Amazon shows us why DRM is a bad idea
Summary: I wonder if anyone at Amazon thought it ironic to use the remote wipe feature built into each Kindle device to wipe copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm that users had purchased.
I wonder if anyone at Amazon thought it ironic to use the remote wipe feature built into each Kindle device to wipe copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm that users had purchased.
The reason for the mass delete, according to Amazon, was that a third-party had added the books to Amazon but didn't have the rights to do so. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that if a third-party had illegally made available a physical book via Amazon, and customers had bought it, Amazon would have no right at all to enter people's property and burn the book. But thanks to the insidious nature of DRM, right that we have in the real world aren't being carried forward into the virtual world. Amazon believes that it has both the power and the right to access people's Kindles remotely and delete content. Sure, users got a refund, but that's not the point. Amazon took it upon itself to snoop through owner's Kindles and delete content with no notice or warning, let alone consent.
And this folks, is why DRM sucks.
DRM sucks because users get, at best, an illusion of ownership. Buy a book or CD or a DVD and you have that content until you lose it, damage it or pass it on to someone else. But with virtual DRMed content, you are at best borrowing it. You can lose access to your content in a heartbeat. All it takes if for the company to go out of business, your PC to get wiped or for someone somewhere to make a bone-headed decision and press the remote wipe button and your content is gone in the blink of an eye. If you're lucky you get your money back, but I know plenty of people who are out of pocket thanks to DRM.
Amazon has claimed that if the situation was repeated, it wouldn't delete content. Personally, unless Amazon adds that to the user's terms and conditions, and additionally disables the remote wipe feature, then the claim is nothing more than hollow PR words.
DRM sucks. And not just Amazon's DRM, but all DRM. Period. And until the issue of DRM and content ownership is clearly outlined, products such as the Kindle that are entirely locked into a DRMed ecosystem aren't ready for for the mass market.
Could have been worse I guess. If it had been Fahrenheit 451 instead of 1984 or Animal Farm, the Kindles would have probably burst into flames.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
You're very forgiving
What will stop them from violating the terms and conditions? Companies have done it before and will continue to do it.
a "neuter" for Kindle, perhaps?
Can we do that to Kindle somehow?
On another note, hubby and I [b]were[/b] considering purchasing Kindles but, after a stunt like that, forget it! It's not only overpriced (still) but we find the self-distruct feature totally unacceptable.
Microsoft is the KING of the realm of illegal usage. Go Apple!
This matters why. . .
Don't bother to reply because you won't have anything original to say. Indoctrination ensures that cult members always use the same simplistic rhetoric, deny their subservient status and can't recognize that their brains have been thoroughly washed.
I hate to disagree with you
Users also wanted copy/ paste, video recording, voice command, and the ability to change themes on the device... it took Apple this long to do all but the last and they more than likely won't even do the last...
Don't get me wrong I do love my iPhone - it is a far superior device to many other smartphones out there IMHO but it could be a lot better.
DRM should be illegal under "First Sale"
No Kindles for us...
a few Kindles for family members. Certainly not now. We
all agreed we don't need the aggravation our purchased
books may be removed over some publishers dispute.
Regardless of the refund, just the thought they can/will
remove books should give many folks a second or third
thought about purchasing a Kindle. Family members said
they'll purchase the hardcopy books; much less expensive
as well.
No Kindles here, either
When I described what Amazon had done to their customers, my childrens' reaction was disbelief ("They wouldn't do something that stupid. They'd get sued"). When the TV news repeated the story, everyone rolled their eyes, and I didn't even have to persuade anyone that it might be a bad move. Easiest money I've saved in a long time.
Amen! No Kindles (or books) here either!
Couldn't agree more
There won't be a Kindle in my future, period. Nor will I buy one for anyone else and subject them to the DRM storm troopers.
I Want My Illegal Downloads!
The international copyright laws are messed up, big time. But that does not change the fact that, whether they paid for them or not, people had illegal copies of those books on their Kindles. Paying for illegal merchandise does not automatically make it legal. What do you think would happen if you bought a solen car, and the police found out? They would take it away from you, and you would have to go after the seller for compensation.
I imagine Amazon could have handled this better, but I don't know what they could have done. They pretty much had to pull the illegal copies of the books from the user's devices. They certainly can't be expected to challenge ht copyright laws; someone should, but not a retailer like Amazon.
Wrong!!!
Customers were purchasing these books in good faith, they had no knowledge Amazon did not have the rights to sell the books.
Right, er... Wrong = Right
products they're selling are legal. Under what draconian regime would it
be the buyer's?
Apple gets a lot of flack for the way they're forcing [read: sensibly
requiring] developers to submit iPhone and iPod Touch apps for
verification before being released through their own iTunes Store. But
Amazon are in the same situation - only they failed to apply basic due
diligence here. It's that simple.
Imagine if you bought a book from a book store, got it home and began
reading it, then a few days later the security guard from the store turned
up and demanded it back! With or without a refund, it's an infringement
of basic ownership rights. Possession being nine tenths.
Amazon's position is that they assume that right, and exercise that right
by application of built-in DRM. User friendly business model? Hell no.
As for whether they recognised any Orwelian irony, I doubt it. Bezos isn't
really very bright, and the Kindle is not only a poorly considered
diversion from the core business model, it's stretching their creative and
managerial capabilities imo.
You are woefully ignorant of the law
I wonder how tough you'll talk to them?
Wonder how far "9/10ths of the law" will get you?
In short, you know nothing about IP law.
You are correct, but off-base.
Actually
I'm not here to defend Amazon. I understand the concerns, but the concerns are being overblown.
Would you prefer the FBI show up and confiscate your DEVICE?
If you don't believe that's possible, search for news stories about what the FBI (a domestic law enforcement agency) has done in FOREIGN countries on behalf of Microsoft.
The Law
Not to mention the fact that DRM violates First Sale
I personally believe that if I buy a piece of digital media, I should have the right to use that piece of media on any device I own. Putting DRM on that piece of media, or limiting my use of what I paid for through EULAs, should be against the law. This should apply to ANY digital media form, whether it is movies, audio, books, or software. If I paid for it, I should have the right to use it. Period.
IP Law
Now try this in the physical world...could everyone have the exact same car at the same time? which each one being indistinguishable from the other? I propose the answer is no, and validates the idea of ownership in the physical sense.
"Made up" or not is irrelevant.
Whether it's made up or not is absolutely irrelevant. It's being prosecuted and enforced, and I don't see it being removed from the "books" anytime in the near future.
Copyright law has been around for centuries. The argument that should be made, honestly, is that modern IP law has become [i]way too[/i] pro-corporation. There existed a time when someone's copyright would go into the public domain before they died - it had a fixed tenure. Now, however, it's not only a lifetime copyright, but also extends far, far after the death of the original copyright holder.
That is where the real argument should be held. IP law isn't new by a long shot, but the pro-corporation, anti-public interpretations of it are a phenomenon of the last 60-75 years.