Amazon Wipes Customer's Account, Locks All Ebooks, Says 'Find A New Retailer' When She Asks Why
from the kafka-would-be-proud dept
Techdirt has been warning people for several years that they don't really own the ebooks they have on their Amazon Kindles. The most famous demonstration of this was the sudden disappearance of ebook versions of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm (you can't make this stuff up.) But that's nothing compared to what an Amazon customer in Norway now claims the company has done: shut down her Amazon account permanently and locked her Kindle -- all without explanation.
When her ebooks became unavailable, Linn Jordet Nygaard, the customer in question, contacted Amazon to find out what had happened. She received the following reply:
We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.
But the account holder claims to know nothing about any other account, and so she wrote back asking for more details:
As previously advised, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed, as it has come to our attention that this account is related to a previously blocked account. While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened.
Unhelpfully, then, Amazon simply re-iterated that the newly-closed account was "related" to another, previously blocked account, wouldn't say why, and emphasized that this was an irrevocable ban, even to the extent of refusing to allow the person accused of this unspecified transgression to open any other account at any point in the future.
Please understand that the closure of an account is a permanent action. Any subsequent accounts that are opened will be closed as well. Thank you for your understanding with our decision.
Again, Jordet Nygaard not unreasonably sought to find out what the problem was so that she could try to address it. This time, she received an email that is not only willfully unhelpful, but positively insulting thanks to a cheesy veneer of bogus sympathy that has been added for good measure:
We regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
Of course, this is a totally Kafkaesque situation: found guilty of a crime you are not allowed to know, with no way to appeal. Over on Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow has an interesting theory about what might be the issue here:
We wish you luck in locating a retailer better able to meet your needs and will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.I'd further speculate that the policy violation that Linn stands accused of is using a friend's UK address to buy Amazon UK English Kindle books from Norway. This is a symptom of Amazon's -- and every single other ebook retailer's -- hopelessness at managing "open territory" for ebooks.
That sounds very plausible, and means that Jordet Nygaard is essentially being punished for the publishing industry's incompetence when it comes to operating in a global online market, where national boundaries make no sense. Bad as that is, it's only a side issue here. What's most troubling is that Amazon not only closed down Jordet Nygaard's account, forbade her from ever opening up one again, and refused to discuss any aspect of its actions with her, but that it apparently has the capability to lock her out from all Kindle ebooks on any device -- and did so.
If you didn't take the hint when Amazon erased a couple of Orwell's books back in 2009, maybe this latest case involving the alleged remote lockout from all ebooks will finally get across the key message here: those Kindle ebooks you thought you had purchased, are actually only rented to you, and can be denied to you without explanation, and without recompense, any time Amazon wants to. The only ebooks you will ever truly own are those stored in open formats without DRM, which therefore allow backups to be made, and used anywhere.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: customer service, ebooks, kindle, license, own
Companies: amazon
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Here you are telling us that powerful groups of people can and do bad things, and yet ask that another powerful group of people be given more power so they can stop the first group of powerful groups from using the powers the latter group of powerful people gave them because the latter powerful group of people had the power and were convinced by the former groups to grant the former groups said powers.Allow me to be more specific: You want corporations to be controlled by governments by granting the government more power to stop the corps from using the powers that the government granted to them simply because they had the power to do so and were convinced by the corps to do so.
Do you actually read what you write? I call my 3 year old a random thought generator, but she still makes a lot more sense than you.
A weak government is one that cannot give corps more powers. Regulatory capture is weakened in a weak government. More government power, more regulatory capture, more powerful corps. Weak government power, no regulatory capture, less powerful corps. It's all fairly simple.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mmmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
Don't remember agreeing to arbitration? Well you probably didn't. They can change the Terms of Service at any time.
Which is why the internet will be the death of society. The only thing that keeps commerece fair is when its possible for an angry customer to punch a crooked shopkeep in the nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
There was a case recently of a site with weak T&Cs that treid to enforce them and failed miserably.
She has a case, but does she have the money to fight it?
She can always just download the e-books she purchased and wants via bittorrent in DRM free versions and say a big fuck you to the publishers way of doing things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best of all, it is a **lifetime** ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best of all, it is a **lifetime** ban.
