Amazon clarifies Kindle book-deletion policy, can still delete books
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 1st 2009 2:27PM
posted October 1st 2009 2:27PM
Well, sort of -- saying they'll delete content at the behest of judicial or regulatory decree pretty much leaves the door open to exactly the same situation as the 1984 debacle, just a couple procedural steps down the line and with less blame placed on Amazon. If you'll recall, 1984 was deleted after the publisher was sued for not having the proper rights, and Amazon took the proactive step of deleting the content -- and although Amazon won't do that on its own anymore, all it takes now is one strongly-worded motion before a sympathetic judge and we're back at square one. That's pretty troubling -- no judge can order a physical bookseller to come into your house and retrieve a book they've sold you, and saying things are different for the Kindle raises some interesting questions about what Amazon thinks "ownership" means. We'll see how this one plays out in practice, though -- we're hoping Amazon never has to pull that switch again.
Seeing as more and more media items (movies, games, etc) are moving to digital distribution, they need to come up with a concrete law that spells out what our ownership rights are for digital merchandise. Hopefully sooner rather than later...
They have: it's called the DMCA and basically, you don't own shit.
Digital distribution basically means you down own a copy, but are licensing it from a publisher. Even worse is the fact that you can't sell the copy to anyone else after you no longer wish to own it. The publisher has full control of what you can and can't do with your media.
And because of this, I shy away from buying digital media whenever possible.
If Amazon keep doing this, Kindle will never take off.
Once again: Amazon does not delete the content from your Kindle or your computer hard drive (where you're more than welcome to download every book you buy, just like a virtual bookshelf). They delete content from the ONLINE archive, and when you sync via Whispernet, if a book isn't there then it doesn't re-sync to the Kindle.
You're still perfectly capable of syncing via USB and reading any book you ever buy from Amazon if you were smart enough to use the "download to computer" option on the Kindle management page of your account.
If you buy a paper book in a retail store, you bring it home and put it on your bookshelf, right?
So when you buy a Kindle edition from Amazon, why wouldn't you "bring it home" to your PC and save it on your hard drive ("bookshelf") or some other media?
Downloading a Kindle book and then relying on the Kindle online archive is like buying a book at Barnes & Noble and then leaving it in the store, on a shelf, and expecting it to be there when you come back.
There's nothing stopping you from downloading to PC, and in fact, it's a standard and recommended feature of Kindle content. There's no secret to it. Just click "download to computer" and bang! It's on your hard drive and Amazon can NEVER, EVER "delete" it.
Shame on Engadget for fanning the flames of disinformation. Amazon doesn't delete content you've purchased if it's on your local device; They delete content from their own servers. If you never re-sync, you never lose anything that has been removed from their servers. If you keep a local copy on a hard drive or other media, you're in complete control of your content--- JUST LIKE ANY NORMAL BOOK.
Alan Sugar?
who cares. just download 1984 for free from project gutenberg in australia.
@zerocorpse
I don't own a Kindle, but if what you say is true (and it sounds like it should be true), then I am pretty shocked at how misinformed I was by the Engadget population over this Kindle fiasco. The panning Kindle received by the majority of people on Engadget pretty much convinced me that the Kindle was trash. However, if you can backup your purchases to a computer hard drive, that should be standard operating procedure for any downloaded book, as well as backing up the hard drive regularly. There is no excuse for crying about access to a book being pulled.
However, I could be overreacting here, and maybe there are issues with having a permanent copy, and dealing with your backed up content after Amazon drops the hammer.
All I know for certain is I'll do a lot more reading about products from multiple sources before being so dead against it.
"no judge can order a physical bookseller to come into your house and retrieve a book they've sold you"
Perfectly worded....
I'd like to see them try.
They could always hire OJ.
why would a judge have sold me a book in the first place?
And Amazon can't come into your computer and delete books you've purchased and downloaded.
Seriously, people need to stop lying about this in order to act like Amazon is deleting their content. They aren't. They're deleting content on THEIR end only. The stuff you download is safe and sound on your computer, and they can't block it, delete it, or prevent you from reading it any time you want.
Perhaps people should know WTF they're talking about before sounding off on this issue.
A judge can order the police for the retrieval of stolen goods, but can't because they dont' know where you live or where the goods are.
@ZeroCorpse: You need to RTFA on what happened. People purchased the book from their Kindle over the Kindle's WhisperNet only to wake up one morning and the book is no longer on their Kindle because Amazon deleted it remotely. Deleted it _remotely on their Kindle_. Get it now?
No. YOU need to understand how the fricking Kindle works. These people had their Kindle set to Wireless On mode, and it automatically syncs daily if you do that (it also uses more battery power, which is why you shouldn't leave it on).
