Why Amazon pulled 1984 off users' Kindles | Hacker News Reader

Why Amazon pulled 1984 off users' Kindles

informationweek.com

12 pointsandreyf23 comments

From the article:

Amazon says that that the books in question were added to its catalog using the company's self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. And it says it will no longer delete books in this manner.

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.

"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."

I would prefer "We are changing our systems so that in the future we can not remove books from customers' devices in any circumstances."

I'd prefer "We are adjusting our software in such a way that it is impossible for us to remove books from our customers' devices".

I don't know that I'd trust the statement after the text-to-speech functionality adjustments on some titles, but it would be a start.

Hey, it's software with compulsory updates via an uncontrollable backchannel. I was furious when I first read about this situation, despite not owning a Kindle (for this precise reason), but I understand the position that Amazon was in.

Hopefully they vet their third parties better, or hopefully copyright law changes in such a way that it is actually possible to vet copyright owners better. Or maybe we just lose the classics because it's too difficult to figure out which heir or organization owns the intellectual property they didn't produce.

If true, this is poor customer relations - they should have said that upfront, rather than just implying that the publisher changed their minds. And really, they should have just compensated the publisher and left the customers alone, since it was their mistake, not the customers'.

This is fucking scary. No one ever considers that this kind of thing is possible, or doesn't believe that anyone would let it happen. Sure, the deletion was fairly innocent this time, but it does not bode well for the future.

FWIW, I keep the wireless on my Kindle off unless I need it on for some purpose. The battery lasts forever that way, and Amazon can't delete my stuff either.

1986? Is that a sequel to 1984 that I'm not aware of?

There's an old Sinclair Spectrum game called 1994 - ten years after. I don't think it has much to do with the novel 1984 though.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/1994-ten-years-aft...

There's a new 'Natural Intelligence' technology doing the rounds. It transforms the string "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (the real book title) into a number, then adds an off-by-two error (superior to the off-by-one error achievable with A.I.)

Who cares? Honestly, does it matter? If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok, no prob, I wouldn't want a stolen car! Thanks!" Of course not.

Amazon should pay back the cost of the book AND give free access to a legal version to anyone who bought the other one.

I think it would be nice of them, though I don't think it's quite as imperative as you suggest.

Amazon needs to have a method of preventing people from illegally selling books they have no rights to.

In my mind, nothing is more imperative than customer service.

And Amazon usually agrees. I wouldn't be surprised if they take a similar approach here.

I just don't like the suggestion that the customer is entitled to both the book and a refund at once.

I didn't say the customer was entitled to it. I said Amazon should offer it.

Whoops! In that case I misread.

If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok..."?

In point of fact, you'd say nothing at all. You'd hire a lawyer to speak for you. Because you're at very serious risk of being charged with felonious possession of stolen property:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-proper...

Note the last sentence:

A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner.

So, from what I can tell, even if you are found to be completely innocent of any crime, when it turns out that your car is stolen property the police will still come and take it away very suddenly without asking your permission, and they won't give you anything in return. That's exactly how it works.

I presume you're then free to sue the shady used-car dealer who sold it to you. But if that dealer turns out to be bankrupt because he already spent all your money on crack, I believe you are out of luck.

This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)

"This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)"

Precisely. It's not a stolen car, it's a technicality of overly complex copyright law that resulted in a bunch of paying customers having something removed from a device that they thought was as safe as their bookshelf.

Scale is important here. If I purchased a ten dollar book from Barnes and Noble that was later determined to be part of a hijacking of a delivery truck, they wouldn't go through the trouble. Paper is cheep, books are stolen and you'll sell more.

On one hand you have the scale of distribution that is much greater than what could be attained by jacking a delivery truck. On the other hand you have a pile of customers that have just discovered that they don't actually have any guarantees that the things they purchased on their Kindle are going to continue to be there when they wake up in the morning.

I think when technology makes certain laws enforceable, it's missing the point to complain about the technology (as people have been doing).

In fact due to an odd lacuna in the law inherited from English common law, if someone in the business of selling cars (say, a used car dealer) sells one to you, that car cannot be repossessed (although the used car dealer is liable for the cash amount of the car). This is precisely to protect consumers, who can thus reasonably expect that if they buy an X from someone who deals in X, they are fine.

This does not, of course, apply to buying Xs from people not in the business of selling Xs. If your garbageman offers you a deal on a car, that car can be repossessed.

You assume (incorrectly) that my issue is with points of fact. My issue is with points of common sense and what should happen. It's not your fault you bought a stolen car or a stolen book. It's the sellers fault. It should be their responsibility to make it right. I don't care in the slightest how it actually is.

But once you've decided on what should be (let's call that B), wouldn't it make sense to figure out what is (let's call that A), and then figure out a way to get from A to B?

Off-topic: your comment made my night, it reminds me so much of my own reasoning once :)

The situation here is entirely within Amazon's control. All they have to do to get to B is do it.

Equilibrium anyone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com