# Amazon pulled a book from my Kindle library ... what in the world?



## BeccaLT

I received an email today from Amazon saying they had processed my refund for .99 for Animal Farm by Mobi. Since I never asked for a refund and actually want to keep that book,  I went on to manage my content on Amazon.com and while I could view my original order for the book, it did not show up in my digital collection. 

I'm at work and can't check my Kindle, but now I am concerned that I won't be able to pull it out of my archived items! This makes me wonder if I should keep all books on my device so Amazon can't snatch them back. I usually archive right after I read them.

Has anyone had this happen or heard of it happening? Why would Amazon do this - imagine if someone from Barnes and Nobles walked into your house, took a book you had bought from them and left the money for it on your bookshelf.


----------



## drenee

Have you called Kindle CS and asked why a refund was received in the first place?  I think that's what I would want to know.
deb


----------



## marianneg

The only time I have heard of this was when the book was a pirated version.


----------



## BeccaLT

I emailed them - but haven't gotten a response yet. I'm assuming it's because it is no longer available in Kindle format at all.


----------



## drenee

You looked the book up on Amazon and it's not available anywhere?  Hmm, sounds like marianner is right, might have been suspicious.
deb


----------



## gir

Happened to me, too, with 1984. I backed it up to my computer, thankfully.


----------



## BeccaLT

I bought the copy from Mobi because I thought they were reputable ... still, I think I was owed more of an explanation from Amazon than an out-of-the blue email and disappearing content.

I am backing up all my other purchases right now.


----------



## telracs

My first thought also was that it was an illegal copy (they pulled all of the Ayn Rand stuff at one point), so they had to pull it and refund you, since you weren't at fault.


----------



## gir

Talked to CS and they didn't see a pending refund on their side, nor could he explain why the item was no longer in the store. They're to get back to me in the next 24 hours, he thinks maybe it was an error on their part.


----------



## L.Canton

It's quite obviously a glitch of some sort, and it's good that they are dealing with it promptly. Amazon is usually pretty good about that.


----------



## MamaProfCrash

Or there were serious formatting issues.


----------



## wmgordon

The book is in the public domain in Australia. The Gutenberg Australia website has it for free.


----------



## telracs

Public domain in Australia does not mean it's public domain in the US and it is therefore not legal for it to be available in the US.


----------



## m&amp;m

I also got this same e-mail about 1984 by George Orwell-  I didn't give it a second thought because I've read it.  Now that you mention Animal Farm, I wonder if it is an Orwell rights issue?


----------



## cleee

There is a post about this on Amazon's Kindle discussion page:

Here is the CS reply:
"The Kindle edition books Animal Farm by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) & Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) were removed from the Kindle store and are no longer available for purchase. When this occured, your purchases were automatically refunded. You can still locate the books in the Kindle store, but each has a status of not yet available. Although a rarity, publishers can decide to pull their content from the Kindle store. "


----------



## MAGreen

I don't like the sound of that...being able to pull the books out of your paid for and legal library with or without a refund doesn't sound right. Once it's sold, they no longer own the rights to that copy, or at least, that's what I thought.


----------



## legalbs2

cleee said:


> There is a post about this on Amazon's Kindle discussion page:
> 
> Here is the CS reply:
> "The Kindle edition books Animal Farm by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) & Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) were removed from the Kindle store and are no longer available for purchase. When this occured, your purchases were automatically refunded. You can still locate the books in the Kindle store, but each has a status of not yet available. Although a rarity, publishers can decide to pull their content from the Kindle store. "


From now on, I will copy every purchased book onto my computer for safe keeping. Then, when I move it to Archive upon reading it, I will always be able to get it back should Amazon delete or lose it.

I do feel Amazon should have made the above statement available to those of you who had your books snatched back.


----------



## BeccaLT

Here was the reply I got from Amazon to my email. Man am I ticked. No explanation other than a "problem." Gee - thanks. The irony that they went in and removed a George Orwell book from my archived items like it was never there is just too great. 1984 anyone?

"Amazon.com Customer Service" <[email protected]> to "[email protected]"
6:07pm

Hello,

We recently discovered a problem with a Kindle book that you have purchased.

We have processed a refund to the payment method used to purchase "Animal Farm by George Orwell". The next time the wireless is activated on your device "Animal Farm" will be removed. If you are not in a wireless coverage area, please connect your device to a computer using your USB cable and delete the file from the documents folder.

We apologize for any inconvenience the removal of this title may cause.

Thank you for choosing Amazon Kindle

Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:

Best regards,

Keerthi
Amazon.com
We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company

---- Original message: ----
------
07/16/09 12:00:01
Your Name:xxxx
Order Id: D01-5814389-44578xx
Comments:I received an email today from Amazon saying they had processed my refund for .99 for Animal Farm by Mobi. Since I never asked for a refund and actually want to keep that book, I went on to manage my content on Amazon.com and while I could view my original order for the book, it did not show up in my digital collection.

I'm at work and can't check my Kindle, but now I am concerned that I won't be able to pull it out of my archived items. This makes me wonder if I should keep all books on my device so Amazon can't snatch them back. I usually archive right after I read them. Why would Amazon do this - imagine if someone from Barnes and Nobles walked into your house, took a book you had bought from them and left the money for it on your bookshelf. Not cool at all - please explain.
---------------


----------



## Spiritwind 1

Amazon pulled New Moon and Eclipse from my list and refunded me the money. I think these were illegal copies and they were not good. They just did this in the last hour.


----------



## legalbs2

Looks like once you receive Amazon's email regarding a book they have deleted from your Kindle, you should not legally copy it to your computer.  Ha Ha Ha.  If you in good faith purchased the book from Amazon, then Amazon is in trouble not you.  Keep a copy.  No one needs to know.


----------



## Greg Banks

MAGreen said:


> I don't like the sound of that...being able to pull the books out of your paid for and legal library with or without a refund doesn't sound right. Once it's sold, they no longer own the rights to that copy, or at least, that's what I thought.


There is no "with or without refund" as far as I'm concerned. If they do not provide refunds in these cases, there would be "heck" to pay from Amazon's customers. I'd think that this was a rare case where legal rights to the works have been disputed, possibly by the Orwell estate, and so Amazon had to pull the books until the rights issues are straightened out. Otherwise I don't see why Amazon would take back the previously sold ebooks.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

George Orwell died in 1950, so his books are not yet in the public domain in the U.S.  Mobi is a reputable provider of well-formatted public domain books, but it looks like they goofed on this one.  

Mobi was right to pull the books, and Amazon was right to follow-up and do what they did.  They have to follow the copyright laws.


----------



## BeccaLT

I'm not arguing that Amazon shouldn't follow copyright laws, for goodness sake. Yes, authors (and their estates) deserve payment for their work.

But deleting things without notice and with no explanation (could care less about the refund, btw) is really sorry customer service if you ask me. And no matter what, some company deleting my property without my permission is a bit creepy.


----------



## Greg Banks

Would've been nice if, instead of coming off as not owing buyers an explanation, they had been extremely apologetic. But then again, I imagine that in this case they are assigning blame to Mobi (and rightfully so), and don't want to give any appearance of being responsible. Customers still deserve a more forthcoming explanation, however.


----------



## CS

Feedbooks used to have both 1984 and Animal Farm up, but they were pulled at some point (long before today). So I bet it is a rights issue. MobileReference generally tends to sell public domain works, and they were probably selling the Orwell books without the permission of the Estate. I am not suggesting that MobileReference was knowingly trying to scam anyone; they probably assumed the two books were in the public domain because they were freely available on Feedbooks at one point.


----------



## Ignatius

I got an email about my complete works of George Orwell being refunded, as well. And I was planning on reading _1984_ next! Looks like I won't be turning my wireless on for a few days.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

MAGreen said:


> I don't like the sound of that...being able to pull the books out of your paid for and legal library with or without a refund doesn't sound right. Once it's sold, they no longer own the rights to that copy, or at least, that's what I thought.


I bought four ebooks from Amazon in July of 2008 that were pulled from the listings several weeks later. They are still on my K1. There was apparently some rights issues as the publisher of the ebook removed them from their own site also, and referred me to Random House for info on future releases. Amazon didn't delete them from the archives or my Kindle... or refund the purchase price.

It's confusing. 

Mike


----------



## harfner

Wow . . . a totally new wrinkle in book buying and reading.


----------



## MAGreen

Greg Banks said:


> There is no "with or without refund" as far as I'm concerned. If they do not provide refunds in these cases, there would be "heck" to pay from Amazon's customers. I'd think that this was a rare case where legal rights to the works have been disputed, possibly by the Orwell estate, and so Amazon had to pull the books until the rights issues are straightened out. Otherwise I don't see why Amazon would take back the previously sold ebooks.


Of course they would be required to refund a book that has been pulled, I wasn't suggesting otherwise, only that even with the refund it is disturbing. However, it is only disturbing if it falls under the legal part of my statement. If it's a bootleg, then more power to them, pull it and make sure things are set right. My complaint would only be if it was a legal copy and the publisher decided to pull it without cause.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I would guess it was an illegal copy to start with....

Betsy


----------



## Sporadic

jmiked said:


> I bought four ebooks from Amazon in July of 2008 that were pulled from the listings several weeks later. They are still on my K1. There was apparently some rights issues as the publisher of the ebook removed them from their own site also, and referred me to Random House for info on future releases. Amazon didn't delete them from the archives or my Kindle... or refund the purchase price.
> 
> It's confusing.
> 
> Mike


The only time they remove books and issue refunds is if the book was pulled due to piracy/copyright infringement.

Everything else should still be in your Manage Your Kindle even if they pulled it for purchase (like what happened with The Stand by Stephen King for a few months and Boyd Morrison's books)


----------



## r0b0d0c

MAGreen said:


> I don't like the sound of that...being able to pull the books out of your paid for and legal library with or without a refund doesn't sound right. Once it's sold, they no longer own the rights to that copy, or at least, that's what I thought.


Agreed! Once I've bought and paid for an item from Amazon, it should no longer be theirs to confiscate, especially without my permission. I bought this book collection in good faith, at a reasonable price, and if now, 2 months later, Amazon has "seller's regret," that's not my problem. It's one thing to advise me to erase a book and offer to refund my purchase price, but this is analogous to Amazon selling me a hard cover book and then later sending someone to my home to steal it back after learning that they erred in offering it for sale in the first place! Ridiculous!!!

I'll also be backing up ALL Kindle books to my computer, INCLUDING those legally purchased from Amazon, who've PROMISED that they'd keep backup copies of all purchased books. Not only have they reneged on that pledge, but they've essentially invaded MY PRIVATE KINDLE to remove MY books, WITHOUT MY ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION.

Ironic that my George Orwell collection has now been stolen back by "Big Brother," isn't it?


----------



## CegAbq

I am backing everything up, as I type, to a 500 Gb portable hard drive! Yikes.


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> Agreed! Once I've bought and paid for an item from Amazon, it should no longer be theirs to confiscate, especially without my permission. I bought this book collection in good faith, at a reasonable price, and if now, 2 months later, Amazon has "seller's regret," that's not my problem. It's one thing to advise me to erase a book and offer to refund my purchase price, but this is analogous to Amazon selling me a hard cover book and then later sending someone to my home to steal it back after learning that they erred in offering it for sale in the first place! Ridiculous!!!
> 
> I'll also be backing up ALL Kindle books to my computer, INCLUDING those legally purchased from Amazon, who've PROMISED that they'd keep backup copies of all purchased books. Not only have they reneged on that pledge, but they've essentially invaded MY PRIVATE KINDLE to remove MY books, WITHOUT MY ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION.
> 
> Ironic that my George Orwell collection has now been stolen back by "Big Brother," isn't it?


It's not seller's regret and any analogy to physical products will be horribly flawed.

Mobi didn't have the right to sell 1984 or Animal Farm and when Amazon found that out, they pulled the book and refunded everybody's money.

3000+ books are uploaded a day to the Kindle store and anybody can upload material. Some unauthorized things are going to slip through.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> It's not seller's regret and any analogy to physical products will be horribly flawed.
> 
> Mobi didn't have the right to sell 1984 or Animal Farm and when Amazon found that out, they pulled the book and refunded everybody's money.
> 
> 3000+ books are uploaded a day to the Kindle store and anybody can upload material. Some unauthorized things are going to slip through.


Yes it is analogous - Amazon offered a product, which I legally purchased, and had in my possession, until their electronic burglar stole it from me. Amazon has NO right to unilaterally go into my Kindle's memory and delete something without either my knowledge or permission! And their generic e-mail notice gives NO reason or justification for their doing so! YOU don't know that "Mobi didn't have the right to sell" ANY of these, since Amazon gives no notice of this - it's just gone without explanation.

For anyone interested, MobileRead offers ALL of these Orwell books yet, using their "Mobipocket Guide" for Kindle, to download, for free, from their website. You just have to download them individually, rather than in a nice "Works" collection.

As I said before, Amazon OWES its customers an explanation. And rather than "confiscating" purchased books, their actions should be limited to refunding customers and ADVISING them to delete an item that they later learn was improperly offered for sale.


----------



## telracs

Please remember that this is all still a work in progress for amazon.  They apparently cannot scrutinize everything that some posts for kindle sale. So they are not responsible if we purchase something that was put up for sale illegally.    Whatever the people at mobi are doing is their business and not amazon's.  Unless and until they put it for sale on amazon.  Then amazon has the right to pull something that should not be there when (and that's the operative word, when), they are informed.  You purchased something that should not have been for sale.  You did nothing wrong, but now you have to give it back.  And amazon is giving you back your money.  If you want to talk big brother, wait until everything has to go through a screening process. Then we'll see what you get.


----------



## ricky

r0b0d0c said:


> Ironic that my George Orwell collection has now been stolen back by "Big Brother," isn't it?


You would like Orwell's essays, which are available from Amazon for the Kindle. He was an incredible observer of human action and nature, and culture. They are not futuristic at all, just observations of the world around him. His essay on the Atomic Bomb is incredible... and How the Poor Die, and just, well, all of them...


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> Yes it is analogous - Amazon offered a product, which I legally purchased, and had in my possession, until their electronic burglar stole it from me. Amazon has NO right to unilaterally go into my Kindle's memory and delete something without either my knowledge or permission! And their generic e-mail notice gives NO reason or justification for their doing so! YOU don't know that "Mobi didn't have the right to sell" ANY of these, since Amazon gives no notice of this - it's just gone without explanation.
> 
> For anyone interested, MobileRead offers ALL of these Orwell books yet, using their "Mobipocket Guide" for Kindle, to download, for free, from their website. You just have to download them individually, rather than in a nice "Works" collection.
> 
> As I said before, Amazon OWES its customers an explanation. And rather than "confiscating" purchased books, their actions should be limited to refunding customers and ADVISING them to delete an item that they later learn was improperly offered for sale.


