[greentimer]

The lack of details make it tougher to side with the apparent victim here. I'd like to know whether she really did violate DRM in a meaningful way and the closure of her Kindle account was an appropriate response. I wouldn't go so far as the author and claim that DRM means you merely rent books from Amazon and they can be taken away at any time. This is likely something that affects a very small percentage of users and is like a freak accident when it happens, though according to radical skepticism, freak accidents may be much more likely than we intuit. However I agree that the response from the Amazon representative must have been very frustrating to receive and this would cause Amazon significant problems if the same thing happened to a large number of users. In the end I hope writing such articles about the problem helps resolve it before it does affect a large number of users.

[the_af]

> The lack of details make it tougher to side with the apparent victim here.

What do you mean? The victim provided every detail (and in fact, she later got her account restored, no apologies or explanations given -- again). All details missing are by Amazon, which is precisely the problem: the company can terminate your account and delete the items you bought while providing absolutely no information whatsoever.

It's as if a brick & mortar book store reserved the right to enter your house and take back a book you bought, without explaining everything besides "you broke a rule".

The glitch in their fraud detection system is not the biggest issue; glitches happen. Their total lack of transparency and explanations is the problem.