Irony strikes the amazon kindle

Orwell was not far off the mark

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/amazon-sold-pirated-books-raided-some-kindles.ars
from JoeUser Forums

In a fit of irony, amazon has remotely deleted all copies of the books "animal farm" and "1984" by george orwell from its customer's kindle devices. They refunded the customers, and said it was mistakingly put up for sale (it is public domain in most countries, but not in the USA where copyright lasts for nearly forever). Interesting that they included the functionality for the device to delete unauthorized texts without the user's knowledge or consent.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/amazon-sold-pirated-books-raided-some-kindles.ars

While the law requires them to remove such items from the store, the fact that they included the functionality to remotely control the user's files is more than a little disturbing. And obviously since it automatically downloads your purchases AND has the power to delete, then it has the power to silently replace books. Changing overnight the contents of said books (or documents).

I really wanted a kindle before, but now? never!

 

EDIT1:

if you think buying paperback means you are safe, read this:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=896

The Harry Potter incident is widely known since it generated global attention.  A grocery store in Coquitlam, British Columbia inadvertently sold 14 copies of the new Harry Potter book prior to its official sale date of July 16, 2005.  Reports indicate that Raincoast Books, the Canadian publisher, mistakenly failed to include a notice on the shipping box that the books were not to be sold in advance.


When Raincoast was informed of the sales, it joined with author J.K. Rowling and Bloomsbury Publishing, the British publisher, to seek a court order from the British Columbia Supreme Court to keep the book and its contents under wraps.

Had Raincoast limited the requested order to stopping Canadian booksellers from selling the book, the issue would have attracted little attention.  Rather than adopting that approach, however, Raincoast also directly targeted the 14 purchasers who had lawfully purchased copies of the book.  

The order compelled anyone with a copy of the book to return it to the publisher along with any notes and other descriptions of its contents.  Moreover, it prohibited Canadians from reading or discussing any aspect of the book. 

This bears repeating.  In a free and democratic society, a book publisher sought and obtained a court order banning reading and discussion of a children’s book.  In fact, Raincoast had asked the court to goeven further, by compelling purchasers to disclose the names, addresses, and other contact information of any other person with whom they discussed the book’s contents.

End of quote

The most amazing thing was in the justification given by the judge... "people do not have the right to read"

 

EDIT2:

 

you know, I got to thinking. On its surface it seems clear why it was axed. Rights are owned by disney, amazon publishes book without permission, they get a cease and decease and pull it.

But I have seen claims that amazon was first saying that the publisher "changed their minds". And then there is the whole concept of WHY would disney NOT want those books to be sold? does disney hate money all of a sudden? did someone in disney management decide that those books are not desirable?
disney has a long history of censoring their undesirable content; disney's old toons were horribly racist and unpolitically correct, and they are doing anything in their power to make sure those are never ever viewed again.
Am I reading too much into it?

 

politics
2,962 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

you know, I got to thinking. On its surface it seems clear why it was axed. Rights are owned by disney, amazon publishes book without permission, they get a cease and decease and pull it.

But I have seen claims that amazon was first saying that the publisher "changed their minds". And then there is the whole concept of WHY would disney NOT want those books to be sold? does disney hate money all of a sudden? did someone in disney management decide that those books are not desirable?
disney has a long history of censoring their undesirable content; disney's old toons were horribly racist and unpolitically correct, and they are doing anything in their power to make sure those are never ever viewed again.
Am I reading too much into it?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I really wanted a kindle before, but now? never!
End of quote

What did they do that was so terrible? They made a mistake, and corrected it - they removed the offending material, and compensated those affected.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

In a fit of irony
End of quote

No, in a fit of incredible, unreal, you-couldn't-write-this-script irony.  The electronic equivalent of Fahrenheit 451.

The Kindle's a great option.  Just don't let it ever become the only option.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

aeortar. correting the mistake would have been removing it from the STORE and settling with disney for the amount of books already sold (paying full price for them if needed).

What they did instead was reveal that every kindle has the capability (and they have the desire to use) to delete any specific book on someone's private device. This is an ultra portable computer, and it has an orwillian big brother in it.