Topic: The latest example of why I hate DRM

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

When Big Brother struck what books did they take?  1984 and Animal Farm.  It seems some purchases are more equal than others.

[knightstorm]

While I normally play devil's advocate in these DRM debates, this time I have to agree with you.  This crosses the line.

[toasty0]

Link to full article

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

When Big Brother struck what books did they take?  1984 and Animal Farm.  It seems some purchases are more equal than others.

Big Brother? I object to the inflammatory characterization of writers and their works or the inflammatory characterization of any artist trying to control their works.

[marstone]

Link to full article

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

When Big Brother struck what books did they take?  1984 and Animal Farm.  It seems some purchases are more equal than others.

Big Brother? I object to the inflammatory characterization of writers and their works or the inflammatory characterization of any artist trying to control their works.

They sold the work, people paid good money for it, then had a legal purchases taken away. Reversing a legal purchases is wrong.  Be like someone saying, hey you know that Guitar you bought, the "artist" that built it decieded you can't have it anymore. 

Does DRM stand for Digitally revokable media?

Of course this is one reason I only get real paper book, harder to take them away from me.  I have never liked the Kindle methology.

[Nemesis]

Big Brother? I object to the inflammatory characterization of writers and their works or the inflammatory characterization of any artist trying to control their works.

Big Brother in this instance = Amazon.

George Orwell had nothing to do with appropriating the paid for works.  Amazon should have negotiated to 1/ pay damages to the current copyright holder 2/ protect their customers.

[Dash Jones]

Link to full article

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.

When Big Brother struck what books did they take?  1984 and Animal Farm.  It seems some purchases are more equal than others.

Big Brother? I object to the inflammatory characterization of writers and their works or the inflammatory characterization of any artist trying to control their works.

George Orwell is dead.  How is he involved in this in any fashion.  In fact he's been dead over 50 years.  If they hadn't changed the copy right and trademark rules, or used the ones at his death, at this point I think his works may even have been public domaine (if they aren't that is).

I think it's pretty odd, if they had made a mistake at a normal booksellers and released a book early or when they weren't supposed to, they wouldn't have snuck into someone's house and stolen it back, even if they leave a check that's normally called...STEALING.

That is, if I go and take your car, even if I leave a check for how much I think it is worth to you (let's say I leave you a check for 5000...) it's still considered stealing.

Of course I suppose it isn't the same thing if it's as people stated, with the kindle you are just paying for access into the system, and not to actually own anything, in which case I would suppose it's more like paying to be part of a carpool in the morning and they just decide not to pick you up anymore or something like that.

Still, not the nicest thing, and could be considered questionable as you are stuck there trying to figure out how to get to work after you realize what they've done.

On a separate note...isn't DRM what Microsoft have and what many of the Movie makers want on Windows to check for pirated stuff...and Kindle is relying on something slightly different in their case?

[marstone]

from my understanding from how Kindle works is you pay a fee to have access to lots of stuff (newspapers, etc), but you can also buy books that are downloaded to your Kindle to read.  They keep a database of who bought what so you don't have to keep the copy on your Kindle (saving space) and can reload it whenever you want to read it.

But as I don't own one, and like paper in my hand, I am not for sure.

[Nemesis]

On a separate note...isn't DRM what Microsoft have and what many of the Movie makers want on Windows to check for pirated stuff...and Kindle is relying on something slightly different in their case?

DRM is not restricted to Microsoft. 

Bluray for example has a system whereby they can revoke your players "right" to play the disks of a specific provider.  You could for example insert a Paramount disk and find that machine will no longer play Paramount Bluray disks.  The only cure you have is to buy a new player, then have to do it again when it's rights to play some of your disks is revoked.  Apparently this happened recently with the WinDVD software.

[knightstorm]

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/07/27/daily58.html

A Michigan high-school student named Justin Gawronski is suing Amazon.com Inc. — claiming that when the online retailer recently deleted the George Orwell novel “1984” from his Kindle reader, it also caused his “copious notes” to be “rendered useless.”