If they had it set to Wireless Off mode, then the book would still be there.
Either way, it was not deleted; It failed to sync from the Amazon server. There is a difference.
And finally, even in those cases where they lost the book, they:
A. Got their money back (plus $20 later) in EVERY case.
B. Could have turned off Wireless and synced their *local backup* via USB.
C. Could have used their refund to simply purchase the legitimate copy.
D. Could have downloaded a copy of either book from Project Gutenberg for free.
So simply put, NOBODY had any reason or right to bitch about this. There's absolutely no reason any Kindle owner wouldn't be able to have their purchased content saved on their computer where Amazon can't touch it.
What I see in these threads is a lot of non-Kindle owners screaming about the DRM sky falling, and they have no fricking clue how the Kindle works, or how ridiculous it is to get upset over Amazon recalling a book from their server. It's just a lot of misinformed FUD.
Amazon doesn't like un-persons un-reading un-books.
simple, dont buy kindle
Exactly my point. Get an EZReader (just a few news down the screen), and you won't be bothered with these problems...
That's one of the reasons I got my Sony reader.
Yes WiFi would be nice, but not at the risk of having my books deleted when I'm reading them.
Dammit.
JUST LIKE the Sony, you can download books to your hard drive and Amazon will not, can not, and shall not delete them.
There is NO DIFFERENCE in how the Sony and Kindle handle USB sync. If I have content on my hard drive, I can transfer it to Kindle. And the Kindle management account lets you download every book you ever buy in Kindle edition to your hard drive.
yes, exactly. Thank you. I completely support this notion. Do not buy the kindle. There are other ebook readers and many more coming out soon. Google still has a high stake in ebooks and is undoubtedly going to support a e-reader. They have an investment in cool-er. This device supports PDF, EPUB, FB2, RTF, TXT, HTML, PRC, JPG AND MP3. Sounds better to me and cost 250. Kindle only won in my opinion cause people are lazy of how they acquire books. Its really hard to take a few minutes plug in the device and sync it with a book you bought through your computer. No, you MUST have access to the bookstore, all day, all night, everywhere you go. Ridiculous.
This is why I only buy physical books.
Sorry, but the entire premise of this post is simply incorrect. If I stole a box of books (or any other kind of property) and then sold those books to people unknowingly, a judge most certainly could order the return of the books, and could do so even if the buyers were "innocent" and did not know that they were receiving stolen goods. And, yes, a judge could order that they be retrieved from your home--but it would be the police retrieving the stolen goods. There is nothing wrong with what amazon thinks "ownership" means. There is something very wrong with what you think "ownership" means. Amazon understands basic principles of property law; you don't.
Right, the police. Amazon isn't the police. Also, intellectual property laws aren't like physical property laws -- the "stolen" books in your example aren't "copied" books, and I've never heard of a case where the police came and destroyed copies that had been sold.
You're missing the point. First, it is the court that orders the police to retrieve the stolen property; and it is a court that would, hypothetically, order Amazon to delete the "stolen" e-books. Your complaint is isn't with Amazon; it is with the hypothetical court that Amazon is legally bound to obey. Second, whether the stolen physical books are retrieved or the stolen e-books are "destroyed" (to use your word) is irrelevant. In either case, the "innocent" purchaser no longer has the use of the ill-begotten property.
Your argument reduces to the same idiotic argument that is often made about electronic intellectual property: because it is easier to steal, it shouldn't be taken as seriously. Luckily, that's not the law.
Again, I've never heard of court ordering anyone to retrieve and destroy a wrongfully copied work from an innocent purchaser. You're right about stolen physical property, but that's not at all the same. They haven't stolen, they've copied. Different rules apply.
With intellectual property, copying is stealing. That's the point. The producer is supposed to be compensated for the value of what they put into the product, and the purchaser is supposed to pay for the value of what they got out of it. The only difference is that with physical property, there are substantial additional external costs (e.g., the costs of printing the books) but with electronic intellectual property those costs are relatively minor.
Your analogy is quite suitable for stolen property. But, this books aren't. They are just copies of stolen works which was sold by innocent sellers and bought by innocent buyers. Judge can't do anything other than sellers to stop selling. Buyers have no obligation whatsoever to return it. Have you ever heard of police showing up some buyers' doorstep to confiscate counterfeit products that they have bought?
There are a host of laws and social mores protecting people from having the police come into their homes and confiscate their property. That doesn't meant that they can't do it, just that there are a lot of laws and judicial expectations that place a fairly heavy burden on police or prosecutors to show that such a confiscation is necessary. When the grounds are shifted to electronic media, where Amazon has only to press a button to confiscate your property, the sorts of protections people have come to expect will clearly be diminished. Yes, in both cases it is judges who are issuing the orders, but there is a big difference between having a bunch of grown men break down your door and physically grab your stuff, and Amazon pressing a button. The latter is so much easier, it cannot possibly offer the same protections -- and even if it possibly could, it certainly doesn't as it currently stands.
We all understand "the point": intellectual property has rights that are analogous, but not identical to, physical property rights. In fact, that is what we object to: on the one hand, the law as it currently stands takes the analogy too far, inasmuch as it treats illegal copies as if they were physically stolen objects; and on the other hand, the analogy is not taken far enough, inasmuch as the uses of electronic media are constrained and controlled in a manner much more restrictive than would ever be tolerated for physical possessions.
Instead, what we want is a reversal of these two factors: that the individual's right to their legally purchased electronic media be as strong as they are for physical media (ie, no viewing, reselling, or copying restrictions; no confiscation without physically coming to the house like any other sort of confiscation); and conversely, that the penalties for illegal copying acknowledge that an illegal copy is very different from an physically stolen object.
We get the point -- we just object to it.
Tom, last time i checked Amazon is selling its books for money. So publishers are well compensated for what they have invested. Just like hard copy, customers paid for what its worth and they have the right to keep it; not taken away later on because of authors plagiarism. If the rightful owner of the work wants to be compensated, he/she should be dealt with plagiarist and publisher, not innocent buyers like us.
From Tom in NJ: Repost
Goopy, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. That is not the law, and yes a judge can order that. [And, we're not talking about counterfeit items. A digital "copy" of a file is as much an original as the "original."]
@Goopy
True but that publisher is being compensated for something he does not own, but i agree with JD completely digital media at some point will have to be respected as strongly as physical media. I want them to one notify me of what they are doing and two provide me with the papers on the grounds of their action with my money back. Just because they have access to my device does not mean they should have the rights to alter whats inside of it, its like having the key to my house because you sold me it and then afterwards taking out the doors because they were illegally made(idk).
If you receive a stolen item do the police have the option to retrieve the stolen items? Because if we want it to be on the same level as physical media then all rules are applied.
Ryujin, that's why I said the rightful owner of the work should deal with publisher and plagiarist to be compensated. Ask for restitution base on the number of copies being sold. Don't confiscate from innocent buyers without their consent.
@goopy
Yes I have heard of the possibility that police will raid your home if they found out you bought stolen goods. A few years back a guy bought a series of hard drives that were stolen and when the actually thief got caught he told the police who he sold it to and they police confiscated the hard drives. It wasn't easy to get all the hard drives, but I would never necessarily put something past the police cause it will give them extra work. Paper work sucks but the thrill of catching someone, getting something back, a possible adventure is something that even paperwork can't stop.
Ryujin, you missed the whole point of my analogy. What I'm saying is that counterfeit goods are just like plagiarist works; it is stolen idea. It has no originality whatsoever. If there is no precedence of confiscating countefeit goods from buyers why should digital copy of plagiarist's work be confiscated.
that's the whole DRM problem, for DVD/CD/Book I can sell it or give it to who ever I want. for digital content it seems that there's not really a good way to I can 'transfer', 'sell' my copy like a physical item. I think digital content should be a lot cheaper than physical one as they cost less to produce but that's definitely not the case yet.
This is what you get when you agree to lease/rent media instead of actually owning.
You know if a private person sold stolen/illegal merchandise they'd be charged with it. A company, like Amazon does it and its "Oops, no harm, right?" and punts the suck to the customer.
It's not leasing or renting.
I pay for a book in Kindle edition.
I download the book via Wispernet to my Kindle.
I download the book via Internet to my computer's hard drive, where I can copy to a CD and store it.
If Amazon removes the book from their servers, the Kindle won't sync it via Wispernet... But I still have my copy of my book that I purchased, safe and ready to sync, on CD.
This isn't rocket science people. EVERY SINGLE BOOK for Kindle can be saved locally on whatever media you desire. You aren't expected to rely on Amazon's servers. You don't have to rely on Amazon's servers. You'd be stupid to rely on Amazon's servers.
Fuck you, ZeroCorpse.
As pissed off as I was about the 1984 debacle, they honestly don't have any control if a judge orders them to do this. Amazon isn't in control of the laws, and they can't just tell the courts to piss off.
Re-read the article, but stop at 'pro-active step' and look up what that means,
Also, even a judge can be stopped by a counter-suit and a higher court incidentally, or if it's clearly against the laws and constitution, or if applying a law breaks another law in a way not allowed, ie it is possible that amazon is not allowed to erase books without a specific court order in writing, and without alerting the person who owns that kindle, just like even when a cop has a warrant he has to take certain things in account and produce documentation to the parties that have a right to see them and/or ask for them and ID himself and inform the DA and what have you.
