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.
THEY DO NOT DELETE IT FROM YOUR KINDLE OR YOUR LOCAL HARD DRIVE!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, people. Stop commenting if you don't know WTF you're talking about.
They delete the book from the Amazon Online Archive, which is THEIR server, and you are essentially renting the space from them. If they remove the book from their end, then it's not there to re-sync when you use Whispernet.
But you STILL own the book, and it's STILL on your home computer's hard drive, or wherever else you saved it (CD, DVD, Flash, etc.). Amazon can not and does not delete content from your local hard drive.
The book is there in your home, just like any book is safe on your bookshelf. You can re-sync via USB, copy, paste, move, and back it up a thousand times if you want. It is YOUR BOOK, and Amazon does not come into your computer and delete ANYTHING.
They ONLY delete from their OWN servers.
First of all, calm down. There's no need to get worked up over this. We're just having a discussion. You can join in it if you want, but please be respectful.
Secondly, Amazon themselves admitted to remotely "removing" the books from customers' Kindles:
From Amazon Customer Service:
"The Kindle edition books Animal Farm by George Orwell ... & Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell ... were removed from the Kindle store and are no longer available for purchase. When this occurred, your purchases were automatically refunded..."
And this is a quote from Amazon's Drew Herdener, Director of Communications:
"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. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."
Now, I don't have a Kindle myself, so I didn't experience this issue firsthand, but it seems pretty reasonable to conclude from those quotes (both from Engadget's original post on the subject) that Amazon remotely removed the book from customers' devices (the second quote even promises they won't do it again).
Now sure, if you copy data to a device that's not internet-connected like a memory card, then of course it's out of reach for remote deletion. But Kindles are always connected as long as they're getting a signal from Whispernet/Sprint, and it sounds like Kindles have a remote deletion function slightly similar to, say, the Palm Pre or other smartphones.
So, please be more respectful before you give an all-caps rant that "you don't know what you're talking about". I like to contribute to discussions just like you do, and every so often I think I've got well-thought-out and worthwhile comments to share that others might find interesting, even if you think I'm way off base. And if you do, by all means, say so, but make sure you leave good reasons for thinking so and do so in a respectable way. Otherwise, you just come off as mean-spirited, and nobody likes that.
The "removal" was only due to people syncing with the server. Don't sync with the server, and you don't have your Kindle trying to match what's on the server. Amazon removed the book from people's online archives, and the sync process caused it not to be present when the sync was over. Technically, sure, that's "removal", but it's not specific, targeted deletion and it *is* dependent on the Kindle's WiFi being turned on by the owner.
And again, everyone is using the analogy of a company coming into your house and taking their books back, and that's just plain wrong. You can download and save your books. It's a standard feature, and it's not hidden. It's simple, and the DRM doesn't stop a backup from working on your Kindle if you sync via USB while the wireless is turned off.
A better analogy, if you must stick to the notion that the books were "removed" from Kindles, would be if you went to Borders and bought a book, and they kept a copy of it there in a box with your name on it for you to read whenever you want, but you also get to take a copy home and put it on your bookshelf. If they remove the copy from your box in the store, you still have the one you bought. That's what happened here. People are whining because the store stopped storing the book for them; But they should still have had the book in their own collection. Anyone relying solely on Amazon's online archive is kind of a fool.
My frustration is in the fact that so many people are spitting out completely false characterizations of the situation when they don't own a Kindle, have never used a Kindle or the Kindle store, and have had no contact with Amazon's Kindle customer service... It's unfair, and it's making a judgment based on misinformation, at best.
Amazon has been nothing but great to me. The Kindle has been a completely good experience, and Amazon made it clear to me *from the start* that every book I purchase can be downloaded for local archival purposes. There's no "deleting" going on because Amazon has no way to remove items from wherever it is I store them. Removal at *their* level, in *their* servers has happened, but that doesn't stop me from reading the book anyway.
This whole topic upsets me, because it's based on sloppy journalism and a lot of "Chicken Little" behavior. Sorry if that bugs you, or anyone else here, but letting a company that has been great to me (and most other Kindle owners) get trashed by people who don't tell the whole story isn't my idea of good journalism. I rarely get into brand loyalty, but as far as customer service on the Kindle goes, Amazon has been doing a lot of things right, and they deserve not to be railroaded by hyperbolic writers who conveniently never mention that the books in question were, like any other Kindle edition, always eligible for direct download to buyers' computer and were never truly in danger of disappearing forever if the buyer didn't wish it so.