Amazon refuses to deal with this family for generations to come. You sure can hold a grudge Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best of all, it is a **lifetime** ban.
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best of all, it is a **lifetime** ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly how the IMDb.com web site operates as well. Strangely enough, the IMDb is labeled as an Amazon.com company...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on a slight change, Amazon have been reported as charging publishers UK 20% vat on ebooks when they only pay 3% vat to Luxembourg, where they're based. that means an extra £1.38 profit on every £10 book sale. it has also not payed UK corporation tax on £7bn of sales! nothing like taking the piss when all ordinary UK citizens are getting pounded by the government. owe £1 in tax and they are all over you. owe millions and they go nowhere near you! just remember, 'we are all in this together'!! i dont think!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be perfectly clear: I do not believe that this is a good thing, but blaming Amazon for following the current legal climate is futile.
That said, why does anyone own a Kindle? Take your downloaded Amazon e-book, break the DRM, and put your purchased e-book on a reader that's not retardedly broken. FFS, folks. Not hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I honestly can't imagine why i would do any of those things, any more than visiting the itunes store to fill up my ipod.
it's a great ereader, but there's no reason to allow yourself to be held hostage to someones TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My girlfriend is always amazed that I can stick any old song from anywhere on to my iPod where as she has to load it into her library first and then sync it hoping that all her music is contained on the PCs library and doesn't magically take a turd on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That being said, I've never bought an ebook on Amazon that costs more than free precisely for this reason (public domain books FTW). A big reason reason why copyright maximalists don't want copyright to end is that they are scared to death of competing against the public domain. It's not because they think they can make a significant amount of money from older works, and it's certainly not because of some moral or ethical argument. They just don't want to have to compete against so much good and already well known and popular stuff. If copyright were shortened to just 28 years, new works would have to compete with that much more works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: conflict minerals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep. Every book I purchase through Amazon (close to 250 so far) gets downloaded, deDRMed, and imported into Calibre. The only downside is that I lose multi-device syncing, but that's not a big deal for me. I tend to read a different book on each device anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She got blurbed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She got blurbed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why should I even try and choose the legal routes again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but you should invest in a vpn or a good proxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a btguard account is 7 bucks a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So why should I even try and choose the legal routes again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
Can you have a moral freetard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:48am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is EXACTLY why I refuse to buy music or movies in a digital format. I have yet to buy an ebook either (though I have several that were 'free'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why should I even try and choose the legal routes again?"
Because apparently, YOU (the consumer) are expected to be honest and moral and do the right thing and "support the artist" but everyone else on the other side of the equation does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubt it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right, because giant corporations are never wrong.
Do you propose that Barnes and Nobel should be able to come into your house and seize books you purchased if they should arbitrarily decide that you, or someone they think is associated with you, violated one of their one-sided Terms of Service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right, because giant corporations are never wrong.
That's pretty much what publishers and the movie industries want. Along with immunity from criminal charges if they shoot your dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubt it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubt it
Resist the temptation.
Next time it will be you.
Have you never had this kind of experience with a corporation yet? If not then you will have.
Their stonewalling on the reasons because the reasons aren't good. If they had good reasons then they wouldn't be scared to tell them in public.
If I were her I would send back the Kindle and sue for the return of everythiong that I had spent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doubt it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubt it
Right, and corporations never lie to get what they want. We must defend these virtuous corporations from their evil customers!
Seriously, any random person on the street is far more likely to be honest and trustworthy than any random large corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doubt it
Because the large corporation has no legal responsibility, and no way to punish it if it's bad. Immunity to the human members, ya know! They can do what they bloody well please with no penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Doubt it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stripping the DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More like pain pills, or another downer type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
"By granting monopoly rights to content creators for infinity minus a day we get these kind of situations."
The constitution says "for a limited time" and those helpful folks at the Supreme Court have ruled that "infinity minus a day" is limited enough to qualify.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exclusive Interview
Enough about the entertainment lobbies, tell us how you feel about "Big Search"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exclusive Interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exclusive Interview
From Wikipedia: Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)
Looks like a corporation to me. Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Exclusive Interview
(knew I shoulda stuck with the president bit, dammit)
/fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Allow me to be more specific: You want corporations to be controlled by governments by granting the government more power to stop the corps from using the powers that the government granted to them simply because they had the power to do so and were convinced by the corps to do so.