Yes, I do know what happened. The only time Amazon pulls books in this manner and refunds money is in copyright infringement cases. It happened when somebody uploaded Ayn Rand's books a few weeks ago and the Twilight $0.99 bootlegs earlier today.

Books pulled for other reasons don't get refunded and are still accessible through "Manage Your Kindle". This has happened with Stephen King's The Stand for a few months and Boyd Morrison's books.

1984 and Animal Farm *are not* public domain in America yet. Mobi had no right to sell these books. Amazon realized this and pulled the books/refunded the money. This is a necessity since 3000+ books are uploaded to the Kindle store a day and anybody can upload a book.


----------



## telracs

r0b0d0c said:


> As I said before, Amazon OWES its customers an explanation. And rather than "confiscating" purchased books, their actions should be limited to refunding customers and ADVISING them to delete an item that they later learn was improperly offered for sale.


Sorry to disagree, but once amazon knows something is illegal, they can't just tell you it's illegal, they have to pull it from all the places they have access to. Since we allow amazon to keep our books in their archive, they have to pull them from there. If you have it on your computer, they can't access it. But the amazon archives are not owned by us, they are amazon's.


----------



## Annie

Spiritwind 1 said:


> Amazon pulled New Moon and Eclipse from my list and refunded me the money. I think these were illegal copies and they were not good. They just did this in the last hour.


They did that? I was about to go and buy them because I hate having to carry the hardback editions that I own. But now, I'm a little wary. It's still available for purchase though?


----------



## BeccaLT

Apologize all you want for Amazon's behavior, it doesn't change the fact that their method for dealing with books that are uploaded illegally (if that really is the case, I'll believe it when an official Amazon rep says so rather than self-appointed experts on a forum) is very poor customer service aimed more at a corporate CYA on their part than in making customers happy.

I would have been a lot less angry if I had gotten an explanation along with my refund and only slightly irritated if they had had explained the reason after I emailed them, which they did not. 

So, no, I don't feel for Amazon. Poor guys   - just so overwhelmed with it all - give me a break. They are a large for-profit corporation that can and does have the means to better police texts that are uploaded and to provide reasonable explanations to customers for their screw-up (yeah, yeah I know it's Mobi's fault - whatever).  Despite the love we have for our Kindle's, e-books are still a new format that people are nervous about, particularly because of proprietary DRM. Stuff like this just discourages mass adoption and poor handling of it just makes it worse.


----------



## r0b0d0c

scarlet said:


> Sorry to disagree, but once amazon knows something is illegal, they can't just tell you it's illegal, they have to pull it from all the places they have access to. Since we allow amazon to keep our books in their archive, they have to pull them from there. If you have it on your computer, they can't access it. But the amazon archives are not owned by us, they are amazon's.


Although deleting a book from "my" archive might be necessary for them to do, it gives NO justification from Amazon going into MY Kindle, in MY home, and stealing said book back. NO ONE should have authorization to delete ANYTHING from my Kindle without my permission and advance knowledge. PERIOD! If Amazon wants to advise me to delete it myself, that's fine, that's their responsibility.

This particular book action isn't even what bothers me (I can just download free versions directly from MobileRead, right now, if I want - Orwell's stuff is all there!). I'm peeved that ANYONE, Amazon or otherwise, can unilaterally delete ANYTHING on my private Kindle. Electronic fubars happen, all the time. What's to prevent an ACCIDENTAL deletion of something, maybe something important? If they advise me to delete it, and I delete it, that's different.

I didn't "rent" a Kindle from Amazon. The books on it weren't "loaned" from Amazon. These are MY possessions, legally purchased and in my possession.


----------



## r0b0d0c

BeccaLT said:


> Apologize all you want for Amazon's behavior, it doesn't change the fact that their method for dealing with books that are uploaded illegally (if that really is the case, I'll believe it when an official Amazon rep says so rather than self-appointed experts on a forum) is very poor customer service aimed more at a corporate CYA on their part than in making customers happy.
> 
> I would have been a lot less angry if I had gotten an explanation along with my refund and only slightly irritated if they had had explained the reason after I emailed them, which they did not.
> 
> So, no, I don't feel for Amazon. Poor guys  - just so overwhelmed with it all - give me a break. They are a large for-profit corporation that can and does have the means to better police texts that are uploaded and to provide reasonable explanations to customers for their screw-up (yeah, yeah I know it's Mobi's fault - whatever). Despite the love we have for our Kindle's, e-books are still a new format that people are nervous about, particularly because of proprietary DRM. Stuff like this just discourages mass adoption and poor handling of it just makes it worse.


Well said!


----------



## r0b0d0c

Annie said:


> They did that? I was about to go and buy them because I hate having to carry the hardback editions that I own. But now, I'm a little wary. It's still available for purchase though?


They were apparently available briefly this morning at a ridiculous $0.99 price. You can still buy all 4 books in the series at regular Amazon prices.


----------



## modkindle

why isn't it the equivalent of buying stolen property? that can be confiscated even if you did not know it was stolen. Granted Amazon isn't the police, but to me that seems analogous.


----------



## modkindle

Oh and I do think Amazon should have explained, I just don't think they were wrong to take them.


----------



## telracs

modkindle said:


> why isn't it the equivalent of buying stolen property? that can be confiscated even if you did not know it was stolen. Granted Amazon isn't the police, but to me that seems analogous.


That is exactly my point. It is analogous to buying stolen material. And amazon should not have to be responsible if you decide not to return it. And yes, you haven't rented your kindle, BUT every time you turn on your wireless you give them the right to take illegal items off of it. Don't like that, don't turn on your wireless, go through your USB. They can't take stuff off your computer, but the will take it out of your archive.


----------



## BeccaLT

This has gotten ridiculous - no one, I repeat no one - from Amazon has said these books were illegal copies. This is speculation by someone on this forum who I do not believe is an official spokesperson or customer support rep from Amazon.

I'm so irritated by this entire episode, that I actually went to Gutenberg, copied the text from Animal Farm, pdf'd it and sent it to my Kindle. Quick, someone report me to the Amazon book police! I have stolen property!  

The funny thing is that I have a beautiful illustrated copy of the book sitting on my shelf.


----------



## r0b0d0c

modkindle said:


> why isn't it the equivalent of buying stolen property? that can be confiscated even if you did not know it was stolen. Granted Amazon isn't the police, but to me that seems analogous.


Since NO rationale was given, "stolen" or not, no, it's not. And, as you pointed out, Amazon "isn't the police." Yet they've essentially broken into my home electronically and confiscated it, without my knowledge or consent.


----------



## r0b0d0c

scarlet said:


> BUT every time you turn on your wireless you give them the right to take illegal items off of it.


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! I have NEVER authorized that to occur, nor did Amazon notify me that they reserved that right!

Amazon "fan-boys" unite all you want, this is just .... plain ... wrong!


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> I didn't "rent" a Kindle from Amazon. The books on it weren't "loaned" from Amazon. These are MY possessions, legally purchased and in my possession.


Except in this case, you didn't legally purchase it since Mobi had no right to sell them. You basically purchased a bootleg. Amazon realized that, pulled the books and refunded the money. I doubt anything could go wrong since they are just flagging a file for deletion and not searching titles or anything crazy like that.

If you are in America, you also don't have any right downloading these titles (1984/Animal Farm) from Mobileread. THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN AMERICA!

Scarlet is right



scarlet said:


> That is exactly my point. It is analogous to buying stolen material. And amazon should not have to be responsible if you decide not to return it. And yes, you haven't rented your kindle, BUT every time you turn on your wireless you give them the right to take illegal items off of it. Don't like that, don't turn on your wireless, go through your USB. They can't take stuff off your computer, but the will take it out of your archive.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

BeccaLT said:


> This has gotten ridiculous - no one, I repeat no one - from Amazon has said these books were illegal copies. This is speculation by someone on this forum who I do not believe is an official spokesperson or customer support rep from Amazon.


This is a forum. We talk, we speculate, we pontificate, we prevaricate. It's what we do.


Betsy


----------



## modkindle

You are correct, I am making an assumption that the reason Amazon removed the books is they were illegal to sell. From what I have read on the boards today, that is probably a safe assumption to make. I stand by my original thought though that if the books are illegal to sell and they sold them they should have the right to remove them from your Kindle. The next couple years will be interesting as I am sure these issues will be challenged through the court system.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> Except in this case, you didn't legally purchase it since Mobi had no right to sell them. You basically purchased a bootleg. Amazon realized that, pulled the books and refunded the money. I doubt anything could go wrong since they are just flagging a file for deletion and not searching titles or anything crazy like that.
> 
> If you are in America, you also don't have any right downloading these titles (1984/Animal Farm) from Mobileread. THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN AMERICA!
> 
> Scarlet is right


Unless you are an official with Amazon, You, sir, have no more inside knowledge of how and why this happened than I do, so stop pretending you're in some superior position of knowledge here!

Amazon has given NO reason for this action. None. Nada. Zilch.

Oh, yeah: you and Scarlet are wrong.


----------



## BeccaLT

Well, since we're "speculating and pontificating," I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that some of the folks that just can't understand why some of us are so upset about having items vanish from our Kindles this have likely never, ever read an Orwell book. Just sayin'

You may return to the vociferous defense of everything Amazon does now ...


----------



## modkindle

Becca I have read both of those Orwell books. If I was really over concerned about this issue I would have purchased a Sony Reader.


----------



## telracs

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This is a forum. We talk, we speculate, we pontificate, we prevaricate. It's what we do.
> 
> 
> Betsy


This is going to be my last post on this thread.

Thank you Betsy. I admit I am talking, I am speculating, I probably am pontificating (I tend to talk that way). I don't feel I'm prevaricating, but someone else might.

I never put myself forward as an amazon employee or spokesperson or even a stockholder. If you read my posts, you'll see I'm clearly speaking from a buyer's point of view. A buyer who is offering her opinion of why amazon recalled the books and answering other peoples posts about their feelings about amazon invading their privacy.

But this is America, and everyone is entitle to their own thoughts. And I think I'll go read something on my kindle.

Oh, and as I was typing there was another answer to Betsy's post. Not that it matters, but I am strong proponent of civil liberties and privacy. However, if (and I stress if, since I don't KNOW that this is true), the items were downloaded to amazon, they have the right to pull them.


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> Unless you are an official with Amazon, You, sir, have no more inside knowledge of how and why this happened than I do, so stop pretending you're in some superior position of knowledge here!
> 
> Amazon has given NO reason for this action. None. Nada. Zilch.
> 
> Oh, yeah: you and Scarlet are wrong.


I don't have to be an employee of Amazon to realize that 1984/Animal Farm are not in the public domain in America and to realize that every time Amazon pulls a book in this manner (flagging it for deletion from Kindles) and refunding everybody's money, it is due to copyright infringement.



Sporadic said:


> *The only time Amazon pulls books in this manner and refunds money is in copyright infringement cases. It happened when somebody uploaded Ayn Rand's books a few weeks ago and the Twilight $0.99 bootlegs earlier today.
> 
> Books pulled for other reasons don't get refunded and are still accessible through "Manage Your Kindle". This has happened with Stephen King's The Stand for a few months and Boyd Morrison's books.*


----------



## Null

I came to the thread because my copy of "Works of George Orwell" was also slated for "refund."  It's nice to know I wasn't sleepwalking, or have an evil twin, or something.  Still, it would be good to have an idea of what's going on.  

Luckily I already back up my Kindle to an external hard drive.  A habit I shall follow more habitually.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> I don't have to be an employee of Amazon to realize that 1984/Animal Farm are not in the public domain in America and to realize that every time Amazon pulls a book in this manner (flagging it for deletion from Kindles) and refunding everybody's money, it is due to copywrite infringement.


As I'd stated before, your lack of inside knowledge of this process was just one of my objections to your posts. You are making assumptions based upon no more knowledge than anyone else in the public has - this title may have been pulled for copRIGHT violation, or for some other reason - none of us know, since Amazon keeps it a secret. You have your opinions, fine - knock yourself out. You wanna delete items from your Kindle, have at it!

If Amazon f'd up, and offered something for sale that they shouldn't have, that's tough. I don't even CARE if these books weren't public domain, I didn't download them for FREE, I PAID for them!

I can still buy 1984 from Amazon:


And Animal Farm is "available soon" (http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm/dp/B001O1O7QC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1247805573&sr=1-1) for Kindle.

Amazon had some problem with the Mobi Works collection. They don't tell us what it is. Fine. They wanna refund my money? Fine. My larger objection, also as previously stated, is that my Kindle, and all its contents, are mine alone, and I have given no one, Amazon or otherwise, permission to erase anything. I'm fine with them "advising" me that something on my Kindle shouldn't have been sold and that I "should delete it." From that point on, it's MY decision to make.


----------



## KindleMur

I had one removed but only after I had read it.  It was "An American Tragedy" by Theodore Dreiser.  I don't know for sure where I got it but Amazon did not send an email it just shows up in my Archived items as REMOVED --- DON'T BUY.  Go figure. I thought I was all alone evidently not.


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> As I'd stated before, your lack of inside knowledge of this process was just one of my objections to your posts. You are making assumptions based upon no more knowledge than anyone else in the public has - this title may have been pulled for copRIGHT violation, or for some other reason - none of us know, since Amazon keeps it a secret. You have your opinions, fine - knock yourself out. You wanna delete items from your Kindle, have at it!
> 
> If Amazon f'd up, and offered something for sale that they shouldn't have, that's tough. I don't even CARE if these books weren't public domain, I didn't download them for FREE, I PAID for them!
> 
> I can still buy 1984 from Amazon:
> 
> 
> And Animal Farm is "available soon" (http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm/dp/B001O1O7QC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1247805573&sr=1-1) for Kindle.
> 
> Amazon had some problem with the Mobi Works collection. They don't tell us what it is. Fine. They wanna refund my money? Fine. My larger objection, also as previously stated, is that my Kindle, and all its contents, are mine alone, and I have given no one, Amazon or otherwise, permission to erase anything. I'm fine with them "advising" me that something on my Kindle shouldn't have been sold and that I "should delete it." From that point on, it's MY decision to make.


Copyright is 95 years after publication in America. 1984 won't enter public domain until 2044 and Animal Farm until 2040. This is the reason why they aren't available through Project Gutenberg.

