I'm entirely fine with e-books, so long as I can keep a backup. The presumption all along has been that Amazon can't delete things for us, and now we see it proven wrong. But this does not prove that e-books are a bad idea; rather, it proves that Amazon built a bad idea into their solution (remote deletion, that is -- kill-bits were already present in Amazon's DRM implementation, but I think we all know that DRM is itself a bad idea for the most part).
I most certainly did read your comment. I think you should read my comments more carefully, and think about them a little bit before replying, if you are going to take up my time addressing your reply.
My point is that a savvy consumer should have been suspicious all along that a device-cum-service like Kindle would give you absolutely minimal rights over the content you paid for, rights which can be revoked at any time for any reason because Amazon holds all the power. You see, Amazon can't come into your home and take back a paper book that you bought from them. Nor can they reach into your computer and erase or modify an ASCII or PDF file. But with "e-books" on Kindle, they can do this without even telling you, like Minitru (hey look! a reference to 1984! see what I did there?), and if the changes are small then you might not even notice. Therefore I decided in advance that I was not interested in the Kindle. You see, when I buy a thing, I expect to be able to keep it and do whatever I like with it, in perpetuity. I don't want any part of a deal in which "purchase" gets redefined as "rental."
Whereas I noted (albeit indirectly) that all DRM is dastardly. The uproar is because Amazon has proven that they can actually remove a purchased item from a user's personal device without prior notice. While it was nice that the purchase price was credited back, and the editions which were removed were publications unauthorized by the rights-holder(s), Amazon gave no notice but rather acted "as a thief in the night". And that's what it's all about, here: the need for the entity which holds that power to communicate with those it serves so that they understand what action is being taken and why.
Consumer complaints don't work? Boycotts don't work? I dunno, they seem to be advocated in a lot of cases where pressure needs to be put on corporations.
Are you really trying to say that the better choice is to ignore and refuse any technology which is clearly better than prior technology in the field just because there might be something undesirable in the terms of use? To do so because someone might take advantage?
The Kindle does, in fact, allow for the ability to back up its contents, and to restore those contents to it or any compatible reader (in the case of e-books and files which can be read by alternate software or devices). If you don't mind turning off your Kindle's wireless connection, you can read any books you have transferred to it regardless of Amazon's attempts at removal.
And raising hell with Amazon to ensure that people are properly notified when changes happen should do the rest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 02:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 06:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 04:11 pm (UTC)My point is that a savvy consumer should have been suspicious all along that a device-cum-service like Kindle would give you absolutely minimal rights over the content you paid for, rights which can be revoked at any time for any reason because Amazon holds all the power. You see, Amazon can't come into your home and take back a paper book that you bought from them. Nor can they reach into your computer and erase or modify an ASCII or PDF file. But with "e-books" on Kindle, they can do this without even telling you, like Minitru (hey look! a reference to 1984! see what I did there?), and if the changes are small then you might not even notice. Therefore I decided in advance that I was not interested in the Kindle. You see, when I buy a thing, I expect to be able to keep it and do whatever I like with it, in perpetuity. I don't want any part of a deal in which "purchase" gets redefined as "rental."
no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 05:11 am (UTC)Are you really trying to say that the better choice is to ignore and refuse any technology which is clearly better than prior technology in the field just because there might be something undesirable in the terms of use? To do so because someone might take advantage?
The Kindle does, in fact, allow for the ability to back up its contents, and to restore those contents to it or any compatible reader (in the case of e-books and files which can be read by alternate software or devices). If you don't mind turning off your Kindle's wireless connection, you can read any books you have transferred to it regardless of Amazon's attempts at removal.
And raising hell with Amazon to ensure that people are properly notified when changes happen should do the rest.