What I don't get is why Amazon is (apparently) not being prosecuted, for larceny and breaking and entering in this case. If I hacked into Amazon's computers, and deleted things which belong to them, they'd be all over me! That's essentially what Amazon did - they broke into private, personal electronic devices and removed private property without permission. Or perhaps they might say they were invited on? Not to steal private property without permission! If this is legal, it can't get much sicker than this! If this is legal, it must be similarly legal to break down our doors and remove hard copies from our bedrooms!

I want to know that Amazon is being prosecuted for these felonious crimes. If you or I can be prosecuted for stealing what is not ours, Amazon deserves the same treatment.

And I want to see all those privately owned copies of 1984 and Animal Farm restored to their owners. If Amazon sold copies illegally, that is THEIR problem, NOT their customers! Those unilateral reversal of sale contracts are not signed by these book owners, and cannot be legal.

I hope this costs Amazon a $Billion in sales. It would only be fair. And it might discourage further crimes.

None of us who care about privacy or security should even consider using electronic book readers.

So who's opinion is this? Nate's or Tim's?

And the entire point is missed. It wasn't the fact that the book was illegal -- it was the fact that Amazon went into people's Kindles to erase the book. As somebody said below, Apple does not do this with iPods... once its on your iPod they are not (yet at least) peering through your content.

That's the point.. that there is a privacy issue here. Some outlets did do some sloppy reporting, but all are focusing on that point, which is truly valid. Yes there is some irony that the book deleted ends up being 1984...

By the way, 1984 is one of the best books I ever read. It is a must for anyone who wants to understand how things are managed today...
Written in the ' 40s, it describe the life today, with some subtle differences, awesome!

"The press loves a juicy story"? Actually the press loves any story, and don't let anything like the facts get in the way. When some of these loser outfits are quoting bloggers, as well as actually having a blogger pen an "article" as a newsman over at Newsweek, you know journalism is dead.

Betanews has it completely wrong here. The details you seem to be so proud to point are of no importance. What *REALLY* has importance is the fact that Amazon has revealed its "big brother" spy&attack capabilities precisely with "1984"!. If this had been a *REAL* book, illegally sold etc etc, amazon could NOT do anything to prevent the buyers (that no doubt bought the book in good faith) to keep and read the book except doing something like entering the houses of the people that bought the book and "stealing back" the book. Also, in a *REAL* case, those books would perhaps be very precious collector items (just by the fact of its irregular edition): things like these show another reason why the "ebooks" are much less worth than physical ones.

Also, what about the fact that if Amazon "discovers" something wrong in the digital rights zone acts upon it without warning nor permission? from now on, it MUST act that way, or else defend itself in court: you have the ebook, but you do not have the right to TTS-process it and so Amazon acted upon it forbidding that right even in books previously sold. Maybe some authors would decide you do not have right to *READ* a book (perhaps you can own a copy in your Kindle but you cannot read it... does it *clearly* and *beyond any doubt* say so in your contract?) and at that point Amazon must prevent any owners of the book to read it. Or perhaps some distribution rights or some litigation about a book makes Amazon unable to sell it, and after that moment, all the kindle users are affected... this puts the Kindle owners in a extremely weak position. What they think they own they maybe not own at all.

*laughing*

Ya'll love to claim the "huge differences" between digital and physical copies when defending piracy, but when the tables are turned?? All of the sudden those "huge differences" are suddenly out the window...

Funny how in piracy, "it's not the actual book", but when they remove it from the kindle, "It's like they went into your house and took the actual book"...

It's just so...convenient!

See the posh gang are posting, all those who have never read the book kindly leave the stage, thought so.
PS Having seen the film does not count !

Forget about the 1984 book. That's petty. I see a larger problem. Why not APPLE ?

How many people have pirated songs on their Iphone? Does this mean that AT&T or APPLE should have the ability or right to go into my phone and wipe it clean of illegally downloaded music? Just as "Anthony Anderson" said in Transformers. "So what I downloaded a couple thousand songs off the internet, who hasn't" I mean look I'm not saying its right.. But two wrongs don't make a right either.

Folks, this is a classic backdoor in the hacker world. "The Amazon Kindle has a feature which allows them to monitor and delete items from your device at any given time they wish." I find it an extremely disgusting feature and wonder why Amazon would even put this magic trick into their hat. What other tricks are up their sleeve? I mean what is Amazon really? A book seller or the copyright police? I'm sure Sony and BMG would love that feature on the 5G Iphone.

Bottom Line:
Honest people who bought this device and its digital medium really have no Say, No Security and No Privacy.

Talk is Cheap. Anyone have a law degree? Raise your hands if you think there should be a Class Action Recall on the Kindle. I nominate the Kindle go back to Amazon and the backdoor be removed or user money refunded.

You can't compare this to people having illegal music on their iphones. That music wasn't purchased through itunes - BIG difference.

If Apple accidentaly sold music they didn't have a right to and then removed it and refunded buyers, that would be a more accurate comparison.

And where is the privacy people expect from the kindle? They have no less privacy now then they did before this. Amazon knows all their purchases, so were is the lack of privacy?

I really don't see what they did being a big issue and I'm sure it states their right to do so in the EULA.

Amazon poorly handled this one. the proper thing would have been to ASK owners if they could delete the copies. But they passed into a gray area and simply deleted the books off their kindles. Kinda hard to do with with coverless books. Not that I'd appreciate reading a coverless book. since it's rather hard to read from one of those. Or cd's with cuts in them. Illegal to be sold, but people do it anyway. Just kinda hard to delete such things. Yet another reason not to own a Kindle. I no longer trust Amazon.

"Mobile Reference did not have the right to sell Orwell's novels because 1984 and Animal Farm are still under copyright protection in the United States. They were not legitimate or 'perfectly legal' copies of the books, but rather illicit copies that should not have been sold in the first place."

So Amazon discovered that they were selling stolen electronic goods. They stopped any further sales, recovered the illicit goods, AND refunded the sale price.

Say you had purchased stolen merchandise in normal three-dimensional space, the seller is caught, and there was a way for law enforcement to recover all the sold items from their physical locations. You would lose the item and they certainly wouldn't be refunding your money. You're just S.O.L.

Not being part of a law enforcement action did Amazon have a legal right to remove anything from a privately owned device? Probably not! Should they be tarred and feathered? No, but it should be made clear that such activity is unacceptable and most likely illegal! It seems like they wanted to do the right thing, automatically refunding the purchase price was a nice touch, but it appears to be a knee-jerk response to the situation.

If Amazon were really smart they would have just stopped any further sales of the stolen copy, allowed the customers to retain their copy (or replaced it with a proper copy) and paid the cost difference themselves. After all it was a fault in their overall system that allowed the problem in the first place.

"If Amazon were really smart they would have just stopped any further sales of the stolen copy, allowed the customers to retain their copy"

You have already stated in your own comment why they can't do that, starts with "Say you had purchased stolen merchandise in normal three-dimensional space"

Did they have the right to remove the copies on peoples kindles, I bet you it's written some where in a EULA or where ever that they can.

And I'm not saying that Amazon doesn't have a small part of a role in this mess happening but most of the blame needs to go to Mobile References. This is not a simply mistake, it's a huge one.

Thank you, Nate. This has been ridiculously handled from the get-go, and while all parties share blame, Amazon has taken more than their share of lumps over this.

It is not for a private party to SEIZE and destroy a good, digital or not.
And even a court order could have ordered the cease of sale but certainly not the search and destroy of the previously SOLD items, digital or not.
Just imagine the equivalent non virtual thing, a simple amazon employer coming to YOUR HOUSE and demanding a book you sold to destroy it?
We should not let the "digital' thing undermine the principle of a lawful society.
The next step is an author/publisher/third party rights "owner" making threats for whatever reason and book being deleted for that reason ? All in "commercial" agreements ? no justice ? no fair hearing ? no due process ? no time to think what is really happening ?

And the simple fact that nobody got the facts right at first it a telling sign of the lack of facts-checking in most, would be respectable, news outlets, but also a testimony to the NEED of due process and a contradictory inquiry in any matter.

"It is not for a private party to SEIZE and destroy a good, digital or not."

...if the good is owned by *you* and not the private party. ;) You do not *own* the books you download from Amazon for your Kindle. (This is one of the reasons I hate these things)

"We should not let the "digital' thing undermine the principle of a lawful society."

In this case, the law was upheld. Amazon did not have the legal right to distribute the book from that seller. Amazon has legal rights to all books downloaded from them. Legally, they did nothing wrong.

No need to take this to extremes. They could have handled it better, but it's not an injustice, rights-violation, or anywhere near the extremes you're taking it to.

Mecanoroid: "It is not for a private party to SEIZE and destroy a good, digital or not."
PC_Tool: ...if the good is owned by *you* and not the private party.

O.J. thought so too.

Yer gonna have to explain that one to me... Amazon owns the rights to it, even if it's on your kindle...meaning they can remove it if they see fit.

Sure, it's dumb as hell for them to actually *do* it, but it's their right to do dumba** things if they want to. ;)

O.J. owned that memorabilia, it was previously stolen from him, but when he took it back it was still a robbery. Just because you think you own something doesn't give you a legal right to take it from person holding it. Only police (and other law enforcement) can do that legally. I'm sure Amazon's license agreement contains clauses giving them rights to do anything they want, but that might not hold up in court.

Yes, that'd be up to the courts to decide and since they haven't yet ruled on anything EULA related as far as this type of behavior is concerned....

Amazon has the right. (Since the courts have not seen fit to limit that right for the time being...)

Decades of enforcement of these EULA's is pretty solid groundwork... ;) (Not saying I agree with them/like them at all...)

"Amazon has the right. (Since the courts have not seen fit to limit that right for the time being...)"

Laws give legal rights, not courts. Just because a court didn't hear your case yet, doesn't mean you had a right to do whatever you did. There have been plenty of various EULA clauses declared illegal and void by courts.

"Laws give legal rights, not courts"

*laughing*

Rights are innate, my friend. We are born with them. The government has some ability to limit them, but no rights are *given* by the state.

Did you miss word "legal" in my statement or do you need an explanation of what the word actually means? Perhaps it would help your reading comprehension if you weren't laughing so much?

Ah..."legal rights"....as opposed to "non legal" rights?? ;)

Perhaps you should read the Constitution? (that is a legal document, right?)

All rights are our LEGAL rights, with which we are born.

All rights are ours, without limitation, until the government, by proving clear and present danger to the rights or health of others, places limitations on them.

I believe you are confusing case-law and things such as the stated limitations on government in regards to certain rights (Bill of Rights) as "legal rights".

...again; The government cannot give or define rights. The most they can do is enforce limitations on those rights.

Killing another, for instance...is a right. However, due to the obvious harm that does to the other person, the government has limited that right to "self defense". They never *gave* us the
"legal right" to kill another in self defense....

Precisely because Constitution is a legal document, it (and other laws) define your legal rights. Whether it uses exclusionary or inclusionary wording to define them is besides the point. The point, as I said, is that "Laws give legal rights, not courts". An current laws pretty clearly define that "Just because you think you own something doesn't give you a legal right to take it from person holding it. Only police (and other law enforcement) can do that legally."

Wow...

It has been covered many times before, and maybe I am just not wording it correctly...

The Constitution does not provide or define a list of rights. The Bill of Rights does not provide or define a list of rights. Both documents exist to define the abilities and limitations of the Government. That is *all* they do. They have *nothing* to do with creating, listing, or defining our rights.

The government was created to protect our innate rights. Not to define or provide them.

"An current laws pretty clearly define that "Just because you think you own something doesn't give you a legal right to take it from person holding it. Only police (and other law enforcement) can do that legally."?

What are these laws? ...or are you again referring to case-law (not the same thing) which I would guess is largely referring to *physical* property....right?

...which brings us back to my original point (thankfully): There is no limitation on the books regarding Amazon's right to do what they did. As such, and until such a limitation is placed upon them, they are within their rights. Note that I disagree with what they did and how they did it. I am not defending their stupidity, just their right to be ... stupid.

"The Constitution does not provide or define a list of rights."

Constitution (and other laws) indeed do not define a list of rights. They do however define a list of legal rights. They define what is legal and what is not. They define what you can do legally and what you cannot.

Ah...

"Defining what is legal" is placing limitations on rights, not defining them.

Again, my example above: Killing someone is a right, however, this right has been limited to self defense. The government and laws did not create, provide. grant, or define a right...they placed limitations on it.

Killing someone in self defense is not a legal right, it is a limitation of the right to kill.

Specifying limitations does not equal defining. I know we're just mincing words now, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine. The moment people begin thinking the government "grants" rights, is the moment we begin to lose them all.

"The government and laws did not create, provide. grant, or define a right"

Yes, they don't define rights. They define legal rights.

"The moment people begin thinking the government "grants" rights..."

The government grants (or rather laws define) legal rights. The laws define what is legal and what is not and in doing so define legal rights.

The moment you stop using very different concepts of "rights" and "legal rights" interchangeably, you should find it much easier to understand that BY DEFINITION, a document defining what is legal and what is not DEFINES legal rights. Even if that document were to say that absolutely everything is legal, it would still be a document defining legal rights.

"They define legal rights."

Laws are limitations. Period. End of Story. They grant nothing. They define only how certain inalienable rights are limited by the government.

They define limitations on rights. Show me a law that *grants* a right we don't already have that isn't, in effect, a definition of our limitations in exercising that right.

"BY DEFINITION, a document defining what is legal and what is not DEFINES legal rights."

I'll fix this for ya:

By definition, a document defining the limitations on innate rights does not define the right, just how the right is limited under the law.

The only thing I can think of that even comes close to "defining a right" are laws which are enacted for the purposes of furthering an ideal or group. (Not laws protecting innate rights). An example of such a law would be Copyright. But even this, in a sense, merely states the limits to which others may exercise their rights to the owner's content. I'd cave on this on this one though and grant you that this might be the exception that proves your case. Of course, this all depends on how you view property and if you believe IP falls under that umbrella.. ;)

Thanks again for the discussion. Don't see this kind of thing on BN every day.

You keep referring to "defining rights", while I am talking about "defining legal rights". These are very different concepts. Laws define what is legal and what is not, i.e. they define legal rights.

The fact that a particular law defines them in terms of limiting "inalienable rights" is a semantic detail, it still defines what is legal and what is not, it still defines legal rights.

"Laws define what is legal and what is not, i.e. they define legal rights."

Laws define what is *not* legal. Example: It is not legal to go over 55 on the road down the street. The law specifically states that going *over* the speed limit is against the law. It does *not* state that it is your "legal right" to drive 55MPH.

You may infer that 55MPH is your "legal right", but that's an issue of perception, not a statement of fact.

"Laws define what is *not* legal."

By defining what is not legal (and, for example, stating or implying that everything else is legal) they define what is legal and what is not. Whatever semantic they choose to define it, exclusionary or inclusionary, they are still defining what is legal and what is not.

...

We're not getting anywhere. Back to the main point:

There's no case-law backing the idea that licensed digital media falls under the same laws dictating the seizure of physical property. While there have been cases dealing with EULA's, none of them (as far as I know) have gone this far.

So until they are legally *barred* from doing so, it remains within their right.

Yes, but it is laws, not courts, that define what they can or cannot do legally.

Okay, now you've got me..

Who is it that decides what laws are constitutional or not? ;)

...

No-one needs to define what they can do. They can *do* anything, unless laws are in place that limit certain actions. As it stands, there is no law limiting their right to remove the content and unless you can actually point to one that I have not seen, the rest is moot.