Do you actually read what you write? I call my 3 year old a random thought generator, but she still makes a lot more sense than you.
A weak government is one that cannot give corps more powers. Regulatory capture is weakened in a weak government. More government power, more regulatory capture, more powerful corps. Weak government power, no regulatory capture, less powerful corps. It's all fairly simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
The power to regulate is the power to grant favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Reality shows that corps will move to a monopoly/maximize profits when there are no reins on their activities. Gov't isn't perfect (to put it politely) but to extrapolate from the involvement of gov't regulation with corps that if there were less regulation the corps would be less powerful is insane when you look at history.
Look at the Great Depression, the government's regulatory reactions in the 1930s, and what happened as soon as the 1990s/2000s government lifted many of those regulations. Less regulation, more powerful corporations, and whammo, the current recession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
A government that has the power to take away the liberties of groups of people (called a corporation) has the power to take away the liberties of groups of people (called citizens).
Show me a historical corporation that got powerful and needed a government to bring it down that wasn't given that power by the government to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Well since you asked. They were pretty much encouraged to go wild, by the government in order to keep the economy pumping along. For instance in housing (a huge part of the problem), the government mandated that they give loans to people that the banks would otherwise not have (Why? Because the banks knew the buyers couldn't pay back the loans). The housing market had been running way overheated for at least 10 years, due to that.
"A government that has the power to take away the liberties of groups of people (called a corporation) has the power to take away the liberties of groups of people (called citizens)."
Well they have already taken away a mountain of my liberties, so let them chew on the corporations for a while, they can afford it. Oh wait, they won't! Why? Because the corporations can write much bigger checks to the government representatives than I can.
"Show me a historical corporation that got powerful and needed a government to bring it down that wasn't given that power by the government to begin with."
Just one? How about Apple. Nah, I can't stop there; Google; Microsoft; General Electric; I am sure I could come up with a lot more.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
This myth has been well and truly debunked. Please show us this "mandate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hsgoaldata/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Really? Then exactly why was there a need for a Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They most certainly were a part of the problem.
Mandate was probably the wrong word, but the government created the situation. The government deregulated banking and made it a stated goal that every family should own a home. Then they lowered interest rates, later raising them, forcing all those with ARM's into a position where they could no longer make payments.
Sure there were a lot of causes, but lack of government oversight, and in fact encouragement created much of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Well OK then ...
Microsoft wouldn't even have a business model without copyright (a government granted monopoly whether you agree with it or not).
Apple might do a bit better, but they would probably have done less well if they hadn't been able to enforce their EULA forbidding Mac OS installs on third party hardware. More recently they've used patents mercilessly to try to prevent competition.
General Electric - don't power companies in the US get their operating license from the government?
Which just leaves Google. The only company in your list that didn't get much government help AFAIK and as a consequence doesn't much need to be brought down as it doesn't hold a monopoly position.
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Many people, as in individuals, 'abuse' government granted freedoms, rights... too. Perhaps going back to the times of anarchy would be more well suited to your tastes then?
Those with the biggest sword, gun, etc will just take from everyone else. That is pretty much how it has worked throughout history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Second, the statement seemed to indicate that the Government 'helped' specific companies by creating incentives for a specific company or industry, at least that is how I read it. In many cases this is true. The government, for example, helped the railroad, phone companies, etc by creating conditions that made it favorable for the company to do something it otherwise would not. In fact the government required it. The Government did not aim to create a software company (Microsoft) or a smartphone / tablet maker (Apple). Microsoft and Apple did what all companies, and in fact nearly all people do, they exploit an existing situation to their advantage. That is pretty much nature, you find it in plants, animals, and people.
Government attempts, often wrong headed to be sure, to level the playing field. The problem, especially today, is that the game is changing nearly daily and the laws don't. Any person or company can, and will use that to their advantage.
You sound like Obama "If you have a business, you didn't build that". That is patently absurd. People (and corporation are made up of *gasp* people, and will exploit their environment, to their advantage, to reach their goal. This will happen, with or without government intervention.
