Tech observers are furious. I mean furious.
How dare Amazon reach into my Kindle and take away a book I paid for? True, they refunded the money I paid for the book, but -- this is wrong! Not much detail in the reports, beyond a note that apparently the original publisher/owner of the copyright changed its mind about offering the book electronically, and Amazon lost the argument.
Columnists around the blogsphere are spitting nails. They'd never have bought a Kindle if they had known Amazon would (and would be able to) take back a book they had "bought." It's mine! You can't take it back, I bought it! Various analogies have been offered: What if a publisher came into your house and took back a book you had bought from your shelf? What if Microsoft (there is always a Microsoft angle) accessed your computer and forced an upgrade from Windows XT to Windows 7? Amazon is cowardly to yield to the publisher; they are kissing the publisher's derriere; Amazon "caved." Suggestions for hiding downloaded books from Amazon's eraser mechanism have been discussed.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What was Amazon supposed to do? Defy the copyright holder?
Shouldn't you be annoyed at the publisher? They're the ones who pulled the book. Yes, the technology makes it possible, which physical books couldn't. But that's inherent in the technology, isn't it? Should Amazon have defied the owner and- - I don't know, gone to jail? And lost the right to the books anyway? Should Amazon have deliberately designed the product to not be able to rescind books if the rights to publish went away? Or is the problem, maybe, copyright and distribution laws that aren't current with technology?
The publisher/rights owner clearly has the right to allow or not allow Amazon to distribute its books electronically. If they had decided not to distribute them electronically, would the publisher be a bad company? They apparently changed their minds - no info on why, or whether they had the contractual right to do so, or - well, anything, just the bald fact. And no info from Amazon, either -- participants in business arguments rarely find it valuable to baldly describe their business disagreements in public.
Shouldn't you be annoyed at the publisher? They're the ones who pulled the book. Yes, the technology makes it possible, which physical books couldn't. But that's inherent in the technology, isn't it? Should Amazon have defied the owner and- - I don't know, gone to jail? And lost the right to the books anyway? Should Amazon have deliberately designed the product to not be able to rescind books if the rights to publish went away? Or is the problem, maybe, copyright and distribution laws that aren't current with technology?
The publisher/rights owner clearly has the right to allow or not allow Amazon to distribute its books electronically. If they had decided not to distribute them electronically, would the publisher be a bad company? They apparently changed their minds - no info on why, or whether they had the contractual right to do so, or - well, anything, just the bald fact. And no info from Amazon, either -- participants in business arguments rarely find it valuable to baldly describe their business disagreements in public.
But let's leap to the assumption that Amazon would not have had to pull the books but chose to do so -- because Amazon is wicked. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm not buying any more product from a wicket company that can sell me something, then take it back later and refund my money. Bastards.
Strange world. When somebody gets some more facts, I will read them with interest, and maybe then be able to make up my mind who, if anyone, to be mad at. Meanwhile, I am just confused at the fury.
mac
No comments:
Post a Comment