Comments on: Want to kill e-publishing?

By: T. Moore

T. Moore — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:59:12 +0000

It will not kill e-publishing. Many publishers are already signing on with other more secure sites, without the need to deal with Amazon at all. Amazon is just becoming insecure about everything having to do with their business. But if they had just run it more efficiently, and with a better and more educated staff, none of this would happened in the first place.

We at Antellus have already removed all our Kindle book links and also links to Amazon in order to remove the taint from our book sales. We think that others will do the same, and avoid becoming involved in any more “imperial” entanglements.

By: Carol Felsenthal

Carol Felsenthal — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:37:45 +0000

The irony that the orwell titles, espec. 1984, were removed is creepy and already much commented upon.

Does this mean that if a publisher recalls a book that I’ve put on my kindle–perhaps for reasons of plagiarism or defamation of character–that the book will be repossessed from my Kindle. If I go to the bricks and mortar Barnes and Noble and buy a book–say a cookbook with an exploding recipe–and the publisher later literally removes the book from the shelves, i still own the cookbook. If i put it on my kindle, could amazon remove that?

Truth really is stranger than fiction; not even Orwell could have made this up. Someone should invent the software to prevent amazon from invading the kindle.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:53:01 +0000

Turn this into a question of what would Amazon do if this had been a physical book instead of a hard copy.

They would have discontinued sales of the item and removed the offending publisher from selling further titles. But they would have been powerless to have the people return the books that they purchased.

Apple has done this with iPhone apps, and now Amazon. This is the problem with the software End User License Agreements. The EULAs are so much legalize that a normal person like me could never read and understand, let alone anticipate, that this action would be taken on Amazon’s part.

As with all things good communication before action turns aside a lot of criticism.

By: Ward Driver

Ward Driver — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:26:39 +0000

Hold on. I’m working on some code to “borrow” books off your Kindle, so you can get “sublease” them, given that ownership is a (re)movable feast.

By: Brian Spears

Brian Spears — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:47:12 +0000

If that’s their rationale, then you’re right Pete, but they could have made that clear to their subscribers, most of whom were still complaining (on the message boards I could find) that they couldn’t get a straight answer out of Amazon. No matter how you look at it, it’s a public relations screwup, and when you’re selling something as ephemeral as data and can’t rely on the quality of the product itself cover your ass, then the public relations has to be as near to perfect as possible. It shouldn’t have been difficult for Amazon to include an explanatory sentence or two with the email announcing the refund, but they didn’t do so, which I think backs up my contention that companies which “produce” IP don’t view it the same was as people who purchase it.

By: Pete

Pete — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:14:01 +0000

Their rationale makes sense (the publisher of the Orwell e-books didn’t have authorization to make the books available on the Kindle) but as Amazon’s Kindle mistakes keep piling up, they’re setting themselves up for a giant fall. I’m just waiting for Apple to launch a dedicated e-book reader, which combined with the ubiquitous iTunes as a delivery vehicle will completely take over the e-book market.

By: Allen

Allen — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:40:00 +0000

(flying the Jolly Roger) – “Phreaks forever!”