Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle

[RandomThoughts]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

In George Orwell’s “1984,” government censors erase all traces of news articles embarrassing to Big Brother by sending them down an incineration chute called the “memory hole.”

On Friday, it was “1984” and another Orwell book, “Animal Farm,” that were dropped down the memory hole by Amazon.com.

In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.



The real bad part is that they reached into individual book reading computers and erased copies of the book, that puts all digital content under control of a very small few. What if they wanted to edit books, or change content?

The ability for downloaded books to be separate from the download site once purchased is needed. Multiple copies of text in many forms, is essential to protecting books.

The harddrives and memory on the devices should not be accesable from outside systems.

[ananda]

1. That is so serious.

Mercy...

[Hydra]

2. Wow...

Right out of Orwell...

[rrneck]

3. Best solution.

[RandomThoughts]

17. +1

[Maru Kitteh]

4. Somehow, the word "irony" doesn't cover it. n/t

[Robb]

8. Indeed.

Satire died around 2000. Today we witness the death of irony.

[BlooInBloo]

5. This was 100% predictable.

[KittyWampus]

31. What was 100% predictable? Amazon would make a mistake? Yes, shit happens but you didn't read the

article, I bet.

Typical DU.

Someone posts a thread withholding info from the article to deliberately cause a controversy.

Other DU'ers react without reading actual article.

[BlooInBloo]

36. hahahah! Um, I first posted this story here days ago...

And I'm also the one who posted about the uselessness of the Kindle due to the fact that they can "update" content without your knowledge or consent, months ago.

:rofl:

[rcrush]

6. WTF I was actually considering getting one of these

But if they can control whats on my device then I think I will pass. I dont like that anyone can access my Kindle and delete or edit whatevers on there.

[havocmom]

41. Me too. Small house, limited space for books. Space all used up

Guess amazon lost another sale. We will just have to get a bigger house.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. I don't understand this

Not only is mine still on my kindel, but when I go to Amazon and check the link where I bought mine it's still available.

What gives?

On edit: Can anyone else see this? http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=amb_link_84842371_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=auto-sparkle&pf_rd_r=0WZW2ASBVBJS7SVVE8Q9&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=484167591&pf_rd_i=1984 Or is my system still running on cache

[sailor65]

11. Same here, LoneStar

Still on my Kindle, still in my account, and your link works fine for me.......

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Cool, I replied to you below

It's good to know it was something other than what was assumed. :D

[RandomThoughts]

19. If what you say is true.

Maybe the media is lying?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. Nah, it's just a mistake

If you read the article it was a vendor without the rights to the sell the literature which they did. Amazon is just covering their butts from the lawsuits that may have been generated by their being the distributor. No big deal.

[KittyWampus]

27. IT WAS AN ILLEGAL COPY. It's in the freaking article AT THE TOP. The OP deliberately

left out the information that explains this.

Typical of DU'ers who are desperate for attention.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. I realized that after I posted this

If you read the thread you'll see where I pointed out it was a blackmarket copy. I even mentioned it in a reply to the original poster how it was stated in the article they linked and it was Amazon's legal duty to do as they did.

Really, I get it. :)

[havocmom]

42. Yes, some of us read and know about the illegal copy, problem is they can access your machine

and edit.
THAT is reason enough to not buy their product.

NOBODY messes with our books.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. They can access your online Amazon account which syncs that account to your device

That's all. And it only syncs to your device if you permit it via use of the whispernet they provide. Also you don't have to store your only copy of a book on your Amazon account. It's really no big deal.

I don't get all the hysteria. Thieves were stopped in their tracks and people were refunded their money. All in all I consider that a win-win situation.

[havocmom]

46. Thanks for that bit of info. I was hoping we could 'store' ebooks on an external hard drive

or something like that. If you have info on how it all works and wouldn't mind, I would love to know more about this device and the potential ways to store books. House too small for buying and storing many more hard copies. ;)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

49. I've posted quite a bit in this thread about how it works

Anything you have questions about that's not covered I'd be more than willing to answer for you.

What I find great about mine is a person can access books/newspapers/magazines/blogs no matter where they are. If you're in the hospital, or just too far from a library or bookstore, you're still able to purchase reading material. It's something I'd dearly miss after having discovered it. While I don't think they're right for everyone, I do see how they can make some people's lives fuller. And all this fop about "the man" ruling your reading is silly pooh.

