I am still very confused by Amazon's attitude towards the IP address I am using at any point in time.<div>Last year I was given a Kindle which was probably purchased locally (in Saint Lucia, West Indies) or in the United States. Initially I made purchases for it from my existing Amazon.uk account, but then was re-directed to Amazon.com. Amazon.com lists different books, and anyway they don't like my credit card (issued in Barbados) so I declined to go.</div>
<div>That Kindle was stolen, but obligingly blocked for further use through my Amazon UK account.</div><div>In April I was in England where I was given a new Kindle, this time bought in the UK</div><div>Using the Internet in the house where I was staying in London I discovered with joy that I could retrieve all of the content from the stolen Kindle - through my Amazon UK account. I bought several books as well as some other things - through my Amazon UK account and was, as they say, happy as Larry - until I got home to Saint Lucia and found myself redirected to Amazon.com for things to do with my Kindle.</div>
<div>The single thing that varies is the IP address I am working from, and I ask again - is that IP address any business of Amazon? Have I somehow become my IP address? Is it of more importance than everything else - including the billing address for my credit card? Where does my personal privacy stand in this context?</div>
<div>I have asked the question before - also from Amazon - but I'm still not convinced by the answers.</div><div>Can anyone un-confuse me please?</div><div>Deirdre.</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 23 October 2012 08:11, Riaz K Tayob <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com" target="_blank">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<h1> Amazon Allegedly Deletes Customer's Kindle;
Incident Triggers Discussion About Ebooks, DRM </h1>
<div>
<p> <span> Posted: <span>10/22/2012 4:36 pm EDT</span>
Updated: <span>10/22/2012 4:41 pm <br>
</span></span></p>
</div>
<p>Linn's story, which appeared on Bekkelund's blog on Monday, has
already triggered a <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/11vz4g/amazon_closes_womans_account_and_wipes_her_kindle/" target="_blank">heated discussion</a> about ebooks and digital
rights management (DRM), with some calling this Amazon incident an
example of DRM at its worst. </p>
<p>"[The incident] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-customers-kindle-deletes-account" target="_blank">highlights the power [DRM] offers blue-chip
companies</a>. DRM is used by hardware manufacturers and
publishers to limit the use of digital content once it has been
purchased by consumers; in Amazon's case, it means the company can
prevent you from reading content you have bought at the Kindle
store on a rival device," the Guardian writes.</p>
<p>This is not the first time that Amazon has remotely erased Kindle
content. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/amazon-account-ban-reminds-us-drm-content-is-only-rented/" target="_blank">Andy Boxall of Digital Trends</a> notes, the
company <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html" target="_blank">deleted copies of "Animal Farm" and "1984"</a>
in 2009. It also occured in 2010, "<a href="http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/amazon-removes-incest-related-erotica-titles-from-store-kindle-archive/" target="_blank">when more dubious titles were removed too."</a></p>
<p>"<a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/10/22/amazon-erases-customers-kindle-wishes-her-luck-in-finding-somewhere-else-to-shop/" target="_blank">Amazon should not be able to erase content that
has already been downloaded</a>. If the company wants to close
your account, fine; refuse future downloads. But unless it has
proof that the books on that Kindle had been fraudulently
downloaded, we don’t see how the company can justify erasing
content that had been paid for by a customer," the Consumerist
notes, adding that Amazon had yet to respond to a request for
comment. </p>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div>