[g947o]

Not your content, it's Amazon's content, you only purchased a license to view it, which can be revoked at any time if daddy Jeff is not happy.

And I am not being cynical. That is literally what is on their web page, e.g.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTZT9PLM

[ceejayoz]

Fun fact: the first book Amazon remotely removed from Kindles was… 1984.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-ki...

[nephihaha]

The name Kindle suggests Fahrenheit 451. We're going to destroy books and here's the kindling.

[DougMerritt]

Life mimics art.

[ctoth]

Sure. But you knew what this comment was trying to say. It is obviously saying that what happens on the Kindle is between the customer and possibly Amazon, specifically that authors should not be involved. They got their money. That part of the transaction is complete. I know you realize this, it's annoying to read the constant "not your keys not your coins" reframe.

[g947o]

No. The author incorrectly thinks they "own" the "content" like with a physical book, which is the prerequisite for all the discussions following it. I pointed out, factually and correctly, that they don't own anything (other than the license) or have any control over anything.

[tiahura]

Most of it is _not_ Amazon’s content. They don’t own the book, so they can’t sell you the book. Nemo dat.