[havocmom]

52. My problem is location. We have to drive hours to get to where we can update the phone

Wireless is hit and miss here yet.

I just want a way to get books without having to store books.

Thanks for your help. Will check out your posts

[Lone_Star_Dem]

53. Check out their site and see if you're under their coverage area

They have a place where you can type in your location and it shows if you're covered. I'm in a remote area yet I'm in one of their hotspots. Who knows why, but my signal almost always excellent.

[pnorman]

40. I can read it.

Over the past few years, I've accumulated quite a few e-books. Some were public domain, but most were purchased mainly from http://ereader.com. Up till recently, they were priced closely to the print edition. so had it not for that big investment already laid out, I'd have seriously considered getting a Kindle.

But I'm still glad to learn that Big Brother is NOT alive and well at Amazon.com!

pnorman

[WillParkinson]

9. Amazon's Defense:

An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “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,” he said.

[WCGreen]

12. well that makes me feel a whole lot better...

They are protecting the flow of money to those holding the rights to the Orwell library...

[KittyWampus]

28. As well they should. But putting that in the opening post wouldn't have made such a

sensational thread title.

[WCGreen]

44. Well, it's the nature of the beast...

Scream now, think later...

[sailor65]

10. We might have to call BS on this one.....

Like the other poster, my "1984" is still there and still available in my backups.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. Good, it's not just me.

It sounds more like an unauthorized party was attempting to sell literature they had no right to than censorship to me.

Even if that was the case, if you downloaded it onto your PC you'd still have a copy of it. Which I've done with a few books I wanted to email to others and share.

[tbyg52]

18. Yes, but I still think Amazon had no right to reach into the Kindles

The blogger here likens it to coming into your house to retrieve a stolen book without a warrant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6091525&mesg_id=6091525

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. It's in the TOS, if the book is blackmarket and you obtained it from Amazon they they reserve the

right to do so.

However, if I thought I was buying something which was blackmarket I'd put a copy on my HD rather than leave the only copy on my kindel account. Which is well within your rights and not subject to their TOS.

The way one can tell if an item is blackmarket is if it still has copyright restrictions and is being sold far below the current market price.

[tbyg52]

15. Apparently there were different vendors. nt

[JNelson6563]

13. Very Orwellian

The irony, sometimes there's so much of it, it hurts.

[RandomThoughts]

21. Someone that knows something about ebooks and Kindle.

is the form of the ebook in proprietary code, could a linux system be used to set up an operating system on a kindle, or kindle like device, separating the reading device from the seller of the content?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

23. You really don't have to

You can download any book in PDF form to your HD rather than leave it on your kindel account. If you do this it's no longer within Amazon's power to enforce their rules regarding copyright restrictions. :shrug:

[Ewellian]

24. it's easier than that.

Turn off the 3g wireless.

[Towlie]

25. This is the price you pay for naively buying something that's on the Internet for free.

[KittyWampus]

26. They were illegal copies Amazon didn't have the right to sell. Your thread title is totally misleadi

HOW CONVENIENT YOU LEFT OUT THIS QUOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF ARTICLE:

An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “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,” he said.

[RandomThoughts]

30. The thread title came from the news article.

But I agree that the news often missleads people.

I should have put that in the title.

HOW CONVENIENT YOU LEFT OUT THIS QUOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF ARTICLE:

I put the title of the news story as the title of the OP.

Then I put the first three paragraphs of the article in the OP.

I agree quoting the news is not always accurate, but go look at the article, then yell at the news paper not me.

[KittyWampus]

32. You also neglected to post the second paragraph clearly explaining WHY the stories were deleted.

[RandomThoughts]

33. That is true, but I was not thinking about that as relevant.

My arguement was with the ability to reach into the Kindle and erase the books. That was my personal point on the article.

The reason they did it was not what my comment was about.(Read my comment under the quoted part)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

34. Bah, that's foolish. They clearly state they have that right in the TOS under such circumstances.

Which keeps them from being sued and is well within their legal rights for books they distribute. Which are the ONLY ones governed by this rule.

