What is Bezos apologizing for?
andreyf.tumblr.com
andreyf.tumblr.com
But it's copyright laws that allowed this to happen legally. How should Amazon decide which legal rights publishers get to keep and which rights they don't? And are corporations the right entity to decide what is moral and what isn't? Would you blame chain manufacturers for slavery, or the laws which make slavery legal?
This whole thing goes to show how DRM can negatively effect a consumer
But DRM is just the mechanism for enforcing what people perceive as immoral laws. If books were removed once-bought in a way without DRM, surely people wouldn't be any less outraged, would they?
Legally, you can write a contract that says Amazon has the right to break into your house and repossess books they've sold you that they no longer have the rights to. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good business.
Could you cite the law which would make such a contract enforceable?
Amazon is using DRM and EULAs to accomplish things that people would not normally expect when thinking about a book. Amazon wants people to think of the things they "buy" on their kindle as books, but this incident demonstrates that they are not.
Amazon is (probably) legally within their rights to do what they did according to the kindle contract, but that doesn't mean it's good for business.
Just because people expect to have certain rights, doesn't mean they do. If people expect to have rights (to keep copyrighted material indefinitely) that the law of the land takes away from them, the problem isn't with the mechanism through which that law is implemented, it's with the law itself!
...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it. A remote self-wipe mechanisms which turned all of the pages of a book blank at the request of the copyright holder would be just as legal.
The EPIC FAIL here is in Washington, with a minor FAIL in Amazon's PR, and nowhere else.
In cases like this, the 'best' course of action is just for Amazon to eat the costs since it was their mistake and not to punish their customers for it. Instead of just pulling the book and refunding them their money, Amazon could have sent them a print copy of 1984 and/or given them some store credit for the trouble.
Even if there was no reason for Bezos to apologize for action of pulling the book, the fact that the book was being sold illegally and Amazon had to inconvenience its customers in trying to rectify the situation demands an apology. Well 'demands' from a customer service perspective... Amazon is welcome to treat its customer-base like crap, but they'll have to deal with the consequences.
I think it's telling that Bezos didn't really put much content into the apology as to which parts -- specifically -- he is apologizing for. He could just be apologizing that the company didn't do more to compensate the affected customers per my suggestion above.
{edit} Furthermore, you say '...because breaking in is illegal, not because copyright law prohibits it,' but so far as I know copyright law does _not_ grant rights-holders the ability to repossess illegally produced copies from unsuspecting purchasers. And the way you state this is rather disingenuous. You seem to be implying that copyright-holders can take the book back from you, it's just that the 'breaking and entering' part is illegal, so they have to use some other means. {/edit}
IANAL, but it would seem Amazon's law team disagrees...
No. We pay people in congress to decide what is legal, not what is moral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence#Legal_positivists
What probably should have been done (and would have been done, if it weren't for DRM/TOS) is that the book be removed from Amazon. Rather than to remove all the infringed copies right from under the noses of Kindle owners and essentially make them realize what exactly they signed up for when they got a Kindle.
but even past that, I am sure if amazon pushed hard enough / paid some money out then they would have been able to convince the publishers to allow the bought books to, stay bought
Great question - a question that would start a debate about the validity of copyright law, a debate which goes back centuries, and a debate where I can see both sides. But nobody is having this debate - they seem to be just taking one side, the side opposite the one hundreds of years legal scholars have taken.
if amazon pushed hard enough / paid some money out then they would have been able to convince the publishers to allow the bought books to, stay bought
Absolutely, they could also push hard enough/pay enough money and only allow material onto the Kindle if copyright owners allow customers to make copies and derivative works of their books. But why should they?
but even so, 1. I dont see what the length of time to start reading has to do with anything.
2. why should they? because they are a company who needs to serve their customers interests or they will go out of business, thats a pretty compelling reason in my opinion.
Well, in this case, they have two sets of customers - publishers and readers. Congress debated and decided that authors have certain rights - the right to sell copyrighted work with protection from copying, production of derivative works, performance, etc.
In particular, it includes the right to withdraw sold books.
How exactly should Amazon decide which of these rights are "moral" or "immoral", and take them away from one set of customers for the sake of the perceived rights of another set.
you seem to be confusing permissible with law with the right way for a company to act, whay they did may have been legal, but it was very very obviously wrong, they understand that, everyone else does.
changing the laws to be somewhat sensible would obviously be a better solution, but amazon doesnt have that luxury, so they should strive to be making the best judgement decisions they can.
Remote content-kill is such a dangerous and abuse-prone capability that even if it is a 'tidy' way to undo a previous mistake, it still shouldn't be used.
The apology indicates Bezos at least at some level understands that.
They've lost my business over this, that's certain.