The first thing you linked is most likely another unauthorized version (Publisher: Download eBooks) and the second one is the official one from Everyman's Library (Random House's classics unit) http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/classics/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679420392

Amazon refunded you your money, it isn't like Amazon removed your copy and than told you to sit and spin. They made a mistake and they fixed it. Don't agree with it? Don't turn on your whispernet anymore or just pirate the books since you don't care about the rightful copyright owners getting their money.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Out of the books listed in the Mobi title, ONLY "Animal Farm" is NOT currently available to purchase for Kindle on Amazon, and THAT one is "coming soon." 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier, Coming Up For Air, Burmese Days, and Essays, are ALL available for download, MANY of them from Mobi:



ALL of the above links are to current Kindle books on Amazon. Some from Mobi, some from other publishers. So ..... could the aforementioned "Works" collection have been pulled ... for something .... OTHER! ..... than copright violation

Hmmmm ..... the plot thickens! (and "expert testimony" of some are tainted....)


----------



## KBoards Admin

Folks: cool it, please. This conversation is getting uncivil. Let's keep the personal zingers out of this, please.


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> ALL of the above links are to current Kindle books on Amazon. Some from Mobi, some from other publishers. So ..... could the aforementioned "Works" collection have been pulled ... for something .... OTHER! ..... than copright violation
> 
> Hmmmm ..... the plot thickens! (and "expert testimony" of some are tainted....)





> 1984 has become a symbol of the controversy surrounding intellectual property rights. Authors and their heirs (or in some cases multimedia publishers such as the Walt Disney Company) want to earn money on their property and strive for the expansion and enforcement of copyright laws covering works and even trademarks. On the other side advocates argue that creative arts should evolve to public property for free use after a period of time, the "Mickey to the Masses" bunch. The most notable in my regard is Michael Hart and the Gutenberg Project. Hart proposed that all literature be made freely available on the Internet. Project Gutenberg has succeeded in many way, digitizing and making many classics that are out of copyright available for download. All this is wonderful - unless you are an author or otherwise in the publishing industry and trying to make a living selling books.
> 
> US copyright laws provide protection of works written before 1978 renewable for 95 years, or until 2044 in this particular case. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyright for works created before 1978 from life of author plus 50 years to life plus 70. The global reach of the Internet in some cases has provided access to works published in countries other than the United States where the copyright has expired.


http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=13775

But whatever, let's just ignore all of my posts, disregard everything that has happened in the past and use poor analogies about how this is the same thing as Jeff Bezos breaking into your house and taking back your TV.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> Copywrite is 95 years after publication in America. 1984 won't enter public domain until 2044 and Animal Farm until 2040. This is the reason why they aren't available through Project Gutenberg.
> 
> The first thing you linked is most likely another unauthorized version (Publisher: Download eBooks) and the second one is the official one from Everyman's Library (Random House's classics unit) http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/classics/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679420392
> 
> Amazon refunded you your money, it isn't like Amazon removed your copy and than told you to sit and spin. They made a mistake and they fixed it. Don't agree with it? Don't turn on your whispernet anymore or just pirate the books since you don't care about the rightful copywrite owners getting their money.


So, now you've now assigned yourself to be the judge of "unauthorized versions" before they've even been pulled! Sweet!

I've never said that Orwell's titles are in public domain (I can use Wikipedia, too) The point is that ALL of the titles available in the Mobi "Works" collection are STILL available for individual download SALE! THUS, we don't know the reason this particular collection was pulled ("we" meaning neither you nor I!).



Sporadic said:


> http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=13775
> 
> But whatever, let's just ignore all of my posts, disregard everything that has happened in the past and use poor analogies about how this is the same thing as Jeff Bezos breaking into your house and taking back your TV.


Seeing the world through Bezos-colored glasses doesn't make this right. I'm a HUGE Kindle/Amazon/Bezos supporter, but this stinks, no matter how it's glazed over. Guess I'll take your offer to "ignore all of (your) posts," and go read something on my Kindle (if I still have some books left).

Have an Orwellian day!


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> So, now you've now assigned yourself to be the judge of "unauthorized versions" before they've even been pulled! Sweet!
> 
> I've never said that Orwell's titles are in public domain (I can use Wikipedia, too) The point is that ALL of the titles available in the Mobi "Works" collection are STILL available for individual download SALE! THUS, we don't know the reason this particular collection was pulled ("we" meaning neither you nor I!).
> 
> Seeing the world through Bezos-colored glasses doesn't make this right. I'm a HUGE Kindle/Amazon/Bezos supporter, but this stinks, no matter how it's glazed over. Guess I'll take your offer to "ignore all of (your) posts," and go read something on my Kindle (if I still have some books left).
> 
> Have an Orwellian day!




Do you really think that Publisher: Download eBooks owns the rights to 1984?

Ever think that Amazon only recieved a C&D letter for the titles removed which is why they were pulled while other offenders remain?

Excuse me for trying to use common sense and past experiences to figure out why something happened.


----------



## CS

I don't necessarily disagree with you, r0b0d0c, but someone posted a method above to get the books for free. It's a bit sketchy since these aren't public domain in the U.S., but how you feel about that is up to you.

Once something is public domain in any country, it should just be considered public domain all across the board IMO. We live in a global digital world now. The cat is out of the bag. Trying to enforce regional restrictions at this stage just isn't going to work.

For example, Gone With The Wind is public domain in Australia - but it's sold on Amazon. If it was sold by the rights holders, I'd have no problem purchasing it. But I don't think that's the case. Instead, I think a couple of regular people uploaded it to Amazon and are profiting from it when they had nothing to do with the book in the first place. I won't support that either. Just for the record, I don't have the public domain freebie.

In the case of MobileReference, even though I haven't purchased anything from them, I wouldn't mind doing so because they've at least put work into gathering tons of material into each of their classic compilations.


----------



## mlewis78

I don't like it either that Amazon can snatch a book back, refund or not.  If they didn't have the rights to sell me a paper book, but they did and then realized later that they shouldn't have, they're not getting it back.  Same with their mp3 digital music downloads.  They have no way to get the music back.  They're doing this because *they can* or they've been ordered to.  This brings to mind a company paying you via direct deposit and then taking it back -- they can (probably illegal for the company to do that though).


----------



## webhill

r0b0d0c said:


> I can still buy 1984 from Amazon:


OK, this is odd. The page for that version of 1984 says, in the description, "This work is in the public domain in Canada, Australia, and other countries. It may still be copyrighted in some countries. The user should determine whether the work is in the public domain in their own country before using it." Now, if I'm going to pay $3.18 for a book, why do I care if it's in the public domain?? I'm paying for it. So, obviously this must be a bootleg...right?


----------



## geko29

r0b0d0c said:


> If Amazon f'd up, and offered something for sale that they shouldn't have, that's tough. I don't even CARE if these books weren't public domain, I didn't download them for FREE, I PAID for them!


That's not a valid argument. If you buy something from someone who does not have the legal right to sell it to you (even if you are unaware of that fact), it can be taken from you WITHOUT compensation and without your consent. That is the law. It doesn't matter if you paid $0.99 or $100,000 for it. If the seller WANTS to refund your money, they certainly can, and it's good business practice to do so.


----------



## MAGreen

Actually, you can sue the seller to refund the money. And no police department would take the item without informing you of a reason, and the real owner CANNOT take it from you, it must be done with court order. However, in this case, I think the real complaint is simply that Amazon didn't give reason. I know they don't have to, but it would have been the right thing to do. A simple form email letting people know would have been nice, they did it for the Harry Potter books, why not this time?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I agree, MAGreen.  As a visual artist, I heartily support copyright holders, but if Amazon is pulling these books because they are illegal copies (and we don't know that for sure but I'd be willing to put my five bucks on it), they could definitely handle it better.  Hopefully they'll improve their procedures.

Sometimes I think I'm a broken record, but I'll say it again here.  If you have a problem with the way a company does business, the best place to complain about it is to the company.  Discussing it   in a third-party forum will not effect much of a change in business practices.  

Betsy


----------



## Spiritwind 1

Thank you Betsy!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Even though I do like to think EVERYONE reads KindleBoards and that we do control the world.



Betsy


----------



## Spiritwind 1

You are so right! We do control the world. . .especially in regards to the Kindle. LOL


----------



## easy peas

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This is a forum. We talk, we speculate, we pontificate, we prevaricate. It's what we do.
> 
> 
> Betsy


Yer darn tootin' it's what we do. 
And dang good we do it, too!


----------



## Guest

r0b0d0c said:


> Although deleting a book from "my" archive might be necessary for them to do, it gives NO justification from Amazon going into MY Kindle, in MY home, and stealing said book back. NO ONE should have authorization to delete ANYTHING from my Kindle without my permission and advance knowledge. PERIOD! If Amazon wants to advise me to delete it myself, that's fine, that's their responsibility.
> 
> This particular book action isn't even what bothers me (I can just download free versions directly from MobileRead, right now, if I want - Orwell's stuff is all there!). I'm peeved that ANYONE, Amazon or otherwise, can unilaterally delete ANYTHING on my private Kindle. Electronic fubars happen, all the time. What's to prevent an ACCIDENTAL deletion of something, maybe something important? If they advise me to delete it, and I delete it, that's different.
> 
> I didn't "rent" a Kindle from Amazon. The books on it weren't "loaned" from Amazon. These are MY possessions, legally purchased and in my possession.


Actually, the law says that if you are in receipt of stolen property, even if you are unaware it is stolen, the original owner has the right to take it back. It applies to physical items. It applies to virtual items.


----------



## Guest

I suppose this poses an interesting quandry in regards to reader access versus publisher access.  

One one hand, one could argue Amazon is completely responsible for what is on their site.  If they allow something to be sold that is in violation of copyright law, then the issue is on there end and they should not be allowed to delete pirated copies from individual Kindles because they screwed up.

However, if we accept this argument, then Amazon is put in a situation where it needs to more closely regulate what is made available for sale.  This could in fact destroy independent publishing and self-publishing offerings on the site.  Why?  Because in order for Amazon to protect itself, it would have to verify the legality of each item listed.  This would require dedicated employees to check EACH SUBMISSION and make sure they do no violate copyright law.  Further, Amazon would then have to require authors to PROVE they have the right to publish items.  How many self-published authors have official copies of their work on file with the U.S. Copyright office and can therefore produce legal proof that they have the right to publish it?  This institution of checks and balanced would prevent many authors from being able to publish to the Kindle, and delay the publication of other authors while Amazon checks their paperwork.

So on the other hand, we have how Amazon currently handles the situation.  They allow unlimited freedom to anyone to make something available on the Kindle.  Books appear almost instantly, allowing small presses and individual writers to share their work with Kindle readers.  However, this "honor system" can be abused.  Instead of restricting the freedom of writers to make their work available, and by extension limiting the choices available to Kindle readers, Amazon deleted pirated work after the fact when they are made aware of it.

So it boils down to, how do you want Amazon to deal with Kindle authors?  Should Amazon restrict publication to only "approved" authors that can legally prove they have the right to publish, or continue to offer the current level of freedom but on occassion have to refund a customer money because of a pirated work?

But you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

Sporadic said:


> The only time they remove books and issue refunds is if the book was pulled due to piracy/copyright infringement.


It looks as though this _was_ a copyright infringement issue and the ebook publisher didn't have the ebook rights.

Mike


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

easy peas said:


> Yer darn tootin' it's what we do.
> And dang good we do it, too!


Easy Peas, congrats on your first post! Be sure to wander over to Introductions and tell us a little bit about yourself!

Betsy


----------



## r0b0d0c

geko29 said:


> That's not a valid argument. If you buy something from someone who does not have the legal right to sell it to you (even if you are unaware of that fact), it can be taken from you WITHOUT compensation and without your consent. That is the law. It doesn't matter if you paid $0.99 or $100,000 for it. If the seller WANTS to refund your money, they certainly can, and it's good business practice to do so.


The SELLER certainly CANNOT come into your home (or Kindle in your home) and unilaterally take an item back, without your knowledge or consent. A court order, carried out by law enforcement is required, if there are "stolen" items. Amazon has neither court nor law enforcement powers.

All the Amazon apologists in the world, cannot make this right. And anyone who is comfortable with Amazon's ability to decide on their own to unilaterally delete something from your privately owned Kindle, without your permission or knowledge, has their head in the clouds. Give me ANY other real world example whereby you'd accept a seller similarly taking such action on a product you'd buy? (AGAIN, action taken by the SELLER only, no law enforcement, judge or other entity!)

I'll await examples...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Ahhh, but here's the rub. If you read your user agreement for the Kindle, Amazon is not selling you the digital content; it is granting you a license to use that content. You don't own the content you bought, you have a license to use it.



> Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. *Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.*


Not apologizing for Amazon, not attacking Amazon, just the facts, ma'am!

Betsy


----------



## Greg Banks

This has been an extremely silly argument, especially given r0b0d0c attempting to pass all those in disagreement with him off as "Amazon apologists". The facts are as plain as day whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

* The ebooks in question were not in the public domain in the US, which makes Mobi's sale of them sketchy at best, illegal at worst.

* These very books were pulled, and one can shove one's head where the sun don't shine and pretend to not "know" why these books were pulled if you want, when 2 + 2 clearly = 4, I'm going to trust my brain and assume the correct answer is indeed 4.

* If the rights owners to the ebooks demanded that all questionably sold copies were retracted, Amazon should be, and in my opinion, is, required to do just that. After all, who do you think they would rather deal with, a couple of angry customers who think they are entitled to stolen items because they are digital rather than tangible items, or some multimillion dollar estate with office full of overpriced lawyers?

* It is correct that were these physical books, taking them back would be far more difficult, if not impossible. However, that fact makes you no more entitled to an illegal sold ebook than if you had purchased a stolen car.

* There are issues to be raised by the fact that someone can have such access and control over one's property, HOWEVER, just like anything else, there are both positives and negatives, this particular case is one in which we see the positives of it (unless you happen to be one of the few who think you should have the right to screw over the copyright holders and keep illegal content regardless, that is).

* It's hard for me to concern myself over how someone has access to my digital content when I'm looking at my television hooked to cable television via a box that not only could be monitoring all of my viewing activities but could also be turned off without my consent whenever those controlling it wish, while I type this very message on a computer connected to a network in which every word I type here could be monitored by any number of people, including my own government or any hacker who has managed to get his hooks into my system.

My point? Before you start crying foul about a case like this, first get rid of your computer, your Internet, your cable or satellite, your GPS, your cellphone, and anything with a computer, wireless network, or GPS inside of it, move into a cave deep in the mountains away from all technology, and then maybe I'd consider your arguments anything other than hypocritical garbage. Otherwise raising such a stink about this particular incident in which ebooks were clearly sold ILLEGALLY, albeit, not intentionally I'd guess, is like standing in the midst of a warzone in Iraq and complaining about the neighbors dog barking. This is a whole new ballgame, and yes, there are serious privacy issues, etc., yet to be addressed. But pitching a fit over content you had no right to in the first place?


Spoiler



Insert expletive of choice here


!