[RandomThoughts]

37. My comment is not on what is in the TOS, it is about how a few

that have control over information, by reacing into kindles, makes information less dispersed and therefore less secure.

Why would my comment have anything to do with a TOS?

I would guess you might think if it is in a TOS that makes it right or best for society.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

38. Because the TOS covers this specifically

Really, you're not getting it. Due to the nature of ebooks and the way Amazon provides instant downloads to a kindel device, this is required for books which they distribute. However, as I've already stated, you're wrong in assuming there's no way to keep it on your HD, there is. You must only download it from Amazon as a PDF. Then, like with any other ebook you download from any other site, you can reinstall it on your kindel and it's no longer Amazon's legal worry. What Amazon did in this case was delete all the BLACKMARKET books which had been purchased from Amazon from people's ONLINE kindel accounts. Which then means that if a person leaves their 3G service on their kindel on, it will upgrade their kindel to match their account. However, if you download all your books to your HD, and DO NOT use the 3G provided by kindel they have no, zero, nada, zip, way to to access your device.

You simply do not understand the dynamics nor the legalities of what was approved by the clients who use the 3G service.

edit to clarify: Even if you use the 3G service, if you download all you books as pdf they have no way of removing them from your possession.

[RandomThoughts]

39. My point has nothing to do with legalities.

Your point of them being downloadable in PDF format does answer my question. So my post, if I was aware of the workings of the Kindle system would have said, people should download the books in PDF, to avoid books being located on one site.

Again, my comment is not within the frame work of a legal system, nor is it meant to be. It was a comment on how information in central locations is more vulnerable to alteration or deletion. Something that goes pretty well with the 1984 topic. (Note that history rewrites were legal in the society spoken of in the book 1984)

If they had not erased the 1984 books, my comments would be the same as they were, the erasure of the books, is not relevant to the point I was making. It only showed the capability of a central control over information, within some usages of the system.

You have pointed out an alternative method of viewing the system that disperses the information on many systems, and as I said, that is a better method to safeguard the integrity of information. So downloading as PDF, and not using 3G system would be the best way to safeguard information within that system.

However written books on acid free paper are still a good idea also.

(I did not state there is no way to keep it on hard drive, I stated their should be a way to keep it on hard drive, although I agree that my statement implies your assertion.)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

43. I really don't get you. This was about nothing more than not letting theives profit from their theft

It was theft from the writer/publisher/copyright holder. It was illegal. It was wrong. It is not defensible.

Your words unbolded and in itallics, excluding the misleading and provocative snip you provided:


The real bad part is that they reached into individual book reading computers and erased copies of the book, that puts all digital content under control of a very small few. What if they wanted to edit books, or change content?

That's not what took place here. The books were illegal and per the TOS (see how it applies?) agreed to by the users anything purchased from Amazon ebooks AND stored on their online Amazon account that turns out to be in violation copyright laws is subject to removal.

The ability for downloaded books to be separate from the download site once purchased is needed. Multiple copies of text in many forms, is essential to protecting books.

As we covered this method exist. It's not as easy as clicking "Buy Now" on your e-reader and seeing it a couple of seconds later, but it is there.

The harddrives and memory on the devices should not be accesable from outside systems.

Every account which has whispernet access and has given permission to Amazon is synchronized via wireless by Amazon to reflect the user's recent purchases sent to their device from Amazon, their archived items, etc. This is a feature that is clearly covered in not only the instructions of usage, but also the TOS a person has to agree to before they purchase ebooks for their kindel from Amazon. They also cover moving your ebooks to your HD if you'd prefer to store them there. Again, this is a safeguard against THEFT by unscrupulous people attempting to circumvent copyright laws. Note how the purchasers were refunded their purchase price. No one is out here except the thieves.

[RandomThoughts]

50. The reason you don't 'get it' or understand my point.

Is because you are talking about the legality of them retracting the books. Or talking about the system they have.

I am talking about maintaining the integrity of information within systems. And criticizing that system.

They are two different topics.

And it does not matter why they removed the books, but the removal points to a capability that could be implemented for any reason. Regardless of why, or even if it took place, if the capability exist to do something it should be discussed.