You could kill copyright today and in a short period of time those affected would come up with other ways to make money and protect 'their IP'.
Third, General Electric is not just 'a power company', however, I will give you that they are in fact in several businesses that are heavily regulated (to G.E.'s favor) by the government and thus a bad example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Well no, you were asked:
"Show me a historical corporation that got powerful and needed a government to bring it down that wasn't given that power by the government to begin with."
Google wasn't granted any significant power by the government, nor does it show any real need to be "brought down" (FDA's threatened anti-trust investigation non-withstanding). Incorporated in 1998, it arguably isn't even an "historical corporation" ;-)
Second, the statement seemed to indicate that the Government 'helped' specific companies by creating incentives for a specific company or industry, at least that is how I read it. In many cases this is true. The government, for example, helped the railroad, phone companies, etc by creating conditions that made it favorable for the company to do something it otherwise would not. In fact the government required it.
Yes, it granted them significant property rights over the land and a monopoly over the resulting infrastructure. If you're going to do that then you need to properly regulate the companies to ensure they don't abuse the privileged position they've been granted. Unfortunately the government has largely failed to do this and I'm not altogether convinced it is even possible to make this work.
The Government did not aim to create a software company (Microsoft) or a smartphone / tablet maker (Apple). Microsoft and Apple did what all companies, and in fact nearly all people do, they exploit an existing situation to their advantage. That is pretty much nature, you find it in plants, animals, and people.
No argument there - offer someone power and they will take it. It's also clear that they will often abuse it if they can get away with it, particularly in the case of corporations whose only motive is profit. I don't have any magic solutions to this problem, but identifying it as a problem has to be the first step.
Government attempts, often wrong headed to be sure, to level the playing field. The problem, especially today, is that the game is changing nearly daily and the laws don't. Any person or company can, and will use that to their advantage.
The problem is, nearly every example that appears on this site is an example of the government tipping the playing field in favour of someone, or failing to level the playing field when it is clear that they need to do so. Some of it is down to glacial reaction speeds, sure, but often it is down to people or corporations with government granted power and influence using said power to their unfair advantage.
You sound like Obama "If you have a business, you didn't build that". That is patently absurd. People (and corporation are made up of *gasp* people, and will exploit their environment, to their advantage, to reach their goal. This will happen, with or without government intervention.
I'm not one of those people who think corporations and/or capitalism are inherently evil. A free market is supposed to be largely self-regulating, at least in theory. However it's difficult to tell as I'm not sure we have ever had a true free market economy to observe!
You could kill copyright today and in a short period of time those affected would come up with other ways to make money
Good! I don't want companies to stop making money - I just want them to stop gaming the system while they are doing it. Getting rid of copyright and patents would be an excellent first step!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Unfortunately - no - that doesn't work either.
Weak government=untrammellled exercise of corporate power - no NEED for regulatory capture if you can just trample down the rights of the little man directly.
If your answer was the right one then Somalia (really really weak government) would be a nice place - it isn't.
Time for the old "man for all seasons" quote:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Sadly - the real answer is the hard one - get the government to regulate the corps - and use the democratic process to watch it like a hawk to make sure it obeys the people. It's hard to do - and often goes wrong - but it is better than your alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
I never said the government should be completely weak, only weak in the sense of regulating corporations. I'll admit, I didn't say it with those words, it was rather implied by the context. Mea Culpa for the miscommunication if there was any.
A government that has the power and will to regulate a group of people called corporations has the power and will to regulate a group of people called citizens. A society that won't stop a corporation from taking power won't stop a government from taking it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
I disagree strongly with this proposition.
My reasoning is easy: we may have an inadequate say in the exercising of government power, but we do have some amount of say. We have no say at all in how corporations exert their power. Without strong regulation, corporations have always, and will always, victimize us all.
To call a corporation a "group of people" is misleading in the extreme. A corporation is a lot more than that. It is an independent legal entity, with powers and capabilities that no people have, and immune to most of the consequences that real people have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Corporations can only run for as long as they have money and power, power in this case is simply money. Stop giving them your money and their power runs out pretty fast. Sure if Apple got abusive they could last pretty long on their cash reserves, but to say you have no power over corps is to say that you have the same power over governments. A population that isn't willing to let a government go hog wild will also not let a corporation go hog wild. Conversely, a population that will let a corporation get away with abuse is a population that will let it's government get away with abuse.