If that's mean-spirited, then so be it. I happen to think it's more mean-spirited for everyone to pile on without being privy to all the details.
But then, this is the Internet; Knee-jerk reactions from the peanut gallery are kind of the bread & butter of most blogs. The more posts, the better the ad revenue-- Right?
Honestly, if such a case arises and a judge rules that Amazon did not have the right to distribute a certain book, Amazon is in the unique position to fix this mistake at no real harm to the customer. They would get their money back.
Figure out some way to make sure you're not also deleting the person's notes for their high school paper - which was the real damage done in the previous case anyway - and as long as you're reimbursing them, I really don't see a problem.
I'm allllll about consumer's rights, but this is a policy that will likely never be utilized, and even if it is, it is at no true harm to the customer, ultimately, and Amazon has used it's unique position to protect LEGITIMATE copyrights.
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."]
This is why we need an open-source ebook reader with physically disconnectable wifi or cellular modules to prevent this. This makes ye old "book burnings" significantly easier. A free society needs free media.
I guess book burnings of the 21st century involve computer geeks sitting around a bonfire, all pressing "delete" simultaneously (or should I say e-book burnings).
:D
Even more reason that people who buy Kindles are moron. Do not buy it because Oprah told you to buy it.
Make a backup to your PC often. They remove it, we restore it back. Take the matter into your own hand, don't rely on "law" or kindness of greedy capitalists to protect you.
How to do it? Just drag the content of of the folder Documents to your folder on the PC.
All I hear here is ranting and raving about Amazon being honest about when they will now delete books off of kindles (Really, do you guys honestly think that should they have a policy stating that they will absolutely not delete books that they would disobey a court order?)
Let's start hearing some stuff about how Amazon could realistically meet your guys demands (and no, refusing to delete a book even if it had a virus built in it isn't realistic, and if they could have sold their books without drm, they probably would have done so like their mp3 store.
Anyway, this is pretty much a lot of teeth grinding over nothing. It's unlikely that the judiciary would ever order the deletion of books (especially given that as folks are quick to point out, that cases of the judiciary ordering the recall of paper books are exceedingly rare), and if they did Amazon can appeal it up to the supreme court giving folks plenty of time to move their notes onto paper, which they probably should be doing in the first place.
wait... why is steven seagal watching us?
aww you guys went a whole page of comments without blaming Apple.
I'm so proud.
This is why I won't buy a Kindle. That and the fact that PDFs aren't natively supported on it
I haven't seen this answered anywhere, but Amazon does REFUND the cost of the book it removed, right?
yes
And in fact, in this case everyone got the purchase price plus $30 back for their trouble.
And still people are whining about it. Would Sony ever give people $30 back for a goof? Would Apple? Would Microsoft? I think Amazon has more than made up for it.
(Note: I incorrectly said $20 in other posts. It was, in fact, $30 for each person or the return of all their 1984 notes. Most people took the $30, as you can well imagine.)
Amazon missed some point in their evil scheme:
a) put a nice device in the market, where every user can do whatever they are pleased to.
b) create a monopoly.
c) then turn evil.
But apparently Amazon jumped from a) to c) without realize that they don't have the monopoly for such devices, neither they are enough popular or to have a clear leadership in this market.
Apple did it for Iphone.
It doesn't support pdf's. That's epic fail. I've tried the conversion thing, not up to par at all. No numbered pages either? lol. Its not even about paper anymore. Its about keeping the features I have with the current paper technology. I need something that takes paper technology and its features and translates them into an electronic device with even more features.
The other format not supported is a comic book format i've always wanted. I usually take the comic book jpgs and make them into a pdf, but guess what, it doesn't support pdf's. fail. Thats even going pass the complete lack of support for color. Seriously.
I give the kindle a 4/10. 4 points for the cool leather case I can put a paper book in and it'll hold my place in it when i wanna start reading it again later.
Why did you convert the jpegs to pdf. Why didn't you just copy the jpegs to the Kindle where you can view them directly?
If comic books are your only interest, then the Kindle's not really targeted at you. No offense meant. I love comic books, but that's no what my Kindle is used for.
But the Kindle does support converted PDFs. Calibre is a free program, and it does a great job of converting books (the kinds with mostly text) to MOBI format, which is Kindle-friendly.