They are not barred from doing so unless there is a law to prevent it or a precedent in case-law where current laws were interpreted to forbid it.

"Who is it that decides what laws are constitutional or not?"

Constitution itself is just a law. It may be a law with highest level of precedence in a hierarchical legal system, but it is still just a law. And together with other laws in that system it defines what is legal and what isn't.

You may be right about Amazon, current law (thankfully) doesn't equal "intellectual property" to "property" despite massive attempts by certain organizations to brainwash public into believing it does.

Ugh...

Swerving me back into the Constitution=law claim again.. Grrr...

The Constitution doesn't really even define limitations on laws. All it really does is define the limitations on government (not the people). "Freedom of Speech", for example, specifically states limitations on the *Government* in regard to limiting free speech. It says nothing about limiting the right with regards to "The People"...which it would have to do if it were a definition of the right, would it not?

It doesn't because that is the very foundation of the country. All the Constitution is really saying is:

All "The People" have all natural rights as they are born with them. The government is barred from limiting these specific inalienable rights in these specific ways: (listing the ways in which the government can and cannot interfere int he rights of the people)

I suppose you could consider it a document of law spelling out the laws limiting the US government....but it has little to do with limitations of or definitions of the rights of "The People"

"Swerving me back into the Constitution=law claim again.. Grrr..."

You don't agree that Constitution is a law?

Constitution, like any other law defines legal rights. It defines legal rights of people and it defines legal rights of entities like government. And it is not about amount of limits imposed. If an imaginary constitution would say that it is legal for anyone to do anything, it would still be defining legal rights.

"You don't agree that Constitution is a law?

Constitution, like any other law defines legal rights."

I am honestly beginning to think you're purposefully being obtuse.

Read it. It defines only the limits government can put on the rights of the people. That's it. That is all. It does nothing to limit or define the rights of "the People". Nothing. Zip. Zilch.

If you want to perceive it as a definition of your rights, our rights, the government's rights...whatever. It's way past being useful to debate at this point, since there's no other way I could possibly word it to get the point across.

...and as this has nothing to do with the topic or Amazon in general....

...it's been fun. Toodles.

"It does nothing to limit or define the rights of "the People". Nothing. Zip. Zilch."

Of course it doesn't. I've agreed with that statement from the begging yet you kept asserting it again and again. It doesn't define rights. I've agreed with it many times. It does however define legal rights.

Just like people who get upset when one calls bible "just a book", there are quite a few who get similarly disturbed when one calls constitution "just a law". Many people find it difficult to think rationally when it comes to "religious" subjects.

However issues are divided between different laws (i.e. one defines "limits of the government" if you insist, while the other defines outlawed behavior) and however different laws are called (i.e. constitution, act, regulation, decree, etc.) they are all still just laws and together they define legal rights (not the courts, which is the statement that started this discussion).

Amazing what people will complain about.

They had a lot of time to read the book, plus they got their money back. They can get the book through Project Guttenberg.

The only problem here is that Amazon didn't communicate this to its customers, but really, since they refunded, it's no biggy.

No, they can't get the book from Project Guttenberg. The book is not public domain.

Actually, currently Australia still has the '50 year' copyright law, so yes, the books in question are in the public domain in Australia and they are available: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

This is clearly an example of Oldspeak, and is clearly contrary to the world as defined by Newspeak.
Ignorance is strength, which we must all strive for...

I've held off jumping into this quagmire but what the heck. While I have very strong opinions about copyright, DMCA, and trademark laws, the idea that Amazon can delete a book remotely that you have "bought" from them makes me want to vomit. In this case, they screwed up and ..ok..I see that but everyone needs to put this in a larger context of what this represents that Amazon can do to you at anytime. Thinking of amazon and Kindle makes me think of that black gooey stuff in alaska and now I need to take a shower.

That's not to say that Amazon's actions were completely justifiable. The two ebooks may have been illegal copies, but they were purchased by the customer. In the real world, if you purchase stolen goods, you don't get to keep those goods, but you're also properly informed of the situation. This is where Amazon messed up.

