon /built/ such a capability into the Kindle is indicative of the behind-the-scenes goings on of each device, and Amazon's usage/intent of the widespread distribution of it. I, personally, wouldn't trust Amazon not to go scanning Kindles for illegally downloaded books (i.e., find a checksum library of widely pirated PDFs or Ebook files, match with a content scan, then delete.) when prompted by overzealous and underprofiting writers and publishers guilds. Not kosher from where I sit. If I use a device, I don't want anyone reaching in and poking around what's on it. If I buy a hard drive, we wouldn't expect Western Digital to start sticking their nose into our computer and looking at reports about what's on it. I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy there. I'm curious if Amazon's TOS address that at all (i.e. "Users have none. Get over it.")
And furthermore, to Tim: I have to second the notion that a "pirated" song/book/application/etc is *not* theft, no matter what the RIAA/MPAA/Authors Guilds would have us believe. You write:
"In the past, it was not plausible that every copy of a pirated/stolen work could be tracked down and reclaimed, and the infringer was then held responsible for the economic loss to the rights owner."
But that's exactly the case: Economic loss. The economic loss is not loss of tangible funds. It's not theft out of a bank account of already-obtained money. It's "theft" of *potential* funds. The primary financial basis the RI/MP associations had against piracy was "This is everything we WOULD have made if they hadn't pirated it." which is a load of hogwash because it was all projections, nothing was to say everyone would have bought the music/movie/etc anyway, and a significant amount of record sales went up after people downloaded stuff anyway, proving people pirate content, then buy the CD/DVD.
If my roadside shop selling illegal DVDs that I duplicate gets busted, is it "theft" because I "stole" their potential profits? In the US I could/would be taken to court for copyright infringement and illegal distribution, etc etc. And part of that sentencing could result in my needing to repay whatever profits I made off of my knockoff DVDs. But I don't believe the final charges would include "theft" unless I'd physically stolen the DVDs and resold them, and since it was content that was duplicated, not stolen and passed off as my own. Certainly not Theft of Content.
This is, unfortunately, one of the legal gray areas our courts are still learning how to deal with. We're in an era the likes of which have never before been seen. Especially with Amazon having been charging people for these books.
For going by the letter of the law and contracts, Amazon violated their own TOS, conceivably a breach of contract. These were unforeseen circumstances, but customers had the right to expect their content remain on their devices until they chose to delete it, because Amazon told them they would. Amazon circumvented and/or superseded that right and took care of the nasty business of asking for it back quietly by /not/ asking, and probably hoping the mess would just go away.
A further argument could be made that Amazon was charging for pirated copyrighted material... Sure, they issued a refund, but shouldn't they have been verifying content before they sold it? Isn't selling pirated content illegal? Just food for thought.
So all in all ? I call BS. And again, this reinforces why I don't like tethered devices back to the OEMs. I've heard Apple has this capability with the iPhone... Yet another reason I'm not jumping on that bandwagon. Shame on Amazon, as far as I'm concerned.
What astounds me is why didn't those idiots replace the deleted texts with their own authorized texts instead of crediting the user's accounts. Are the authorized texts at a higher price?
As the owner of a piece of property, you do have the right to take it back if you can do so without violence and if the laws of your state allow you to do so. This is why repo men can take your car in the middle of the night if you forget to make the payments. Amazon's actions, while slightly unnerving do to their big-brother like reach, were perfectly reasonable and did not harm their customers in anyway except for some lost time.
IronCoconut:
I have absolutely no clue as to why you just tried to relate repossessing property that has a lien on it to mandatory recall of a paid-in-full product.
Matthew Flaschen:
Thank you for making the point I intended to make while at work today when I first read this article and it's comments. The government and duly appointed deputies of certain governmental agencies are capable of confiscating "stolen" merchandise as well as charging the buyer with varying degrees of criminal and civil crimes. However, it would be unprecedented for them to have admission from the peddler of stolen goods and attack the people whom they sold to, in good faith, while ignoring the business and/or individual who's responsibility it was ten fold to research and guarantee their products authenticity and legal compliance.