Every account which has whispernet access and has given permission to Amazon

Just because people have to agree to it, or it is clearly in the TOS, or it is implemented does not mean it is a system that adds security to an information system. If information is held in a central point, or under the control of a central point, it is vulnerable. Regardless of what is agreed or legal or said or done. The point is it is a bad idea.

You have not addressed my point. Information held in one place is easier to alter, especially when in digital form. Systems that advocate that, even if in TOS, add to that lack of information security. Even if that capability is not used, the potential of it being used makes it something to not move towards, but to move away from.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. No, you're not listening

They have to do it this way due to the the way content via Amazon is delivered to a device and can be stored on their server. It has nothing to do with anything but their avoiding being sued by having illegal content distributed by them or on their servers.

Again, the information is not stored in one place unless the user chose for it to be. Amazon in no way forces a person to keep the content exclusively on their server, as I've pointed out time and time again. They even make it clear that you are free to place all content on your own HD, you'll simply have to upload it manually to your device and manage it yourself. If a person is afraid of the storage service Amazon offers they're under no obligation to use it. You may even still use your whispernet and not be afraid of Amazon spying on what's on your device since all they have access to is what's in your Amazon storage account. Which they won't let you store illegal items in.

It's no different than putting illegal content up on a website and then having it removed by the owner/ISP so they don't get sued.

[RandomThoughts]

55. I understand and pointed out in my last post that

you clarified that it can be stored locally on a hardrive.

Its not about Amazon spying, nor about one person being afraid. It is about systems created that have possibility of corruption. And it does not matter if they have access to other parts of storage, the conversation is not a privacy conversation, it is a intellectual data protection conversation. No where in the conversation does it matter what they view on the computer. It is the access to all copies of any information (in the G3 example) that makes the problem. Privacy is a different issue. Actually if they had read only access to every computer in existence, or no ability to read. It would not change the topic. The topic is data protection, it is 'write access' that is the topic of conversation not 'read access'. Introducing privacy into the conversation also is irrelevant.

My comment has nothing to with being sued or their right to remove content.

My comment is to say that a system, even if for user comfort, even if liked by many consumers, even if innocuous with no intent to do anything wrong, that centralizes data storage probably should be different.

If the systems are moving to content being stored on central server, even if by that central server simply existing for another reason, or if done for some other service. It still presents a social problem. It is not a problem for any individual, nor is it anything that one individual worrying about it would effect. It is a system that moves to central storage, and is accepted by many without discussing the possible down sides of that system that is the problem.

situation:
Book on history put in digital form
Book put on 5 servers for distribution.
Millions have access.
20 years later, a political or social movement decides some comment should be changed
5 people can change all copies of that book at the server.

(you did point out PDF DLs that would alleviate that)

But if systems move to synced data, or data stored in central points like at Amazon for download only when actually being read, then data integrity is more at risk.

If it has nothing to do with:

The reason the method is used by a company
If everyone likes the convenience.
if it is legal
if it is cheaper
if it is easier
if people are not forced to use service
if it is optional
if only some agreed to use system
if it was for some legal reason

That would not change the fact that moving to central storage makes information more fragile.

[RandomThoughts]

35. I actually neglected to post the picture, the 4th 5th

6th 7th 8th 9th and the rest of the paragraphs. I also neglected to post the title of the news paper, the author of the news story, the date it was posted, the color of the ink in the paper, the font used in the heading, the advertisements on the page, the who is of the web page, the ip routing of the page, the frame of mind of the writer of the article, the name of the photographer that took the picture, the place where Kindles are manufactured, the copyright of Kindle programing and hardware, the companies that manufacture kindles, the color of screens used in Kindles, how Kindles use little mirrors in their display (really cool),

and I also did not post anything intended to get a comment about a bias in quoting the first three paragraphs and the title of a news story. Especially since my comments have nothing to do with what seems to have upset you to the point of typing in all caps.

:shrug:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. if you want to read one online

go to http://georgeorwell.org/#books and click on 'read online'...not the same as kindle...but it's free...

sP

[melm00se]

48. while agree

that reaching into the recipients device is wrong, the legal precedent is there:

if you buy something stolen, you have no right to keep the item if the original owner reclaims it.

[Occam Bandage]

51. I think you mean, "Amazon protects authors by deleting pirated media per its terms of service."

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

57. K&R

:kick: