Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion [LWN.net]

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Jul 25, 2009 20:03 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Parent article: Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

"""
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.
"""

So, the customers got their books back (minus any notes)... or not?

to post comments

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Jul 26, 2009 0:35 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

They can't since Amazon didn't have the rights to distribute them in the first place. The problem is not that they had to recall the books but the manner in which they did it.

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Jul 26, 2009 2:34 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

So the "apology" really comes under the heading of "talk is cheap". If the books had been paper, would agents of Amazon have shown up on their customers' doorsteps to forcibly reclaim the books?

I wonder what Orwell would have made of this 'great literature as a service' world? In fact, I think we can make a good guess.

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Jul 31, 2009 23:53 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

If the books had been paper, would agents of Amazon have shown up on their customers' doorsteps to forcibly reclaim the books?

By forcibly, you mean somehow bodily prevailing upon the occupant of the house? That's not analogous to what Amazon did with the Kindle. Well, maybe some people think hacking into a computer is morally equivalent to mugging someone -- virtual violence -- and for them it would be analogous. But I think most people draw a distinction.

I'm reminded of laws that say a person may legally right a wrong if he can do it "peaceably." For example, if you steal my book and I see it sitting on your desk when you aren't there, I can "steal" it back, but if you're holding it, I can't take it from your hands.

I see electronically deleting files behind the user's back as peaceable.

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Jul 26, 2009 5:32 UTC (Sun) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (1 responses)

The New York Times article says that there are authorised copies of 1984 available for the Kindle, so Amazon obviously is able to sell copies of the book.

So they certainly could have replaced the copies if they wanted to, or even used that relationship to pay the required royalties for the copies they already sold.

It also isn't clear that deleting copies after the fact makes much of a difference: Amazon still participated in copyright infringement, so the copyright holder could still go after them.

Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos apologizes for Kindle ebook deletion

Posted Aug 1, 2009 0:02 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

It also isn't clear that deleting copies after the fact makes much of a difference: Amazon still participated in copyright infringement, so the copyright holder could still go after them.

Right. Some of those customers already read the book. The damage is done. There's a lot we're not being told about what transpired -- seems to me the copyright holder would have demanded royalties from the beginning and Amazon would have written a check instead of messing around with file deletions and refunds.