----------



## ladyvolz

Greg Banks said:


> This has been an extremely silly argument, especially given r0b0d0c attempting to pass all those in disagreement with him off as "Amazon apologists". The facts are as plain as day whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
> 
> My point? Before you start crying foul about a case like this, first get rid of your computer, your Internet, your cable or satellite, your GPS, your cellphone, and anything with a computer, wireless network, or GPS inside of it, move into a cave deep in the mountains away from all technology, and then maybe I'd consider your arguments anything other than hypocritical garbage. Otherwise raising such a stink about this particular incident in which ebooks were clearly sold ILLEGALLY, albeit, not intentionally I'd guess, is like standing in the midst of a warzone in Iraq and complaining about the neighbors dog barking. This is a whole new ballgame, and yes, there are serious privacy issues, etc., yet to be addressed. But pitching a fit over content you had no right to in the first place?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Insert expletive of choice here
> 
> 
> !


Very well said Greg. Thanks!


----------



## suicidepact

I agree with how angry r0b0d0c is, I would be as well. Unfortunately in this day of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and 'Fair Use' if Amazon sold a less than legal copy of Animal Farm to you, (and that's if) they are probably obliged to take it off your Kindle, and refund your money. What you purchased was a digital representation of the book, not the book. You purchased the right to enjoy the contents of the container Animal Farm.azw (or .tpz) the words, images, etc. But you don't own the file. If you did you could freely give it to another Kindle user. That's specified in your Terms Of Service (somewhere deep beneath the legalese where the light won't shine). It's the unfortunate and user-unfriendly way that licenses work with digital content. You have much freer options with Creative Commons licenses (like from FeedBurner) but that isn't the case with any Kindle book you get from Amazon. 
It sucks and you feel angry, as you've been robbed, and you have in a way, but unfortunately Amazon do have the right to delete any file from the Kindle if it's breaking the DMCA. That includes files that don't involve Amazon.com such as those that you might have copied, downloaded, transferred, or convered from other sources. The DMCA gives hardware vendors license to cripple a device if a vendor believes it's circumventing the DMCA. I don't think Amazon would go to these extremes, but I also am surprised that they would offer no explanation for taking content off a device without explanation. 
More here, in a free e-book: http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2883

Good luck, robodoc, let us know if you here anything from Amazon. You didn't deserve that.


----------



## Uriel

The Orwell estate is very, very proactive in protecting their copyright status.  They even presented Apple with a cease & desist order after their famous 1984 Super Bowl Macintosh ad saying that Apple hadn't gotten their permission to use 1984 in their ad.

Animal Farm was published in 1945 so it won't enter the public domain in the US until 2040.  1984 was published in 1949 and won't enter the public domain in the US until 2044.  They're also not listed on the MobileReference.com site anymore so it looks very much like it is a copyright issue.


----------



## Greg Banks

It should also be noted that I seriously doubt that Amazon itself cares if one owns all rights to a book or not, or whether you kept ownership of the file forever or not, but do you honestly think they got all these publishers to get aboard the ebook bandwagon without bending over backwards in some ways to get them to agree? DRM and a whole lot of other things that may not be consumer friendly is undoubtedly due to the demands of the publishers. They are the ones with the power since they actually own the content.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I appreciate that this is an issue that evokes strong feelings.  It's been a great discussion and I've learned a lot.  Thanks to everyone for keeping their emotions in check, and civility in place as much as possible!

Betsy
KindleBoards Moderator


----------



## BeccaLT

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/

The lesson - not communicating with customers before or when you do something like this will backfire every time.


----------



## mlewis78

Well, then, it sounds as if, according to the Amazon agreement with us, when we buy an ebook, we aren't really buying it to necessarily keep.  If we buy a paper book, we are indeed buying it to keep.  Didn't know that before.  No wonder my friends are so hesitant to get on board with Kindle.


----------



## luvmy4brats

We already have a thread about this, so I'm going to merge this with it.

Thanks for understanding.


----------



## modkindle

There are no direct analogies because this is the first time this type of technology has existed. TIVO is close but not exactly the same. 

I don't feel like Amazon is breaking into your home to steal the books back. IMO every time you turn on your wireless, you are inviting Amazon in. 

If I bought a fake Prada bag in a store and after I had paid but before I had left the store the seller was told that the bag was fake I would think they were well within their rights to refund my money and take the bag back. Obviously not a direct analogy. 

New technology means new legal considerations which means uncertainty and lawsuits. I considered it the price of early adoption.


----------



## akpak

See, this is why I keep Whispernet off most of the time, and why I back up all my purchases to my computer.

I don't care if these were illegal copies (I didn't have them). I care that Amazon has the *ability* to remove stuff from my device. That's a slippery slope.


----------



## r0b0d0c

akjak said:


> See, this is why I keep Whispernet off most of the time, and why I back up all my purchases to my computer.
> 
> I don't care if these were illegal copies (I didn't have them). I care that Amazon has the *ability* to remove stuff from my device. That's a slippery slope.


Well said! *THAT* is my biggest concern with this entire episode, as I've stated many times! Whether Greg Banks thinks this issue is "silly" or not, I'm a bit shocked that ANYONE is OK with Amazon's ability to do this on their own, without the Kindle owner's knowledge or permission.

I don't even care about these particular books - I have DTB copies, and if I want ebooks, I can get them from the MobiPocket Kindle app right now, today.


----------



## mlewis78

Could someone explain a good way to back up my purchases on my computer? Do I hook up my kindle to the computer and then copy and paste files from the documents folder in the kindle to a folder on my hard drive?

Thanks.


----------



## akpak

mlewis78 said:


> Could someone explain a good way to back up my purchases on my computer? Do I hook up my kindle to the computer and then copy and paste files from the documents folder in the kindle to a folder on my hard drive?


In a word: YES


----------



## mlewis78

Thanks, AKJAK.


----------



## Greg Banks

mlewis78 said:


> Well, then, it sounds as if, according to the Amazon agreement with us, when we buy an ebook, we aren't really buying it to necessarily keep. If we buy a paper book, we are indeed buying it to keep. Didn't know that before. No wonder my friends are so hesitant to get on board with Kindle.


I don't know. According to the agreement snippet posted earlier in the thread, I think they are granting us the right to keep the content in perpetuity. However, if they learn that they did not have the true license to sell a piece of content, then that contract, I'd think, is no longer valid. Besides, Amazon is as much at the mercy of the content owners as we are in this instance, and the only thing that will change in the future is that Amazon Kindle won't be the only device affected by these things when they happen. The Kindle is just the only device which such a large content source to back it up.

Were these books not made available through the Sony store also? Actually, I just checked and 1984 is in the Sony ebook store, but it's being sold by publisher Houghton Mifflin, who unlike MobileReference, probably owns the publishing rights to the content. So they may be the ones who put a stop to this.



> Well said! THAT is my biggest concern with this entire episode, as I've stated many times!


And my point is that the entire digital landscape is a slippery slope, and if you're really concerned about it, don't stand on it at all, which means staying away from every networked and/or digital device you own. As a matter of fact, here's another slippery slope for you. Under FCC regulations, the government can bust into the home of anyone owning wireless broadcasting equipment and do a search for illegal activities without notice. Under those guidelines, anyone owning a cellphone or a wireless router is subject to this action. And I'm sure there are a million other similar things that are just as disconcerting that I'm not going to worry about until it actually becomes an issue because until that time, I'm going to presume no one would ever actually go that far without just cause.

In this case, Amazon did exactly what they were supposed to do. Unfortunate, annoying, and Amazon definitely should be more forthcoming with the reason for the actions, but none of those things entitles you to maintain ownership of those items or in any way validates your using this as a test case for what really is an entirely different scenario.


----------



## akpak

Greg, I do totally see your point. Amazon having done this isn't going to send me into a hissy fit and threaten to never buy books from them again, etc

It's more a general "sigh... It sucks that it comes to this" kind of thing. We, as consumers, expect to "own" things we paid for. The music industry very much wants us to pay for each and every time we listen to a song, no matter how many times we've already paid for it (CD, MP3, the "cost" of listening to it on radio, terrestrial internet or satellite). It will be very sad to see books go the same way.

Increasingly, the media companies who hold the strings (movies, music, books, software, etc) want us to pay as subscription model, not outright purchase model. Consumers don't want that, so there's an on-going tug of war that's not going to end anytime soon. DRM in all its evils is what drives most people to piracy. (Well, that and the inability to pay the artist directly for their work)

Dammit, I bought something. I should own it.

Buying a book from Amazon is not the same as buying a bootleg off the street. It's a reputable company, I have no reason to think anything I purchase should be "stolen" or illegal in any way. So it's a rude wake-up call when things like this happen.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Greg Banks said:


> And my point is that the entire digital landscape is a slippery slope, and if you're really concerned about it, don't stand on it at all, which means staying away from every networked and/or digital device you own.


That's utter nonsense, Greg - you're smarter than that!


----------



## Greg Banks

Why is it nonsense? Every networked digital device could be used to track you, to monitor what you say or do, to control what you see or read or have access to (can you say "China"?), or could be turned off at any time. It's all part of the very same grand slippery slope.

Nonsense is pitching a fit when Amazon removes content they learn they had no right to sell to you in the first place, when all of these bigger, greater, scarier issues are right in front of your face and you've willingly accepted those possibilities by continuing to use those devices.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Greg Banks said:


> Why is it nonsense? Every networked digital device could be used to track you, to monitor what you say or do, to control what you see or read or have access to (can you say "China"?), or could be turned off at any time. It's all part of the very same grand slippery slope.
> 
> Nonsense is pitching a fit when Amazon removes content they learn they had no right to sell to you in the first place, when all of these bigger, greater, scarier issues are right in front of your face and you've willingly accepted those possibilities by continuing to use those devices.


Because it violates civil rights and privacy laws! Yeah, I guess "the government" does it, what can I say - they violate our rights alot. But Amazon doesn't have that authority, do they? It's NOT "all part of the very same grand slippery slope!" THAT is a "silly argument."


----------



## Greg Banks

r0b0d0c said:


> Because it violates civil rights and privacy laws! Yeah, I guess "the government" does it, what can I say - they violate our rights alot. But Amazon doesn't have that authority, do they? It's NOT "all part of the very same grand slippery slope!" THAT is a "silly argument."


Amazon having rights to access your Kindle is something you consented to when you KNOWINGLY purchased a device networked to them. There is no civil rights or privacy laws violation when they are accessing a device and content that you have contractually agreed to accept in purchasing the thing.

In this case, they learned that they had no legal right to the content you purchased through them and their obligation is to honor the wishes of the rights holder. You are in NO WAY entitled to ownership of that content, any more than you are entitled to keeping possession of a stolen car. The fact that you didn't know the ebooks were not legally sold to you changes nothing. Ignorance of the law or the situation changes nothing. Now if Amazon removed something that you did not buy from them, then I'd be in agreement with you. But as long you are using a device purchased from and networked to Amazon, and are reading content purchased from and networked to Amazon, then all your arguments are absolutely, unequivocally, absurd, because in those cases, Amazon DOES have rights to access, and in this case remove, the content in question any time they wish as long as they do so for a valid reason and provide a refund, which is exactly what they did.


----------



## TBonz

Amazon's stupidity should *not* become *my* problem. They should have their legalities sorted out *before* offering something for sale to its customers.

I can comprehend no longer offering the book or even dispensing with the backup *on* Amazon (although that is pushing it,) but taking the copy off of the Kindle itself?

How am I supposed to have any confidence that what I've purchased is mine? Their terms, of course, cover their backsides through slippery language, but at the end of the day, their actions coupled with the lack of any seeming sense of the proper way to handle their customers makes me uneasy.

If I didn't already have a Kindle but had been contemplating a purchase of one, this type of action would definitely put me off of doing so.

The irony of the books that were deleted is just delicious though, I must admit.


----------



## ladyknight33

Hey Tbonz

Welcome and congrats on your first post.

I got the email from Amazon refunding me and had I not read the boards I would have been in the dark about the book. I agree the refund is due to copyright issues. I had not read the book as yet so I will have to a) repurchase it DTB  b) go to the library or c) wait untl all the issues are resolved and purchase it thru Amazon.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Amazon is/has refunded the money.


----------



## Greg Banks

TBonz said:


> The irony of the books that were deleted is just delicious though, I must admit.


Isn't it though?

I really don't think this is a case of Amazon stupidity. MobileReference stupidity, yes. But they assumed that this reputable source knew what they were doing. Who among us wouldn't? And again, the presumption that companies don't go around collecting products they've sold you but later recalled, or that was proven stolen, is wrong. They don't do it because it's not practical. In the case of digital content, if the rights holders demand an item be pulled because it was sold illegally, they can, will, and should pull it, just like a food distributor should go around and collect every e coli-laced product they've sold (which no one would protest, either, I'd bet). They just can't physically do it. For better or worse, now for certain things, they can do it quickly and effectively.

And what no one has pointed out is that if one is so seriously concerned about this problem, the answer is simple. Don't buy your ebooks from Amazon. I don't know if this ebook was on Fictionwise, but if it was, I'm sure it was pulled from virtual Bookshelves as well, meaning Fictionwise purchasers no longer have access to the ebook either. But at least they couldn't retrieve the copy of the item from your Kindle.


----------



## limabeenie

Geesh, you guys...you can still get 1984 on Kindle published by Houghton Mifflin for $9.99.  You're making it sound like Amazon is taking us back to book-burning days...


----------



## BeccaLT

Well, you all can argue about how right Amazon is to repo books with no notice and with no explanation until the cows come home, my objective in starting this thread has been achieved.

This story has now been picked up by: NYT Pogue blog, Seattle PI, Gizmodo, TPM, Boing Boing, CNET and a host of others. I expect more will follow suit. There is a Twitter post a minute as well. Unfortunately for Amazon, the blog reaction to this hasn't been kind and is markedly different to the discussion seen on this thread. I'm sure that Amazon's CEO is delivering some sort of butt-chewing to someone right now for the handling of this, because despite what you may believe about companies, most CEOs don't like to tick off customers and potentially lose sales, especially after bad earnings news and a Kindle lawsuit all in the same week.


----------



## loriltx

Greg Banks you are clearly a voice of reason in an otherwise "you owe me" society. Thanks.


----------



## luvmy4brats

Let's keep it civil. No more name calling or I'm going to lock this. I've already had to delete several posts.

Luv


----------



## pidgeon92

r0b0d0c said:


> Whether Greg Banks thinks this issue is "silly" or not, I'm a bit shocked that ANYONE is OK with Amazon's ability to do this on their own, without the Kindle owner's knowledge or permission.


I am OK with Amazon doing this.... Apple has a similar policy with iPhone apps. As long as they refund the purchase price, I really could not care less.


----------



## Addie

I can understand people getting upset with those publishing illegal copies or those selling them and then later changing their minds. I would be rather annoyed if that happened to me. I mean, I'm annoyed with those who illegally put up Ayn Rand's books, and I don't even buy them. But I just don't understand the strong reaction to Amazon following the law by pulling illegal copies or by following the will of the publisher. I can't see this as Amazon's fault. They are, after all, just an electronic grocery store (with a billion items not including groceries ... you get the point ). This seems to be a publisher issue.

Then again, I'm also not angry at Amazon for having TTS disabled on some books. I may roll my eyes at Amazon, but I am actually upset with the publishers, and let them know. I digress.

Like Greg mentioned: When a car or a laptop is stolen or pawned, and the authorities find out, the item is immediately confiscated. The individual who thought they were purchasing a legal item almost always does not get any sort of compensation (even if the second purchaser does the right thing and informs police). As far as I can tell, Amazon always returns the money, so I don't really see a problem.

As far as a "big brother" issue; I don't think this is the situation to get up in arms about. If Amazon starts charging me for books I don't buy because they think I'll like them or begins an electronic book burning, then I'll be right there on the front lines shouting at Amazon as well. But so far, I see Amazon as a company with good goals and a good business mindset who will do its best to appease consumers and legal producers.

I do add that I hope Amazon is able to come up with a way to review books before they're put out on their site to make sure they are legit and avoid frustration on both sides.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Gee, and it was going so well. 










I'm throwing a yellow card here and giving fair warning. Take a chill pill or this thread WILL be locked. Did y'all know we're having a contest this weekend?

Betsy
Book Corner Moderator


----------



## ladyknight33

I knew a hat was coming at some point.

Thanks Betsy!!!


----------



## kwl718

loriltx said:


> Greg Banks you are clearly a voice of reason in an otherwise "you owe me" society. Thanks.


I'm coming out of long time "lurk" mode to second this, I agree completely.


----------



## Addie

kwl718 said:


> I'm coming out of long time "lurk" mode to second this, I agree completely.


Welcome to KB! Glad you decided to join! You picked a


Spoiler



heck


 of a topic to join in on for your first post.


----------



## Magenta

It just would have been nice if Amazon did a better job of explaining the situation.  To just send me a refund notice as if I made the return request was quite unprofessional.


----------



## Addie

Magenta said:


> It just would have been nice if Amazon did a better job of explaining the situation. To just send me a refund notice as if I made the return request was quite unprofessional.


I definitely agree they should send a specific reason for it. Luckily, being on KB, I know from others that if this happens, the reason is probably due to me unknowingly purchasing an illegal copy. As much as I guess it happens, you would think they would have a generic email where they could just change the publisher and the title of the book and send it out along with the refund.


----------



## Sporadic

Amazon seems to have replied.



> Amazon says that that the books in question were added to its catalog using the company's self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. And it says it will no longer delete books in this manner.
> 
> "When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," the company said in an e-mailed statement. "We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."


http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227

Congrats? I guess you can keep your unauthorized copies now


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> Amazon seems to have replied.
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227
> 
> Congrats? I guess you can keep your unauthorized copies now


Nope - they erased them. Again, that wasn't the point; had they notified me of THEIR error in selling the title, I'd have deleted it MYSELF. I don't pirate music or movies, and I don't pirate ebooks. I'm just not OK with a private company entering my electronic domain to confiscate things without my knowledge or consent - this was a matter of principle!

My satisfaction is that Amazon won't do this again. As a poster on Amazon stated: _"Various people have said that if this content were pirated, it would be OK for amazon to take it away, same as if the property were stolen and the courts authorized the police to take it back. Thing is, there is a huge difference: in one case, the courts are involved and actually authorize an action, with public notice and the possibility of public involvement, and in the other case, a couple of private companies take action behind closed doors. I really don't care why amazon did it. Unless they have a court order requiring them to recall this property, they bloody well shouldn't. That's why we have a bloody legal system."_

Amen!


----------



## ladyknight33

another view of the brew ha ha

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10290047-56.html


----------



## BeccaLT

Sweet! 

Amazon now says it will no longer automatically remove books from Kindles. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesbusiness

I guess either their legal rights don't extend as far as some thought they did, or they couldn't stand the PR heat. At any rate, I'll be happier when they send me an email explanation with a mea culpa.

There's a bit in the newest Times piece about a kid that lost his comments and notes on 1984 when it was repo'd ... I hadn't even thought of that.


----------



## luvmy4brats

I have to say, this is the best headline of all the articles I read today:

Amazon's Kindle--Now with New Take-Backsies Feature

http://seattlest.com/2009/07/17/amazons_kindle--now_with_new_take-b.php

And on the bright side, it's 99 cents I have to read something else.


----------



## JamieL

luvmy4brats said:


> I have to say, this is the best headline of all the articles I read today:
> 
> Amazon's Kindle--Now with New Take-Backsies Feature
> 
> http://seattlest.com/2009/07/17/amazons_kindle--now_with_new_take-b.php


I love that headline.


----------



## Sporadic

r0b0d0c said:


> Nope - they erased them. Again, that wasn't the point; had they notified me of THEIR error in selling the title, I'd have deleted it MYSELF. I don't pirate music or movies, and I don't pirate ebooks. I'm just not OK with a private company entering my electronic domain to confiscate things without my knowledge or consent - this was a matter of principle!
> 
> My satisfaction is that Amazon won't do this again. As a poster on Amazon stated: _"Various people have said that if this content were pirated, it would be OK for amazon to take it away, same as if the property were stolen and the courts authorized the police to take it back. Thing is, there is a huge difference: in one case, the courts are involved and actually authorize an action, with public notice and the possibility of public involvement, and in the other case, a couple of private companies take action behind closed doors. I really don't care why amazon did it. Unless they have a court order requiring them to recall this property, they bloody well shouldn't. That's why we have a bloody legal system."_
> 
> Amen!


Fine, then they shouldn't refund any money until you agree to have them delete it their way. You know most people (yourself included) wouldn't delete it if asked.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Let's not make assumptions about what another member would do in a given situation, especially when it runs counter to what the member has expressly said, OK?  That's pretty inflammatory, I'm trying to chill this thread down.

Thanks!

Betsy


----------



## r0b0d0c

Sporadic said:


> Not really an assumption considering his past posts in this thread.
> 
> Except you aren't suppost to download the books from MobileRead if they aren't public domain in your area and the books removed weren't legally purchased since Mobi had no right to sell them.
> 
> But I won't make any more posts in this thread so no problem.


If you actually READ these quotes from me that you posted, I stated that the erasure of these books was not what bothered me - that IF I'd wanted to "get them back" there were other sources. Please READ before you respond.

Again, it was Amazon's act of erasing digital content from my device that was what I objected to.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Is the horse dead yet?

Betsy


----------



## luvmy4brats

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Is the horse dead yet?
> 
> Betsy


Doesn't look like it.


----------



## Gimpy04

Feel free to read through the Terms of Use for the Kindle:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200144530


----------



## r0b0d0c

Gimpy04 said:


> Feel free to read through the Terms of Use for the Kindle:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200144530


Fred Von Lohmann, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation did just that (http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227):

*Von Lohmann said that it's not clear from the Kindle license agreement that Amazon has the right delete purchased content. "I don't see that many loopholes," he said.

He notes that Kindle license agreement states, "Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times..."

"They say you don't own it but they don't say they can take it away," he said.*

And per NYT this afternoon (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesbusiness), "Amazon effectively acknowledged that the deletions were a bad idea. "We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances," Mr. Herdener said." Whether this change of heart came from legal counsel advice, or from its Kindle customers' uproar, is unknown.


----------



## kevin63

gir said:


> Happened to me, too, with 1984. I backed it up to my computer, thankfully.


Same here, I got like a 46 cent refund on 1984. No idea what it's about.

*EDIT NOTE: I understand now what they did and why. I don't know why they only refunded the 46 cents. I paid a little more than that. I don't really care, just don't know how they came up with that number. If it wasn't legal, I don't care that they took it off.*


----------



## sigrosenblum

All of this to-and-fro-ing could have been avoided if Amazon had simply explained--quite completely--why they were about to delete these books. This is--repeatedly--one of Amazon's inexplicable failings. They act without explanation and with obscure motives. PR 101 tells you that this is a basic, commonsense no-no. Why can't brilliant, well-meaning Jeff B grasp that?

Here's a brief view of the issue:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10290133-23.html

And here's today's NY Times article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=2&ref=technology


----------



## Null

bardsandsages said:


> One one hand, one could argue Amazon is completely responsible for what is on their site. If they allow something to be sold that is in violation of copyright law, then the issue is on there end and they should not be allowed to delete pirated copies from individual Kindles because they screwed up.
> 
> However, if we accept this argument, then Amazon is put in a situation where it needs to more closely regulate what is made available for sale. This could in fact destroy independent publishing and self-publishing offerings on the site. Why? Because in order for Amazon to protect itself, it would have to verify the legality of each item listed. This would require dedicated employees to check EACH SUBMISSION and make sure they do no violate copyright law.


To be honest, I would expect that any digital publisher--or for that matter, anyone offering items for sale--would HAVE to verify that they had the right to sell such work. I'm sure Amazon must get thousands of offers, every day, to sell DVDs of Tranformers 2 or Harry Potter 6 or what-not. But they don't, because they know films still in theatres would only be available on DVD through pirates. That only requires common sense. In the realm of books, it may take deeper digging, but yes, I would expect them to do that digging. The Kindle is their baby, they want to ensure content for it, it makes sense that they would have to ensure the legality of that content. In the past--Stephen King, Ayn Rand--they had done so, and removed the books. I am going to guess, here, that they also provided an explanation for their actions, since I bought books by neither auther.

In the case of George Orwell, I got an email saying my refund was being processed. That's all. I did not request a refund. To be honest, what alarmed me was, earlier that day, I'd installed the Kindle reader for Ipod. When the email showed up, I thought, Great, somehow I screwed things up. (Not an uncommon occurrence, but I digress.)

Just a woprd or two from Amazon, ay sort of any explanation, would have been a great balm. I keep trying to tell folks that the Kindle is a wonderful device. I need to be able to stick to my story without a lot of asides. ("Oh, you may notice that some books disappear--well, Winston had to file them in the memory hole, you know, that makes it more real, right? Hello?"


----------



## Geoffrey

Ok.  I understand that Betsy wants to chill things out ..... and I haven't gotten involved yet, but I have read as this thread has gone on an on an on ... But, I have a directed question anyways:

Robodoc:  you've been complaining and ranting all day to people that have no control over Amazon's policies.  No matter what anyone's said, you're not satisfied.  So, what do you want from us?


----------



## kb7uen Gene

I got the same refund email from Amazon, but mine was for Star Trek, Both Hands Full.  I had it yesterday, but didn't get around to backing it up to my computer last night, and when I turned the wireless on today to show the Kindle 2 to a professor of mine, Amazon must have grabbed it from "Miles" and now the book is gone.  However, I did notice last night when I sat down to look at the book, I could see a lot of spelling errors, poor formatting, and missing words.  So this may have been a bootlegged copy of the book.  I still don't like the thought of Amazon creeping into Miles and taking my books regardless of the reason, but at the same time, I also don't like buying something and finding out later it is of substandard quality,  So I have mixed feelings of this whole subject.

Gene


----------



## lmk2045

Media goes crazy over Amazon deleting '1984' from Kindle, but 99-cent ebook was illegal copy

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/articles/20090717/media-goes-crazy-over-amazon-deleting-1984-from-kindle-but-99-cent-ebook-was-illegal-copy.htm


----------



## RamTheHammer

lmk2045 said:


> Media goes crazy over Amazon deleting '1984' from Kindle, but 99-cent ebook was illegal copy
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com.au/articles/20090717/media-goes-crazy-over-amazon-deleting-1984-from-kindle-but-99-cent-ebook-was-illegal-copy.htm


Thank you for that link. That was an excellent article explaining the situation very well.


----------



## jaybird123

lmk2045 said:


> Media goes crazy over Amazon deleting '1984' from Kindle, but 99-cent ebook was illegal copy
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com.au/articles/20090717/media-goes-crazy-over-amazon-deleting-1984-from-kindle-but-99-cent-ebook-was-illegal-copy.htm


Good article post. I love my Kindle(s) because of the reading experience and convenience, but I wonder if I have given up something if a vendor can just pull something out of my library without my permission or prior notification. Anyway, it looks like Amazon it going to make some adjustments to this policy--they admit they made a mistake.


----------



## Varin

All because of this George Orwell/Amazon-broke-in-my-kindle-and-rightfully-removed-stolen-content-fiasco.

Really? Just take a look at the latest customer reviews. I don't see how Amazon is in the wrong. They refunded the money. The books were stolen goods; Amazon couldn't NOT retrieve the books, especially since it was within their power to do so, and I'm betting the copyright holders and publishers are demanding it.

People forget, that if they accidently purchase or want to return a book, you call up customer service and they remove the book from your device; this access to the Kindle has hardly been hidden away in fine print.


----------



## Addie

I agree. I really do think people are overreacting. Amazon's CS is so wonderful, and I feel like people are just taking advantage of it. They know Amazon will do whatever it can to make its customers happy, so every little problem someone has with it gets thrown out of proportion. With so many wonderful things the Kindle does, this doesn't even hit the radar as a concern for me.


----------



## jeff1776

My problem is that if I would have bought the hardcover copy of this from Barnes & Nobles, they would not have physically came to my house and taken the book away.  Therefore, the impression I am getting is that you don't actually own the copy, you are just renting it.  Which has been pointed out in "All Things Digital" is not clearly explained.


----------



## Addie

AddieLove said:


> I agree. I really do think people are overreacting. Amazon's CS is so wonderful, and I feel like people are just taking advantage of it. They know Amazon will do whatever it can to make its customers happy, so every little problem someone has with it gets thrown out of proportion. With so many wonderful things the Kindle does, this doesn't even hit the radar as a concern for me.


ETA: Now it seems Amazon changed its policy on taking illegal copies off your Kindle, so hopefully everyone will cool down and stop being so upset.
... that is until the next thing has people up in arms once again. *sigh*


----------



## luvmy4brats

Since there's already an entire thread devoted to the Orwell incident, I'm going to merge this. 

Thanks for understanding. 

Luv


----------



## Greg Banks

Just as an addendum, I knew I had 1984 on my Kindle because I've never read it and I downloaded it months ago, but didn't remember where I got it. I checked last night and its still there because I got my copy free from Feedbooks.com. I checked a minute ago at Feedbooks, and the book is no longer there either. So as I said yesterday, anyone so terrified of "Big Brother Amazon" should just buy their ebooks elsewhere.


----------



## CS

Greg Banks said:


> Just as an addendum, I knew I had 1984 on my Kindle because I've never read it and I downloaded it months ago, but didn't remember where I got it. I checked last night and its still there because I got my copy free from Feedbooks.com. I checked a minute ago at Feedbooks, and the book is no longer there either. So as I said yesterday, anyone so terrified of "Big Brother Amazon" should just buy their ebooks elsewhere.


I have that too, and it's still there. At the time, I probably thought it was public domain in the U.S. (which MobileReference also likely assumed). As I said above, if something is public domain somewhere, it should be everywhere IMO. We live in a global digital world now. False barriers like regional public domain laws no longer work.


----------



## Greg Banks

CS said:


> I have that too, and it's still there. At the time, I probably thought it was public domain in the U.S. (which MobileReference also likely assumed). As I said above, if something is public domain somewhere, it should be everywhere IMO. We live in a global digital world now. False barriers like regional public domain laws no longer work.


Just another area where the law is slow to catch up. And if we don't start getting the laws in order soon, with things changing as rapidly as they are, the laws will become hopelessly outdated and useless pretty soon.


----------



## LauraB

I've read through this thread, all the back and forth about stolen property, ect.  As far as I can tell this is at least the third time amazon had done this. 1) Harry potter 2) Rand 3) orwell. I understand a little of the emotions of both sides. Yet, I'm wondering about Amazon. If I went to a book store and bought (unknowingly) a pirated book, otcould be taken back (confascated). If the same bookstore had got "caught" 3 differnt times selling pirated books how many more times could they claim. Ingorance before the authorities started investigating them?  Howmany times would you shop at s bookstore after you keep having to give back pirated books. Amazon needs to do some work, somehow, to make sure the companies on their site aren't selling stolen property. It really is a trust issue between them and consumers. I don't buy kindle books from the publishers. I buy them from amazon. And when you look on the book description of kindle books they list a publisher, usually, but amazon digital services is listed in the "sold by" line my relationship as a consumer is amazon.  And it sounds like, simply put, they are getting caught selling stolen property in their kindle store. I have faith, though. I'm sure Jeff has the lawyers to sort if out. He needs to before kindles creditability takes a hit.


----------



## Greg Banks

True, Red, but it's us Indie Authors that will somehow get screwed in the process. After all, the only way to put a stop to this sort of thing is to have someone screening, vetting, and verifying every single item published on Kindle. All of us Indie Authors should be the first in line to hunt down and strangle these pirates, because they are abusing the technology created for our benefit, which could really hurt us all in the end.


----------



## LauraB

Greg, I agree it will hurt the authors you describe the worst. Just like the ones who put out awful formatting put a shadow over the platform. Solutions are going to be tough. But they will have to be found. Because amazon will eventually have to answer as to why they allow "stolen" ebooks to be published via their platform. Maybe it will come down to authors/publishers having to prove copy rightbefore being alllowedto publish?  I don't know, bit I do think mainstream kindle customers, the majority of which don't visit any kindle forum are going to be one of the deciding factors. Another is, all of this does give the publishers (ect) some strong arm room with amazon, and the media (power) is starting to sway.


----------



## mlewis78

I have never been aware of Harry Potter books being offered for kindle by Amazon, yet a few people have referred to that here.  Is this true?  I'd heard that the books have never been authorized for sale (although a lot of illegal PDFs are floating around the internet, but not on Amazon).


----------



## Greg Banks

mlewis78 said:


> I have never been aware of Harry Potter books being offered for kindle by Amazon, yet a few people have referred to that here.


Someone put up illegal copies once for sale, but I think they were quickly removed.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

Here's a little factoid I'd like to throw out there for the outraged, 'Amazon hax0red my Kindle!!!111oneoneone' group.

At no point in time did Amazon go into anyone's Kindle to delete the titles.


The servers on Amazon.com contain a master list of content you have licensed (Your Archive). The Kindle checks for content on a periodic basis and retrieves a list of items you have a license for.  If an item is missing from that list but is present on your Kindle as a licensed item then Amazon does a one-time only removal of that item, and the system is updated on their end to note that the item has been removed.  If someone had a backup of that item on their PC and restored it to the Kindle then it would never be removed again since the system already has reported the item as 'returned'.  This is exactly how the system works when you call in for a refund, AND when Amazon is forced to remove an item due to illegality.

They aren't sneaking into your Kindle and removing anything, and that's why it's not an analogous situation.


However here IS an analogous situation for you.

These days every car (well almost) has an engine that is run off a computer called an ECU.  Some car companies can sell the EXACT same car, but with a different set of ECU programming as 'upgraded' model.  There are places out there where you can get said programming to upgrade your car.  If when you take the car in for a check-up at your Ford dealership they find that you've performed said upgrade...it will void your warranty entirely.

However oftentimes, they mechanics will simply put the correct programming back in place and let it slide.

That is analogous to this situation.  Digital bits that you aren't entitled to being removed


----------



## Null

I would like to add that I got a follow-up email from Amazon, explaining that they bought the book from someone who did not have the right to sell it, and that's why they had to delete it.  That's all I really wanted--an explanation of what was happening.  Because of that, I will delete the Orwell collection from my Kindle. 

I wasn't upset about the situation, all I really wanted was a reason why.  Amazon has, belatedly, supplied that, so I feel satisfied.  

I would like to add that I did not request this follow-up message; Amazon sent it to me of their own accord, and I respect them more for that.  

I still believe they should have checked the rights situation at the start, but I am pleased that they took the trouble to inform me of their reasoning.  

(I hope that the other works I've bought from them have been checked and cleared--I wouldn't want to lose them.  The downside to this is that I feel I can't be certain what I'm buying from them won't be similarly discovered to be illegal.  I love the Kindle because I can carry my library with me.  However, a book of paper and binding is unlikely to evaporate overnight.)


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

Null said:


> I would like to add that I got a follow-up email from Amazon, explaining that they bought the book from someone who did not have the right to sell it, and that's why they had to delete it. That's all I really wanted--an explanation of what was happening. Because of that, I will delete the Orwell collection from my Kindle.
> 
> I wasn't upset about the situation, all I really wanted was a reason why. Amazon has, belatedly, supplied that, so I feel satisfied.
> 
> I would like to add that I did not request this follow-up message; Amazon sent it to me of their own accord, and I respect them more for that.
> 
> I still believe they should have checked the rights situation at the start, but I am pleased that they took the trouble to inform me of their reasoning.
> 
> (I hope that the other works I've bought from them have been checked and cleared--I wouldn't want to lose them. The downside to this is that I feel I can't be certain what I'm buying from them won't be similarly discovered to be illegal. I love the Kindle because I can carry my library with me. However, a book of paper and binding is unlikely to evaporate overnight.)


Null it wasn't possible for them to 'check the rights situation at the start' because this book was submitted via DTP.

Amazon didn't buy this per se from someone, it was submitted to them via the same platform many authors on this forum use.

There is a VERY easy way to make sure that what you're buying won't 'disappear' from you either.

Make sure you buy from known publishers when it comes to 'well known' authors. Those authors are published via publishing houses and as such you'll never see their titles listed in this manner.

The only real exceptions to that rule are Public Domain books...and in that case I research before I buy to make sure the title is actually in the public domain...which is also rather easy to do.

That said, Amazon didn't do anything wrong here. The book was submitted incorrectly, Amazon didn't solicit the work. Amazon upon discovering the works and the incorrect publishing removed the book from sale, and archives, and issued refunds.

Anyone mind if I call a 'Case Dismissed' here?


----------



## r0b0d0c

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Null it wasn't possible for them to 'check the rights situation at the start' because this book was submitted via DTP.
> 
> Amazon didn't buy this per se from someone, it was submitted to them via the same platform many authors on this forum use.


The unusual circumstance in this case was the extreme delay for Amazon to discover that Mobi didn't have the authority to sell - my "Works of George Orwell" was purchased almost 2 months ago, on May 25 (and I'd considered buying it at least a couple of weeks before that!). HOW long should it take Amazon to determine an illegal Kindle book is being offered for sale? (As I recall, the Harry Potter books were removed in less than a day, the Ayn Rand books about the same, and the Twilight books within hours. The Ray Bradbury titles, I think, took a couple of days.)

And as far as buying from a reputable publisher, with the dozens of book collections that Mobi offers, it appeared that THEY were reputable.


----------



## Null

Morpheus Phreak said:


> Null it wasn't possible for them to 'check the rights situation at the start' because this book was submitted via DTP.


I profess myself uncertain about what you mean by "DTP"?



Morpheus Phreak said:


> Morpheus Phreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon didn't buy this per se from someone, it was submitted to them via the same platform many authors on this forum use.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I confess to feel mystified. As others have pointed out, MobiReference is a well known digital publisher, and they offer many other Orwell works for sale, which have not bee pulled.
> 
> 
> 
> Morpheus Phreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a VERY easy way to make sure that what you're buying won't 'disappear' from you either.
> 
> Make sure you buy from known publishers when it comes to 'well known' authors. Those authors are published via publishing houses and as such you'll never see their titles listed in this manner.
> 
> The only real exceptions to that rule are Public Domain books...and in that case I research before I buy to make sure the title is actually in the public domain...which is also rather easy to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I agree with you. The thing that I fund puzzling is that as a promoter for the Kindle, Amazon would not do all it could to ensure their offerings were above board. Should I need--should they want me--to go research their copyright holdings? In all honesty, that doesn't sound like a forumal for success. I caqn buy a book from any Barnes and NNoble. I can carry it home and read it. Amazom would like me to consider different options. Well, that's great--but are they legal? Is that my reposibility? I can hold something of paper and binding and walk out of the store. Or I can download something supposedly equivalent from Amazon that is nothing more than arrqanged 1s and 0s. There has to be a comnplelling reason for me to choose one over the other. "Oops, we screwed up! Gotta delete that book you always wanted to read, but here's your money" seems...less than perfect.
> 
> Let me empahsize that I don't sell things online so I do not know of the pitfalls encountered by those who do.
> 
> I should think, though, that I would learn them were I to become an online seller.
> 
> sORRY ABOUT THE MISPELLINGS BUT THE FORUM IS BEING WEIRD.
Click to expand...


----------



## Forster

Bad on Mobile Reference for making these books available on Amazon in the first place. IMO they are a reputable publisher and as a reputable publisher _dealing with public domain books_ they should have known better. How hard is/was it for them to figure out what the copyright laws are in the US _before_ selling books here. You can't tell me they don't have a list on the major countries regarding their copyright laws. As a reputable publisher they owe it both to their customers and Amazon to get it right the first time.

As far as Amazon doing what they did I can't see that they had much choice other than to remove the illegal copies and refund the money. No one is out anything that they were entitled to. Do I like Amazon having access to my kindle and deleting things, not particularly, but it's not the end of the world either.

I really think most of the ire and bad feelings ought to be directed towards Mobile Reference in this case.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

Null said:


> I profess myself uncertain about what you mean by "DTP"?
> 
> Again, I confess to feel mystified. As others have pointed out, MobiReference is a well known digital publisher, and they offer many other Orwell works for sale, which have not bee pulled.
> 
> Again, I agree with you. The thing that I fund puzzling is that as a promoter for the Kindle, Amazon would not do all it could to ensure their offerings were above board. Should I need--should they want me--to go research their copyright holdings? In all honesty, that doesn't sound like a forumal for success. I caqn buy a book from any Barnes and NNoble. I can carry it home and read it. Amazom would like me to consider different options. Well, that's great--but are they legal? Is that my reposibility? I can hold something of paper and binding and walk out of the store. Or I can download something supposedly equivalent from Amazon that is nothing more than arrqanged 1s and 0s. There has to be a comnplelling reason for me to choose one over the other. "Oops, we screwed up! Gotta delete that book you always wanted to read, but here's your money" seems...less than perfect.
> 
> Let me empahsize that I don't sell things online so I do not know of the pitfalls encountered by those who do.
> 
> I should think, though, that I would learn them were I to become an online seller.
> 
> sORRY ABOUT THE MISPELLINGS BUT THE FORUM IS BEING WEIRD.


DTP is 'Desktop Publishing'.

It's essentially a way that you, I, or anyone else for that matter who has written something, can submit it for sale on the Kindle via Amazon.

I write a book. I sign up for DTP. I submit that book for sale via Amazon.

The problem is that I could also do this for books that I haven't written. It's an automated process. That's how 'Public Domain' (no longer protected by copyright) titles are published for the Kindle. When Amazon is notified that someone has used that program to illegally upload materials they remove the materials and refund those who have purchased them. Part of that process is the removal from the Archive, which in turn removes the content from the Kindle automatically at next sync.

I agree that it's not an ideal situation...but neither are the various places that sell 'knock-off' iPods either. I've seen swap meets where those things are sold. Should the people leasing the building where the swap meet is being held inspect each item to make sure it's what it appears to be? Even if they did what would prevent the vendors from sneaking in additional items later?

That's the whole point here. Amazon is a marketplace, and when they find content they do remove it...but they are a huge business. It can be hard to truly police every bit of content that comes through at the point of entry.


----------



## pawnslinger

One thing for sure... this is beginning to get the attention of non-Kindle folk.  I read about this problem earlier tonight on "Toms Hardware".  There was quite a lot of negative feedback there, almost all of it anti-Amazon and anti-Kindle.

I am a Kindle owner myself, and I don't like the bad feelings that are being generated by this situation.  I hope the old saying is true, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Personally, at this point, I wouldn't buy another Mobi collection (I own several already, and I am looking over my shoulder).  And this is the 2nd book that I've gotten from Amazon that has been pulled.  It isn't making me feel good about buying books from Amazon.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

pawnslinger said:


> One thing for sure... this is beginning to get the attention of non-Kindle folk. I read about this problem earlier tonight on "Toms Hardware". There was quite a lot of negative feedback there, almost all of it anti-Amazon and anti-Kindle.
> 
> I am a Kindle owner myself, and I don't like the bad feelings that are being generated by this situation. I hope the old saying is true, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
> 
> Personally, at this point, I wouldn't buy another Mobi collection (I own several already, and I am looking over my shoulder). And this is the 2nd book that I've gotten from Amazon that has been pulled. It isn't making me feel good about buying books from Amazon.


I've bought plenty of Mobi collections and those will not be pulled since they truly are Public Domain works.

Do the research on what you've purchased...that should tell you if it's legal or not. Finding out if a work is in the Public Domain is VERY easy.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

r0b0d0c said:


> The unusual circumstance in this case was the extreme delay for Amazon to discover that Mobi didn't have the authority to sell - my "Works of George Orwell" was purchased almost 2 months ago, on May 25 (and I'd considered buying it at least a couple of weeks before that!). HOW long should it take Amazon to determine an illegal Kindle book is being offered for sale? (As I recall, the Harry Potter books were removed in less than a day, the Ayn Rand books about the same, and the Twilight books within hours. The Ray Bradbury titles, I think, took a couple of days.)
> 
> And as far as buying from a reputable publisher, with the dozens of book collections that Mobi offers, it appeared that THEY were reputable.


