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.
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.
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?
While its tablet world topping pixel density, Tegra 2 silicon, and fresh to death OS certainly sound awesome, we had to get our grubby mitts on one to see if it's as good as its spec sheet would have us believe.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.
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?