Ok, maybe the copies weren't legal but that ceratinly doesn't give Amazon the right to delete what ever IT feels is illegal. What if a book was not only a legal copy but also bought from somewhere else LEGALLY but Amazon it its godly wisdom still felt it was illegal? And who the hell has, by the way, the right to decide what I have or don't have on my Kindle? Yes, 1984 was the perfect book to be deleted.

It could have been handled better, but Amazon didn't "feel" it was illegal...they knew it. If you "bought it elsewhere" amazon would have no control over it, and Amazon has rights to your kindle per the devices functionality and agreements upon purchase.

Yes, they should have taken the hit themselves, either by replacing the book, or by removing and offering a coupon for a free "legit" version...

But assuming they'd start removing legitimate copies based on this is a little bit of a stretch...

I think the problem here is Amazon removing content from the user's device. This is similar to DRM where the users' rights are taken away from them. Sneaky...

What rights were taken from the user? The only rights they have to the material is to view it. Amazon has the rights to it being there or not. It sucks (and is one reason why I will never own one), but calling it akin to a rights violation is a little extreme...

I'm not defending the NYT, I'm just thinking that if Betanews is going to write an article lambasting several other news sources for not 'fact checking', they could at least include a source for the 'fact' that the others got wrong. . .

The source was Amazon and reports from Amazon customers. If the NYT had done even 10 minutes of research, they could have learned the facts.

I don't know about the other sources, never read them in the past and really have no interest in reading their jump to conclusion stuff now. As for The New York Times they just write crap, they never let the facts, truth etc. get in the way of their articles/stories. One needs to shut off their brain to read NYT.

Having said that, it still sucks for Amazon and the kindle that this event happened and agree with the last part of this article. They really need to take a closer look on how they operate to stop this from happening again. Even with the facts it just doesn't look good for Amazon and the kindle.

The "editors note" link at the top of blog takes you to the NY Times article from the 17th, which describes the fact that Amazon was selling these and other books which apparently were illegal to sell, and removed those others previously.

Could you include a link to your source on the matter of this being an illegal copy? I've seen some rumor and speculation to that effect, but nothing authoritative. AFAIK, the only statement Amazon has made was the one you quoted, indicating a 'problem' with the book.

"These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books." When the publisher informed Amazon of this, Amazon moved to rectify the situation. The two books are no longer listed on MobleReference's website, either. - ars

no idea their source, probably amazon itself

Amazon in my humble opinion, was unethical in it's response. I can understand if this happens, that they inform the individuals that the content was in fact sold unknowingly and is now found to be illegal. They could have told users that they would have to remove the content from their servers within 5 days, and encouraged users to delete it from their kindles. Going and taking it after already purchased seems ridiculous. The easiest ethical way to rectify this is to offer users that had it deleted a coupon for several dollars off for the legal copy of the book so it would end up costing them only $1 ( which should have been refunded) to get a legal copy of the book back. AMAZON in my opinion should take responsibility for their mistake, not pass it on to the customer. And apologize. GREED moves men into darkness.

I have owned ebook readers ever since the very first Rocket ebook came out over 15 years ago. I purchased a Kindle several months ago. At first I was very nervous about the whole 'controlled by Amazon' thing, but I have to say that I love my device. As a professional businesswoman, I can understand why Amazon removed the files from their subscriber's devices. They, as one of the largest booksellers in the world, could have lost a great deal of money in court costs and awards fees if they hadn't have done that. What would have been the end result to Kindle owners---higher prices for editions to help recover costs. The media doesn't go into just many people were actually affected even. The fact that other versions of the books are available to Kindle readers shows that it is not that Amazon is trying to control the publication of the books in question. They are simply trying to insure that they are not basically 'selling stolen property'. If anything, their biggest fault was in not screening the publisher's submissions to make sure they were legitimate in the first place. I will still enjoy my Kindle and would recommend it to any avid reader.