I think it should take until Amazon is notified that the work is there illegally.

In the case of the prior works they were notified it was illegal almost the instant it was up. This was a case where it appears they weren't notified sooner...most likely because people assumed these were Public Domain works.

Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, Twilight, and Ray Bradbury are a bit more obvious ...especially the middle 2. Anyone who thinks they will get those for $0.99 on Amazon in Kindle format legally is fooling themselves.

The people that I feel this truly reflects poorly onto are Mobi. They've usually been VERY careful.

However I did some research into them that makes me VERY wary of them. According to the domain registration information the owner is "Andrey Vyshedskiy" in Sunnyvale, CA. Andrey Vyshedskiy is a Ph.D. who lives in Boston, MA and has taught at Boston University as well as being the CTO for Stethographics.

It appears whoever owns the Domain is using a false name...which as I said makes me VERY wary.

Further research indicates that their 'parent company' Soundtells uses a service that masks the names of the owners of Domain addresses...so there's no way to tell who owns the parent Soundtells.com domain.

Even more looking into this brings out something odd. Right now the MobileReference.com website is featuring a book by Andrey Vyshedskiy as their 'Featured Product'.

So either this is actually his website, and just registered in an odd way (and he's now crossing the legal lines) or someone is finding it funny to use his identity.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Morpheus Phreak said:


> I've bought plenty of Mobi collections and those will not be pulled since they truly are Public Domain works.
> 
> Do the research on what you've purchased...that should tell you if it's legal or not. Finding out if a work is in the Public Domain is VERY easy.


See, that's the ironic thing here: Amazon advertises the Kindle as a stand alone device that makes buying a book "as easy as pushing a button!" They also advertise that "you don't even need a computer!"

So telling people to "do the research on what you've purchased" isn't what the Kindle is supposed to be about. We're supposed to be able to buy Kindles for our parents and grandparents, darn few of whom will, or can, research the validity of an Amazon Kindle book.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

r0b0d0c said:


> See, that's the ironic thing here: Amazon advertises the Kindle as a stand alone device that makes buying a book "as easy as pushing a button!" They also advertise that "you don't even need a computer!"
> 
> So telling people to "do the research on what you've purchased" isn't what the Kindle is supposed to be about. We're supposed to be able to buy Kindles for our parents and grandparents, darn few of whom will, or can, research the validity of an Amazon Kindle book.


I agree with you, believe it or not.

I think they should honestly hire a TON of people where their sole job is to inspect works being submitted via DTP. That would help prevent this 'casual theft' of copyrighted works.

It still won't be perfect, but it will be better than the current situation where anyone can submit a copyrighted work and it remains in place until Amazon is notified.

I think the new stance Amazon is taking on this (the not longer deleting the titles) is the best temporary solution available for the consumer side of things.

The problem is with people. You give people something that can be abused, and there are ALWAYS people who will find a way to abuse it


----------



## rogera

i am concerned about this pulling of books what if some other publisher decides to pull permision  how do transfer my book to my computer from kindle 2 and b able to read them


----------



## geko29

rogera said:


> i am concerned about this pulling of books what if some other publisher decides to pull permision how do transfer my book to my computer from kindle 2 and b able to read them


You won't lose any books if a publisher changes their mind about selling it. I currently have at least a half-dozen Kindle books that are no longer available on the Kindle store for various reasons. The key there is they were offered for sale legally by the legitimate rights holder. So an honest transaction (on all sides) took place. What happened here is different. The entity selling the book had no right to do so, therefore the sale was illegal, and was reversed.

If you want to back up your books, that's fine. Attach your Kindle to your computer with the USB cable, and copy all the files out of the documents folder. But you don't need to be paranoid that the book you bought from say, Random House, is going to suddenly disappear. If you've been buying NYT bestsellers from the past couple of years for $0.99 on a regular basis, then you might have cause for concern. Otherwise you're fine.


----------



## Someone Nameless

rogera said:


> i am concerned about this pulling of books what if some other publisher decides to pull permision how do transfer my book to my computer from kindle 2 and b able to read them


You can put it there with Stanza. That's what I use but I have a similar question. If you have your books backed up on the computer what good does it do if Amazon can pull books from your device?


----------



## geko29

Kindle Gracie said:


> If you have your books backed up on the computer what good does it do if Amazon can pull books from your device?


We have rather copious evidence that the deletion is a one-time affair. At the time that Amazon deems the book to have been illegally sold (or they honor a refund request), the book is deleted from your MYK/Archives and flagged for deletion from your Kindle at its next sync. When the deletion has been completed, it is not attempted again. So restoring from backup brings the book back--it will not be deleted a second time.

However, since there are no known cases of a book being removed without a refund being issued either at the request of the customer or as a result of copyright infringement (and I don't think such a case is likely), there are also no cases in which restoring a deleted book from a backup doesn't constitute piracy. The book has become one you have not paid for, and therefore have no license to, which makes retaining it theft.


----------



## luvmy4brats

I really think the horse is dead.


----------



## LauraB

Was it Mark Twain who said, "the best thing to do if you find yourself riding a dead horse is get off it."


----------



## Chad Winters

Interesting POV:
http://ireaderreview.com/2009/07/18/attacking-a-symptom-instead-of-the-cause/

I'm ok with Amazon removing pirated copies and refunding my money, but they should not be able to remove legal copies that the publisher later decides to take back. If it was a legal sale it should be permanent, if it was an illegal sale then a "do-over" is in order.


----------



## Greg Banks

> I'm ok with Amazon removing pirated copies and refunding my money, but they should not be able to remove legal copies that the publisher later decides to take back. If it was a legal sale it should be permanent, if it was an illegal sale then a "do-over" is in order.


I agree with that.

Why is everyone conveniently overlooking the one special circumstance that separates this incident from other instances of piracy? As I understand it, these books were actually in the public domain in other countries. If that's true, then there's at least argument that MobileReference believed they were in legal rights to provide the book. Not saying that they weren't stupid for not knowing better, but this particular case isn't the same as the recent pirated copies of the Twilight series. That's why neither Amazon or anyone else caught this sooner. Everyone assumed that because it was an older book and being presented as in the public domain, that it was. As I said, I had downloaded a copy for free from FeedBooks months ago.


----------



## geko29

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I'm ok with Amazon removing pirated copies and refunding my money, but they should not be able to remove legal copies that the publisher later decides to take back. If it was a legal sale it should be permanent, if it was an illegal sale then a "do-over" is in order.


As I posted above, there's little to no chance of that ever happening. As you say, the sale was legal, therefore it's done. One example is Boyd Morrison's books. I bought his three novels several months ago, and they were recently pulled from Amazon because Simon and Schuster purchased the rights, and doesn't want to start releasing them until next summer. But I still have the ones I purchased, because at the time I bought them, Boyd owned the works and had the rights to sell them to me. For that reason, they'll never go away, even though he couldn't legally sell them to me today, and even though S&S is going to want $9.99 or more for them next year.


----------



## marianneg

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Interesting POV:
> http://ireaderreview.com/2009/07/18/attacking-a-symptom-instead-of-the-cause/


Good article. I think this pretty much sums up my view:



> Once the pirated books had been sold, Amazon was in a catch-22 situation -
> 
> 1. It either recalls the books and refunds customers (and gets some of them upset).
> 2. It tells publishers that pirated books are removed - however, ones already sold won't be recalled (and gets some publishers upset).
> 
> The Internet Mass Media were going to attack it in either case. Even if Amazon sent a hard-cover book and flowers to every owner of a pirated 1984, the media would still crucify Amazon.


----------



## pawnslinger

Morpheus Phreak said:


> I've bought plenty of Mobi collections and those will not be pulled since they truly are Public Domain works.
> 
> Do the research on what you've purchased...that should tell you if it's legal or not. Finding out if a work is in the Public Domain is VERY easy.


I am glad you feel this way. I don't.

Several of the collections from Mobi that I have purchased are only offerred by Mobi. The authors were alive during some part of the 20th century. They are not available thru Project Gutenberg. Are they public domain? Maybe not. Does Mobi have the right to publish them? Maybe. Some things are donated into the public domain, even if a long enough time hasn't passed. Some things might have had the rights purchased by Mobi. How would I know?

I am not a copyright expert. And I shouldn't have to be to buy a book.


----------



## LauraB

Well, I'm in the camp that believes Amazon needs to do something with their DTP that makes it less likely as a consumer I'm buying stolen property from them. It is Part of the sellers responsabilty to be, as certain as they can be, that they aren't selling things illegally. Amazon has taken enough trips down this road now to know the self publishing platform has some loopholes. I won't be surprised if we see it down soon while they do some tweeking. Amazon does not have sole respinsability here. But they own the store and will have to deal with this hole in the armor or face the media and lawyers, fair or not.


----------



## legalbs2

Found this explanation as to why purchasers of "1984" lost their books:

"Amazon erases Orwell books from Kindle service
Last Updated: Sunday, July 19, 2009 | 12:04 PM ET Comments7Recommend7
CBC News
George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four features a totalitarian regime that erases documents deemed inappropriate. The novel was erased by Amazon from its electronic book service Kindle. (Canadian Press)
In a case of life imitating art, Amazon has angered some customers of its Kindle electronic book service by remotely deleting two George Orwell books, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Copies of the novels, which feature dystopian worlds, were wiped from the book readers this week.

Many have compared the move to the workings of the totalitarian government in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which documents deemed inappropriate are dropped into a "memory hole" and erased forever.

*Amazon said the books were uploaded by a publisher who didn't have the rights to reproduce copies of them.
*
"When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener told the New York Times.

An authorized digital edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four was made available for Kindle users, but no versions of Animal Farm are being offered yet.

Some customers said they were upset after discovering that Amazon could erase books that were already in a Kindle owner's possession.

"I never imagined that Amazon actually had the right, the authority or even the ability to delete something that I had already purchased," said Charles Slater, who bought Nineteen Eighty-Four for 99 cents US last month.

"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances," Herdener told the Times."

Certainly hope Amazon ceases this type of practice in the future.


----------



## Forster

Red said:


> Well, I'm in the camp that believes Amazon needs to do something with their DTP that makes it less likely as a consumer I'm buying stolen property from them. It is Part of the sellers responsabilty to be, as certain as they can be, that they aren't selling things illegally. Amazon has taken enough trips down this road now to know the self publishing platform has some loopholes. I won't be surprised if we see it down soon while they do some tweeking. Amazon does not have sole respinsability here. But they own the store and will have to deal with this hole in the armor or face the media and lawyers, fair or not.


To an extent it should also be incumbent on the copyright holders to help facilitate a system to where current copyrights can _easily_ be checked. They are the right holders and the right's are theirs to protect not Amazon. Amazon obviously shouldn't knowingly sell work not published by the copyright holders.

Maybe such a system is in place, I have my doubts though between estates, rights being sold to publishers, rights reverting back to authors, rights being resold to other publishers, orphaned works etc.


----------



## legalbs2

You are correct, marianner, this is a great article.

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/07/18/attacking-a-symptom-instead-of-the-cause/

Thanks for the post.


----------



## legalbs2

What happens if we have backup copies of a book that Amazon removes?  When we reload it onto our Kindles does it disappear?  Just a thought.


----------



## geko29

legalbs2 said:


> What happens if we have backup copies of a book that Amazon removes? When we reload it onto our Kindles does it disappear? Just a thought.


12 posts up


----------



## kb7uen Gene

Hi Everyone,

I got this email from Amazon today regarding Star Trek Both Hands Full. It appears I was right about the book, but what I don't understand is: If we don't have to worry about having a bootlegged copy of a book taken away from us again, will Amazon still refund us the money since we still ended up with an illegal copy of the book from someone else? I still don't think I should have to pay for a illegally copied, substandard quality kindle edition book. For me, if Amazon emailed me first and said, " Amazon has learned that you were sold an illegal copy of a book, and we are going to refund you the purchase amount for that book. Also, may we remove the illegal copy of the book from your Kindle? YES or NO. Amazon customer service. I wouldn't have a problem with Amazon removing the book if gave them the okay to do it. What do the rest of you think of what I am saying here?

Gene

Their email to me is copied below.

Sent: Sun 7/19/2009 6:10 PM

From: Amazon.com [[email protected]]
To: My email address
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Your Purchase Of Star Trek Both Hands Full

Hello,

You recently purchased title Star Trek Both Hands Full. This book was added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the book. Last week, after being notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copy from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We have changed our systems so that in the future, books will not be removed from customers' devices in these circumstances.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

Customer Service Department
Amazon.com

Please note: this e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do not reply to this message.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

In my opinion as long as they issue the refund they should have every right to remove the book since it is an illegal bootleg.

They really don't have the option themselves legally to present it as a question.


----------



## LauraB

Apparently amazon, and their lawyers, think they have options, or they wouldn't have said they  will no longer remove the purchased books from consumers accounts or devices (whichever).


----------



## Magenta

Forster said:


> Bad on Mobile Reference for making these books available on Amazon in the first place. IMO they are a reputable publisher and as a reputable publisher _dealing with public domain books_ they should have known better. How hard is/was it for them to figure out what the copyright laws are in the US _before_ selling books here. You can't tell me they don't have a list on the major countries regarding their copyright laws. As a reputable publisher they owe it both to their customers and Amazon to get it right the first time.
> 
> As far as Amazon doing what they did I can't see that they had much choice other than to remove the illegal copies and refund the money. No one is out anything that they were entitled to. Do I like Amazon having access to my kindle and deleting things, not particularly, but it's not the end of the world either.
> 
> I really think most of the ire and bad feelings ought to be directed towards Mobile Reference in this case.


Exactly! Mobile Reference caused the problem... Amazon poorly executed the resolution. Why no statement from Mobile Reference? Where is their management?


----------



## r0b0d0c

Red said:


> Apparently amazon, and their lawyers, think they have options, or they wouldn't have said they will no longer remove the purchased books from consumers accounts or devices (whichever).


Exactly. And you can bet your bottom dollar that this is not the last time an "illegal" book will be made available for download/sale, of which Amazon is clearly aware.


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

Red said:


> Apparently amazon, and their lawyers, think they have options, or they wouldn't have said they will no longer remove the purchased books from consumers accounts or devices (whichever).


They aren't really changing much. They are still removing it from Archives, but just aren't flipping the bit that tells it to remove at sync.

I was referring to them not having options as far as pulling the item from 'shelves' and issuing a recall. The only change they are making is that the 'hard copy' of the digital bits on the Kindle won't be removed...even though the archived one will.