What can a corporation do that a group of individuals cannot?
Then you should be in complete agreement that we only need a stronger government to regulate corps because the government gave corps power in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Easier said than done. I have a list of corporations that I refuse to do business with -- however it's often impossible to know if I'm giving them money or not, let alone stop doing so.
Even things that should be straightforward aren't. I don't want to give Microsoft or Apple a dime, for example, because of their cretinous business practices. I don't use or buy Microsoft or Apple products. But precisely because of their abusive business practices, they get my money anyway -- just indirectly.
Once a corporation reaches a certain size, there is no effective way to stop paying them. On the other hand, there is always a way to affect government.
Get away with major crimes and thefts, including murder, for starters.
It's a strange way of phrasing it, but that's a variant of what I said, yes. I just wouldn't say it's the only reason we need strong regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Start the sentence with "a group of people called government" and you will begin to understand where you are going wrong here.
The point is that, the difference between the "group of people called government" and the Group of people called corporations" is that the government structure allows for direct control irrespective of wealth - admittedly the citizenry doesn't use it well but they can use it directly. You can, in principle, throw out the entire US government within 4 years. How long would it take to get rid of the board of Microsoft by people power???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
It's an important difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Those same citizens give congress the lowest approval ratings ever recorded and still reelect the same people. We have the same power to affect the government as we do corporations. It just requires the will to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
No - we have more power over the government.
SOPA was stopped by citizens threatening to withhold their votes - but the corporations go on lobbying. The corporations have the power (by colluding together) to remove your choice to take your business elsewhere.
Government may do a bad job of regulating corporations - but the solution is to try to get them to do a better job - not to give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Once again, we find that you are asking the government to regulate powerful corps that got powerful precisely because the government granted them powers, and they are abusing that power by asking the government for more powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Agree absolutely. It's a no brainer. In fact, no government, no powerful corps. You've solved all the problems this site ever described, copyright and trademark abuse by the big player. Just shoot all those government types dead and Mike will go out of business, cos there's no more abuse to blog about.
Down with the government!!!
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
Except...
We don't seem to be reading the same site, as most of the people on the TD that I read clearly think no such thing, and...
Although this is the purpose of many/most large corporations nowadays (perhaps always), the actual fundamental purpose of corporations is nothing like this at all. That the idea of corporations has been perverted doesn't change their fundamental intended purpose, which is collective ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
That said, I think the government's sole role in the economy should be to make sure there is as much competition as possible. If Amazon had a Pepsi/Coke rivalry going with another ebook retailer I bet they'd be a LOT more reluctant to pull this kind of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a one word solution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile, DRM-free Book Bundle Breaks $1m in Sales
If people stopped giving money to jerks like Amazon and started giving even a fraction of that amount directly to authors, I think it'd greatly improve everyone's situation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can "buy" books from Amazon, and Amazon will take them back when they feel like it.
You can "buy" a movie from Amazon, and they can remove your ability to watch the movie at the behest of the copyright holder trying to prop up their business model.
Until we force the content cartels to accept that the world is actually interconnected and the old rules, systems, keeping things artificially separate and they need to adapt to it we will see more of this.
Amazon's insane system combined with the insane rules and policies of the cartels leaves consumers screwed... and they wonder why people skip the craziness with a few clicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, take the same logic to other areas, if I lose an arm, then go to some other country like Japan that sells replacement robotic arms unavailable in America, I'd be guilty of piracy for returning to the US with my robotic arm that I paid for and paid to get attached to me through a surgery in Japan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What an epic missed opportunity
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I view purchases as mine when I buy them. If they are not, then there's no sense in buying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I know what she did wrong.
It's obvious how they're 'related', no? They both have accounts at Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to deal with these companies is pointless. Amazon "wins" because it's just one customer.
In time, they'll have no one else to do this to because they'll have rejected everyone from their services.