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle, seeks class action status and unspecified damages. According to the lawsuit, Gawronski bought a 99-cent digital copy of “1984” for his Kindle 2 for a summer homework assignment and later saw it “vanish before his very eyes.” For more on a high-school student suing Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) in federal court, see TechFlash here.

[Pestalence_XC]

I still can't believe people are stupid enough to pay for stuff like this..

the book 1984.. Free download

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

the book Animal Farm

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79a/



Don't idiots know how to use a search engine..


Amazon is not violatin DRM.. basically the are saying don't use that crappy Ebook service, use a search engine.. and they refunded people their money for a work that is a free download..

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

for people above using an analogy about your car being stolen..


In this case your car was stolen, you were given your maney back from the purchase of that car.. and then when you took the time to go out to different car lots (search engine) you found that the car weas free all along.

Everyone Jumps on the DRM band wagon.. Guess what.. out of all the years of dealing with media on the internet.. I have yet to find anything DRM prevented me from viewing or listening to..

[Nemesis]

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

If it wasn't for the DRM Amazon could not have removed the books and caused the problem.  That makes it clearly a DRM issue.

[toasty0]

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

If it wasn't for the DRM Amazon could not have removed the books and caused the problem.  That makes it clearly a DRM issue.

Do not adjust your set. We control your horizontal and we control your vertical...

[Pestalence_XC]

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

If it wasn't for the DRM Amazon could not have removed the books and caused the problem.  That makes it clearly a DRM issue.

What I am trying to find out is how is it a DRM issue when the books are free to everyone with half a brain to use a search engine..

Amazon recalled the book through a service that people agreed to the terms of service before they used it.. People got their money back, which was solicitated most probably against the publishers Terms of Service, and the media that was paid for was recalled, most probably due to a violation of TOS , and as such Amason pulled the ill be gotten material back the only way they had legal recourse to do so.. however the harm is not present as people have their money back and the works have been free public access on the net for at least 7 years...

so you tell me.. is recalling and refunding a product that is free elsewhere a problem of DRM or is it being used to protect consumers (not just Publishers / Artists)?

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

If it wasn't for the DRM Amazon could not have removed the books and caused the problem.  That makes it clearly a DRM issue.

Do not adjust your set. We control your horizontal and we control your vertical...

Outer Limits, not twilight zone.......sorry Rod...

[toasty0]

DRM has absolutely nothing to do with this..

If it wasn't for the DRM Amazon could not have removed the books and caused the problem.  That makes it clearly a DRM issue.

Do not adjust your set. We control your horizontal and we control your vertical...

Outer Limits, not twilight zone.......sorry Rod...

Meh! Conceptually the same.

[Sirgod]

Well, I have to give Amazon some credit, they actually did an apology that sounds and reads like one, So unlike other apologies we should have got from other entities.

This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

With deep apology to our customers, Jeff Bezos Founder & CEO Amazon.com

------------------

Stephen

[Nemesis]

What I am trying to find out is how is it a DRM issue when the books are free to everyone with half a brain to use a search engine..

The fact that the same book may have been available (Legally?  Maybe not) does not change the fact that DRM was used.

Blaming the victim is a discredited legal theory Pestalance.  "Look at how she was dressed, she was ASKING to be raped".   It just doesn't fly with the courts or with me. 

[toasty0]

What I am trying to find out is how is it a DRM issue when the books are free to everyone with half a brain to use a search engine..

The fact that the same book may have been available (Legally?  Maybe not) does not change the fact that DRM was used.

Blaming the victim is a discredited legal theory Pestalance.  "Look at how she was dressed, she was ASKING to be raped".   It just doesn't fly with the courts or with me.

On the other hand Nem, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law either...and stupidity is not a protected state of mind either.

[Nemesis]

On the other hand Nem, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law either...and stupidity is not a protected state of mind either.

What law did those who had their books taken away without notice break?  Note they did not violate copyright.

[Sirgod]

Theft for one.

This should have went to court, to set a precedent. EVEN, if someone had stolen property in there home, The police still have to get a warrant etc. etc. there are protocols to follow with the justice system.

Amazon basically did an OJ.

Stephen