I honestly think what they are doing now is fair...but some don't agree.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Morpheus Phreak said:


> They aren't really changing much. They are still removing it from Archives, but just aren't flipping the bit that tells it to remove at sync.
> 
> I was referring to them not having options as far as pulling the item from 'shelves' and issuing a recall. The only change they are making is that the 'hard copy' of the digital bits on the Kindle won't be removed...even though the archived one will.
> 
> I honestly think what they are doing now is fair...but some don't agree.


LOL - That's a HUGE change! The entire internet outrage was about a private company, Amazon, erasing content on private individuals' Kindles without permission!


----------



## Morpheus Phreak

r0b0d0c said:


> LOL - That's a HUGE change! The entire internet outrage was about a private company, Amazon, erasing content on private individuals' Kindles without permission!


Then the outrage was for not. They have permission to remove items from the archives, and permission to revoke the license. The current process tells the Kindle to remove the book during the next sync...but only that one time.

So as I said, it's not that big of a change. If one backed up their books to their PC then this would have been a non-issue from the start for anyone who wishes to keep illegal bootlegs.

As a general rule I prefer that authors and/or their estates are paid their proper due.


----------



## LauraB

r0b0d0c said:


> LOL - That's a HUGE change! The entire internet outrage was about a private company, Amazon, erasing content on private individuals' Kindles without permission!


I agree, the pulling it from the devices was the big consumer side of the problem. _If it is seen as a big change, or a small one, is in the eyes of the beholder, I see it as a big change._ Amazon sold me the Rand book, illegally, they have, IMO some responsibility in that. They should have notified me, and let me decide to pull the book from my kindle. What they did was pull the book the when I turned on whispernet and I got an email the next day. Now I hadn't read about the possibility of them being bootleg because I hadn't read the threads about it. And I had, several months before, contacted the Ayn Rand institute about Atlas being on kindle and got a response that the ones with the rights were working on a kindle version in the near future. So I saw the book on Amazon, and thought that was it. When I called Kindle support about the book being removed they told me that it rarely happens but if a publisher decides to pull a book from kindle format they will pull it from the store and consumers, but wanted to "reassure me it rarely happens and when it does I will be refunded my money". So I asked if anytime a publisher decided to pull a book Amazon would take it from me the answer I got (during the Rand time, not now) was "yes, it is theirs and if they no longer want it on kindle we will pull it from the store and if they want it pulled from customers we will have to do that but you will be refunded." I haven't bought a kindle book since then, until I read Jeff's statement that they will no longer pull from devices. I now have the option to backup on my computer the books I buy if I notice Amazon no longer carries the book. Granted, now I have to figure out if it was pulled because the publisher wanted to, (maybe rights were sold) or it was illegal. UP until now the only books I've had pulled are the Rand book and some I expected because I asked for them to be refunded. But the idea that Amazon said they would pull books if the publisher asked bothered me a lot. 
I, for several days, actually thought the Rand book was legal, although the font was strange, because of the email I had received from the institute. That was after I spoke with Kindle CS because they said nothing in our conversation that lead me to believe it wasn't a legal copy. I came to this board and found the thread then. Thanks Kindleboards!


----------



## Chad Winters

Yeah, they need to clarify. I have no problem with them pulling illegal copies. I don't want stolen goods and I couldn't keep stolen hardcover DTBs in my library either. 

But they can't renege on a legal sale whenever they want, either! That would be like the car company coming to my house and taking back my car after a legal sale. (Again, if someone stole the car and sold it to me, I have no right to keep the car, it goes back to the original owner)


----------



## Spiritwind 1

I have no problem with Amazon asking if they can remove the book I purchased from them, as long as they ask and then refund my account. They removed Eclipse and Breaking Dawn from my Kindle on Thursday. I had purchased it earlier on Thursday and had not even had the chance to look at it. I really wished they had asked. I would not like to receive or keep stolen goods, I would have been willing to return or get rid of it one my own.


----------



## LauraB

Yes, it really is confusing when the books just vanish and you get a generic email about they have processed your refund, (that you didn't ask for). Now the days we all have time to get on and follow the board, not so confusing. But, there are lots of kindle owners, the vast majority, don't visit forums, and I think Amazon needs to work on communication with customers during unusual circumstances to lift the confusion. IMo that would also relieve some of the stress and therefore much of the angst people get from chasing dead ends attempting to figure out what the heck happened.


----------



## Spiritwind 1

I agree, communication is not something Amazon did well in this instance. Who ever pulled this public relations nightmare should be fired (for lack of a better phrase)!!! I too, feel bad for those Kindle customer who do not have the board as back up. . .


----------



## Geoffrey

kb7uen Gene:  Thank you for sharing that email.  I personally haven't had any books removed as illegal copies so I haven't seen the new mails for myself.  I'm glad they are going back and cleaning up their mess and I'm quite satisfied with their new stance.


I was surprised at the anger put forth by som many about this whole issue, but then I assumed this was over illegal copies and as such didn't have a problem with the removal  (and, no, I don't want to start up that agrument again).  I do think Amazon approached the problem incorrectly and I'm much happier with this new approach.

There still needs to be more done to close this loophole as much as possible without killing the self-publishing function and I'm curious what that will look like as it progresses.


----------



## Guest

Morpheus Phreak said:


> I agree with you, believe it or not.
> 
> I think they should honestly hire a TON of people where their sole job is to inspect works being submitted via DTP.


And how much more per title are you willing to pay for those people's salaries? Because hanging out in these forums a whole lot of people don't even want to pay over $5 as it is.

Or should the publishers themselves have to pay for this service? They are only getting 50% or less now on the price of a Kindle book. How many publishers will just pull their titles completely from the Kindle if they have to pay to upload for each title?

This was the point I brought up earlier. One one side, readers want cheap reads and they want a wide variety, but on the other. But on the other, in order to keep costs down and maintain a huge selection, Amazon needs to make the process as painless as possible to publishers.

So I suppose the question is how would you balance those two conflicting needs?


----------



## Chad Winters

very good point, Bard. It's good to remember that most things cost money. I would rather have Amazon occasionally have to pull a book I shouldn't own than have them waste money and risk losing the Kindle service altogether if Amazon can't get it to make money


----------



## Greg Banks

r0b0d0c said:


> LOL - That's a HUGE change! The entire internet outrage was about a private company, Amazon, erasing content on private individuals' Kindles without permission!


Actually the entire outrage was about a few who haven't gotten their minds wrapped around the difference between tangible objects, intellectual property rights, and digital media, and has no concept whatsoever that deleting illegal content from one's Kindle is no more an "invasion of privacy" than a burglar stealing your hubcaps constitutes rape.

Amazon badly handled the situation, but they did what they were supposed to do when they found out that MobileReference had screwed them over this way, intentionally or not. Everyone so outraged by this acts as if they wouldn't demand that every illegal copy (digital or otherwise) was destroyed as soon as they found out someone else was profiting over their own hard work. While as a consumer, I'm not shedding any tears to know that Amazon won't so quickly and arbitrarily delete content from my Kindle again, as an author, if someone steals my book and distributes it and makes profit on it, do I get financial restitution, or does all the people who bought it get a free read at my expense? If anyone thinks that, in turn, is fair, I say, as the British might, Bollocks!

And by the way, why isn't Mobi getting the hell they deserve from everyone for starting this mess to begin with? I'd like to see Amazon have the recourse to seek compensation from Mobi for irresponsibly representing themselves as owning the rights to distribute this and any other ebook that they do not have the rights to.



> To an extent it should also be incumbent on the copyright holders to help facilitate a system to where current copyrights can easily be checked. They are the right holders and the right's are theirs to protect not Amazon. Amazon obviously shouldn't knowingly sell work not published by the copyright holders.


And with the laws as they are now, that still doesn't help in this case. My understanding is that the book WAS in the public domain in other countries, however, how do you distribute something that is freely available in some countries but not others in a global environment like the Internet? I strongly suspect that it was because of this fact that Mobi felt they had the right to distribute the book. If one looks on the Internet, you can find sites who justify their distribution of pirated copies based upon similar arguments. Whether Mobi did this out of true ignorance or because they thought that this was enough of a loophole that they could get away with it, I don't know. But in any case, there's no way to check copyrights, easily or otherwise, as long as the copyright in one country does not apply in another, whenever the Internet is involved.



> I agree, communication is not something Amazon did well in this instance. Who ever pulled this public relations nightmare should be fired (for lack of a better phrase)!!!


I disagree, only because if I suddenly found out that one of my most popularly selling products were being illegally distributed and now the rights owners were threatening to sue me, I'd probably have done the same. Besides, as I've said repeatedly, deleting those books IS what they are supposed to, whether you think you're rightfully entitled to them or not. Mobi is the one who should get all this flack and should suffer for such a disaster. If you or I had put 1984 on Kindle, we'd have been found out pretty quickly. The only reason Mobi got away with it for so long is because they were deemed a trustworthy source.

And everyone who thinks this whole brouhaha has struck a blow for privacy and freedom you're wrong. What it's done is give the publishers more ammunition to demand more from Amazon, including more "reasonable" (spelled h-i-g-h-e-r) prices for their ebooks, and more restrictions on us Indie author/publishers, whom they would love to see die a quick and excruciating death. Shoot off the fireworks and do your victory dances right now, but there will likely be hell to pay for it all in the end.


----------



## LauraB

I prefer to pay a higher price for a legal, well formatted book. But, that's just me


----------



## pawnslinger

Red said:


> I prefer to pay a higher price for a legal, well formatted book. But, that's just me


So would I.

To me, the idea of many books given away for less than a dollar or free is just mind boggling. The old cliche is true, there is no free lunch. If we want a service, we should be willing to pay for it.

For me, the problem with this situation isn't what happened - yes, Amazon handled it in a very ham-handed manner. But they did what needed to be done... in an efficient manner.

I want what was taken from me back. I lost no book. I lost my faith in Amazon and mobi. Especially mobi. Amazon is a big outfit, they barely know what their left hand is doing. But mobi... that is a different story. I am not buying another mobi publication.


----------



## mlewis78

pawnslinger said:


> To me, the idea of many books given away for less than a dollar or free is just mind boggling. The old cliche is true, there is no free lunch. If we want a service, we should be willing to pay for it.


There are some very good books that have been offered for less than a dollar. Some of the new offerings that cost a lot (say, a short novel for $14 or more) are not worth even $9.99. You don't always get what you pay for. I realize that this is not the main point of your post --which is about trust in Mobi and Amazon -- but I had to respond to this.


----------



## NeilShapiro

Great article at http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4944&tag=nl.e539
reporting on Amazon's shameful deletions from Kindle users. I urge all to read and respond there so Amazon will see that they are losing customers (if they are). My own response was:

Thanks For Having Some Guts
The only thing worse than how Amazon has been acting toward their customers is that the press has not reported it well. This is the first story I have read which indicates that Amazon may not get away with all of their draconian ways. This, of course, is not the first time Amazon has deleted books. It is amazing and their user terms of service need to be class actioned because they would never hold up in court. They really threaten the very future of computing. Suppose I had bought an app for my iPhone. Suppose Apple had been sued or threatened with suit by a copyright holder. Would Apple, simply because they are the hardware manufacturer, have the right to delete that app from my iPhone? What Amazon should have done is to delete it from THIER servers, and emailed all downloaders to ask them to delete their copies and to reply to the email that they had done so for a full refund (with maybe a coupon for a free book too).

There are lots of reasons to despise Amazon at this point:

1) The above delete-your-books situation.
2) Fonts that are absolutely lousy and although there is a well-known font hack that replaces them (and legally so under Adobe's published license agreements) Amazon officially ignore its existence.
3) Screens that have failed in the sun, screens that have failed in not correctly forming characters, screens that are far grayer in the background then they should be -- without one recall.
4) The world's worst DRM. They hide the Kindle's serial number which generates a secret PID. That PID must be there to read the book. So if you buy a Sony next year you have lost all your books. Compare to other DRM schemes which protect using a credit card number so your books can be read on other, future devices.

I loved my Kindle 2 when I got it. Now, thanks to Aaazon's policies, I hate it. It was a gift from my kids so I cannot just eBay it but will get rid of it at some point.

Word to the wise: If you are looking for an eReader the Kindle 2 is probably the best out there and yet the worst choice to buy thanks to its manufacturer's greed and lack of understanding of the most basic consumer priorities.


----------



## luvmy4brats

Neil, we already have an entire thread devoted to this, so I'm going to merge the two.

Thanks for understanding.

Luv


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Neil. . . .I'm sorry you feel that way. I for one still love my Kindle (both of them actually), won't be selling either, and intend to spend as much money at Amazon as I ever did. I think they handled this situation badly, but it hasn't drastically changed my opinion of the company as a whole.

While some of our members may agree with you and some may not, I trust that _all_ will remain courteous should the discussion continue.

Thanks.


----------



## Chad Winters

Ok..courteous ..... but that was quite a vitriol filled rant. There are some well informed posts higher up the chain that discuss both sides, if you are interested. 

Its not as simple as Amazon is evil and making huge amounts of money off the Kindle by their nefarious ways. If the fact that Amazon removed illegal and essentially stolen property from the Kindle takes you from loving it to hating it........


----------



## pawnslinger

mlewis78 said:


> There are some very good books that have been offered for less than a dollar. Some of the new offerings that cost a lot (say, a short novel for $14 or more) are not worth even $9.99. You don't always get what you pay for. I realize that this is not the main point of your post --which is about trust in Mobi and Amazon -- but I had to respond to this.


You are right. You do not always get what you pay for... but the reverse is almost always true - you pay for what you get.

To that there are even exceptions.

My point is not that the cheap books on Amazon are bad or worthless. They are NOT. But I know that after living a long life, I am suspicious of the gift horse. Where are they going to get me in the end?

And mobi proved my point. They sold something that they didn't have the right to sell. Where is the next gotcha?


----------



## jpmorgan49

I also received a notice from Amazon saying I would be receiving a 0.99 cent credit for Animal Farm.  I got a second email stating that the book was not uploaded with permission (paraphrased), AKA pirated version.
jp


----------



## kevindorsey

That's pretty pathetic.


----------



## Greg Banks

If people are going to use this thread as an excuse to spout the kind of inflammatory trash that goes on over at Amazon's forums, I think the mods should lock this thread.


----------



## pawnslinger

Greg Banks said:


> If people are going to use this thread as an excuse to spout the kind of inflammatory trash that goes on over at Amazon's forums, I think the mods should lock this thread.


Hello Greg:

I am sorry, if I wrote anything that offended you.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Everyone: Chill. . . . .I _am_ going to lock this thread. . . .not because of what anyone has said in the last few hours, but because I think the subject has been exhausted and there is nothing more to be said. (THough, some folks are getting a bit testy.  ) The mod squad will discuss further and will un-lock if it is deemed appropriate.


----------