You just wait, as soon as people start writing reviews less than 1 star, they, too, will be kicked out of Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
update from Cory Doctorow's site
--
@doctorow I spoke with Linn and she told me Amazon did NOT wipe her Kindle; it was already broken. But she's lost about 60 books.
--
So It may be that they did not wipe the Kindle, but she is unable to sync up her lost purchases from Amazon. Not a Kindle user, I take it there is not a was no way to back them up separately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're doing a great job at convincing me to take my money elsewhere.
...Meantime, if anybody wonders why I like plastic and dead tree editions of movies, music and books, this is yet another reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Simple Answer That Will Never Happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You will own this one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... and you trust the "cloud"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karma?
Apparently Reddit and many other sites are down as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it stands, your entire argument is asking for something *MUCH* worse than we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do if you back them up. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That aphorism is not a legal concept nor doctrine at law anywhere. In fact it was originally a simplified statement under English common law used to imply that the possessor of an object has the right to control that property without unlawful interference.
That "unlawful interference" is the MAIN phrase and means that the possessor is assumed to be more likely than not the rightful owner of said product unless it can be shown otherwise by legal means. Either via court (criminal or civil) or reasonableness/obviousness.
Also one other vein of thought says that the phrase can mean that if you are caught with an object in your possession that can be proven under law not to be owned by you then you are more than 90% likely to be convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To me it also means that within the huge legal fog that is digital media rights, a party ought to act in their own best interest to the fullest extent practically possible. You can be sure that any media company interprets the law in their own interest, operating as close to the edge as possible and sometimes over (Sony rootkits).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not about DRM...
Here's a bit more of what I had to say about the situation: http://oreil.ly/WEc1uZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the biggest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You probably don't OWN .....
You most likely don't own the OS you're using, the software that you use to read your ebooks, almost any software on the computer that you use is licensed in some way. You gave up your rights when you hit the "accept" button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You probably don't OWN .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You probably don't OWN .....
Same with pictures and music that are free, use it all you want, just give me credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You probably don't OWN .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You probably don't OWN .....
So it would follow that you had those rights (ownership) before you hit the "accept" button. Then what are you gaining by accepting? If nothing, then it's not a valid agreement. That's one of many reasons why an honest reading of the law says EULAs are bull#&*%, but the argument continues to be they must be enforceable or the economy will collapse and so judges enforce them, well many of them anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
supportz for herz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going to download.
People wonder why I download illegally? Give me a way to buy it without strings, like this story, attached, and I will be more than willing to shell out the money. If you want to play games with me, I'll download behind a VPN, and use a 512 bit AES encryption so you will never be able to prosecute me either.
I'll be back later. I'm now getting my money's worth of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
This makes me severely conscerned about Amazon's privacy policy. To my knowledge, and please correct me (in a non-longwinded fashion) if I'm wrong, the only way you can do this is by banning a user's MAC Address. Unlike UDID's, these can't be edited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy
You're wrong.
A MAC can be changed, but Amazon has no idea what yours is. The account is most likely tied to a combination of your email, name, credit card, and postal address. Change enough of those and they won't know it's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MS eReader BS as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just say NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Emailing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Audible - the audio book company - is...
I get my books from the local library. I have never not been able to get a book I wanted to read. If they don't have it they have a great inter library loan service. Ya, I know, I may have to wait if there is a queue, but I always have something to read if I want. My property tax to the local library district is about $60/year. My wife and I read far more than six books a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple
It's simple as that, no bullshit, no hassle. I mean even in iBooks if some book they offered ends up becoming free they compensate you. Yup, "scumbag" Apple is definitely looking a lot better when you consider the bullshit everyone else makes you go through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally an easy way to close your Amazon account
It would have been so much easier if they clearly advertised this way to get a life-long ban...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Account given back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Account given back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Find A New Retailer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treacherous Computing
Why has nobody else used the phrase "treacherous computing"? Come on people, where is your pattern recognition capability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More BBB complaints needed on Amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freezing my ebook and audiobook accounts
We changed our password for iTunes, where I had moved our audiobooks. Amazon froze the iTunes account until they given permission for the change in passwords. No notification or explanation. Amazon's growing arrogance leaves me wondering-how can I move my books to another player?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Account Closed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]