And in regards to the DMCA, that also requires some proof and a proper notice.
True.. If a judge orders it, you would need to be on pretty firm ground legally to risk disobeying. But that isn't really the problem.
With the Orwell books, Amazon didn't get told to remove them by a judge, and from other reading, it seems Amazon were not given books by someone with no rights to distribute them..
Essentially, Amazon stole the books, sold them, and stole them back form the people who they sold them to. If you want to use emotive language..
If you get burgled, you do not have any authority to force your way into someone else's home and retrieve you belongings if they are there. The Police do, but you do not. And Amazon does not.
This is what the case was about. Amazon making the rules up as they go along. No "poor Amazon" being the innocent victim of greedy customers and unscrupulous publishers trying to make things right.
Simply put, use DRM infected media, and you are a mug. Buy a device that not only relies on DRM, but enforces the DRM on behalf of the owner, and you are too stupid to be allowed on the net without a responsible adult to make sure you dont hurt yourself.
The disappointing part is that they require a court case to let people know what exactly they are paying for, and under what conditions it is removed from their possession.
Agreed. The "strongly-worded motion before a sympathetic judge" applies to many many legal situations; not just this one.
At the very least, update the software so the user can read their notes (and don't delete notes along with the book).
Agreed that the concept of ownership needs to change, but why do people assume the paradigm of ownership doesn't change given the way that media/content is distributed and available has changed. For the argument "a judge couldn't tell a bookstore to go into your house and take a book back" as has been described earlier, a judge can order the police to impound stolen materials even if the buyer was unaware the merchandise was stolen. Further, in that scenario there would likely be no compensation to such a buyer.
Cops could certainly not just storm into your house, in the unlikely scenario that they would have an order to take such merchandise, they would have to give you a chance to do so freely and without entering your premises surely, unless fascism made even more leaps recently.
I doubt the "stolen goods" analogy really applies in this situation. The entire thing seems more like a civil matter than a criminal one. Best thing I see happening here is a civil action against Amazon and the publisher for selling something they don't have the rights to, and that's that. Why would the police get involved? Nothing's been burglarized. Maybe (well, definitely) the publisher that put it on Amazon could get in trouble for putting something up they didn't have the right to, but none of this seems to rise to the criminal level, just a civil one.
But I am surprised that Amazon went the next step and remotely deleted the book from their customers Kindles. I mean, they may have had the right to try to fix this error, but any customer that his happened to is going to think it feels more like a violation, like stealing. The transaction was complete, money and goods traded hands, only to have the entire thing un-done after the fact. That's gotta feel kinda crappy. And the worst part is that customers who bought these books are just innocent bystanders to the whole mess. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to feel like they should get to keep the book. After all, Amazon should have been more careful about what they put on the Marketplace to begin with, and the publisher should never have tried to make money off it in the first place. Keeping those books on those Kindles and losing that revenue seems like a good enough punishment for Amazon for letting this happen on their watch.
That's just me, though.
It's a start..get a court order first...
and then first email the customers who purchased it letting them know the situation and that on a specific date they will remove it from their kindle account.
don't just delete it w/o letting the user know first and giving them some time..
I'm no lawyer, but a judge ordering Amazon to remotely delete somebody's book sounds like a big 4th amendment no-no.
In the case of physical media (paper books), a judge has to be presented with probable cause (or "plain view" or "exigent circumstances" etc) before a warrant can be issued (Criminal Procedure 101). Even after seizing them legally, items have to be returned to their owner after the law is done with them (i.e. the case is over, etc, and assuming the item seized is not contraband).
To have a judge declare that your e-book must be deleted from your Kindle sounds like it violates the 4th amendment requirements for seizures. It would require a warrant application and all the buckets of fun that go along with that (or in this case, perhaps a subpoena) and even then, the subject of the search would have to have the item returned afterward. How would that be done in the case of an e-book? The court would have to force Amazon to return the book afterwards, presumably by no later than a set date and time?
We hold this standard for physical media, and to my knowledge, courts have applied the standard equally to digital media as well (the ruling in US v Comprehensive Drug Testing seems based on the premise that digital records should be treated as closely to paper records as possible)
Nilay, sounds like a law article from you is due regarding this issue! I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
That's a really interesting point -- I hadn't even thought about that angle. I was thinking strictly along copyright lines.
It's not just Amazon who has to reconsider ownership -- we all do. A world in which we're all signing licenses just to read books is far from ideal.