The DX handles PDFs, but I don't own one so I can't say how good it would be for comics. I'd imagine it would still be pretty bad, since it's e-ink and there's no reliable color e-ink yet.
You bring up a valid point, though. If Marvel or DC would just get behind a low-cost, color tablet device with wireless delivery that displays their comic books, they could sell a ton of subscriptions. I'd be all for a device like that as long as they keep the subscription fees lower than printed comics. After all, I can't really collect digital versions of comic books for any real future value, can I?
Goopy:
That simply isn't the law. Imagine that I break into your home and steal the computer that you are using to view this web page. You call the police, report it stolen, and give them the serial number. I then sell it to your next-door neighbor who has no idea that it's stolen property. The next day, you visit your neighbor and see your stolen computer. You call the police and they come and check the the serial number and confirm that its yours. Who gets the computer, you or you neighbor?
Under your theory, the neighbor gets it because he was an "innocent" purchaser. That might have some merit in theory, but it simply isn't the law and hasn't been the law in the history of english common law. This is for good reason. You can't sell something you don't own. The law is that you get your computer back, and your neighbor has a claim against me.
Kindle books are still DRMed though, aren't they? Like, I could download it to my computer hard drive and burn it to a CD and whatever so they can't delete it off my Kindle, but what's the point? Can you even do anything with it then other than putting it back on a Kindle?
I think I read someone hacked it, but I'm not sure.
Yeah, probably not. And once you put it back on your Kindle, gone.
Sorry, I should mention that the "probably not" comment was for the original poster, not you, Wwhat. : )
No, sorry. You're wrong with that "once you put it back on your Kindle, gone" statement.
Turn off wireless, sync via USB, and the book will stay there forever. You don't need to use the wireless, ever. That's completely optional. If you did have this copy of 1984, and you restored it, and then turned on wireless and lost it again, you could simply turn off wireless and sync via USB again. It's still on your hard drive, and the DRM doesn't "turn off" access to it.
It does only work on a Kindle, but some people have found ways to un-DRM Kindle books (or so the rumor goes, anyway). Either way, complaining about that is like complaining that PS3 games won't work on your XBox. They're Kindle books, and nobody who owns a Kindle is under the impression that they're some universal format. We know we need a Kindle (or the Kindle App for iPhone/iPod touch) to read them.
Seems like its going to get quite hairy the next time Amazon takes another book offline. This sounds completely legal compared to a normal bookstore which can add and remove books as it pleases. The only difference is that a bookstore can't take the book back from you after you have purchased the copy. And apparently they are able to if the student mentioned above had his copy removed from his Kindle. Imagine if Apple went down this same path and pull purchased music from your iTunes library and iPod after a recording studio lawsuit. Now, from what I know about the Kindle, you should backup your content to your computer, but you are able to download books without it. So your purchased content is on your device; now why did Amazon think it was legal to remove the book 1984 from all the kindles with a purchased copy? Thats very upsetting.
"saying things are different for the Kindle raises some interesting questions about what Amazon thinks 'ownership' means."
Not sure about Amazon, but here's what it means to me: no Kindle, no problem.
Real smart Amazon... annoy customers right before Apple comes out with their tablet (and they will....eventually), real bright move.
In this blog driven world we live in with 24 hour news, if you get even the slightest inkling that something your company is doing is pissing people off then continuing the policy is really dumb, because the consumer really will walk away.
If Apple comes out with a low power consumption, light, COLOR tablet that will have a touch screen where you can "flip" the pages of the New York Times or a magazine or comic book, with the ease of ITunes.... I'll "flip" my kindle onto ebay and put the money towards the Apple tablet.
I live in NYC and I'd much rather have a company with a track record in electronics, a store on 5th avenue thats open 24 hours three subway stops away and did I mention? IN FRIGGIN COLOR!!!
dumb dumbs.
Reply to this if you dare engage me in a battle of wits.
I'll believe an Apple tablet when I see it. So far the only tablet Mac is a third-party mod, and it's expensive, horrible on batteries, and limited in use.
But you're right; An Apple table might rock. Someday. When they decide the market's ready for it and Steve's feeling just right about it and the planets align properly. It will be the best device of its kind... Which is why Apple's not releasing it yet. It's not the best yet, and they won't let it out of the labs until it's better than you'd expect.
Honestly, if Apple put out an iPod touch that was Kindle-sized, I'd get it. No question... Unless it was ridiculously expensive.
I love my Kindle 2, but the iPod touch is a tough act to beat in my book.