Stop me if you’ve heard this one.
Something mysterious happens with Amazon. Internet freaks out. Media follows with hysterical articles about apocalyptic implications of mysterious machinations of Amazon.
A week later, everyone wonders: what was it we were freaking out about again?
It’s deja vu all over again this week: earlier in the year you may remember “#Amazonfail”, which turned out later to be “#seemingly innocuous Amazon systems glitch.” If you recall, items had incorrectly been flagged as “adult material” on Amazon, the Twittersphere in particular went ballistic, ominous articles were written, Amazon fixed the problem, everyone moved on.
Well, as I’m sure you’ve heard, this week books by George Orwell mysteriously disappeared from Kindles. Cue Internet freakout. Next came the media with articles about The Dire Implications: even normally mild-mannered fellows David Pogue and Farhad Manjoo were not immune to apocalyptic warnings. The subtitle of Manjoo’s article says it all: “How Amazon’s remote deletion of e-books from the Kindle paves the way for book-banning’s digital future.”
Wow. Really?
Let’s start from the beginning with this whole Orwell thing. What really happened is that a third party illegally uploaded copies of Orwell’s books to the Kindle Store. Amazon was notified by the rightsholder (presumably either Orwell’s publisher or literary estate or both), after investigation they discovered that the copies were illegal, and then they both refunded customers’ money and then digitally recalled the e-books.
Now, I don’t doubt that it feels a little intrusive to have a book removed from one’s device without consent, and Amazon later announced that it would no longer do so in the future. Where I think they really erred was that they didn’t recognize that it would be unsettling to consumers (and rich with irony given this is Orwell), and didn’t sufficiently lay the groundwork for a forced recall.
But imagine you’re a writer (not hard, since 99.9% of the people reading this blog are writers and the other person is my mom). Someone illegally uploads your book. 10,000 people download it and you don’t see a dime. Would you want these people/lost customers to continue to read their illegal versions or would you want them properly refunded and the illegal copies removed so they can buy the real version instead? Or better yet have a legal version substituted at the right price? I know there are some “I just want my book read” freevangelists out there, but I still think most people would want the problem rectified if it were possible to do so.
I mean, it’s not as if the police says, “Sorry, sir, your house was broken into and then the burgler sold it to another couple for $10. But that couple bought it fair and square so you’re just going to have to find a new house, there’s nothing we can do about it.”
The other tack that analysts have taken is that this reminds people that they don’t really own their e-books, and buying books on the Kindle is more akin to a rental. Which, as a Kindle consumer, let me just say: I already know this. Sure, I hope someday that e-books will be truly device agnostic (as opposed to fake device agnostic), so that, much like my music collection, I can move my e-books to a new device when a better e-reader comes along.
But honestly, as a rabid e-book consumer, this isn’t something I worry about a great deal. I don’t buy e-books for permanence, I buy them for convenience.
If you’re reading e-books you’ve already made the break from the book as a permanent fixture in your home. And then you realize that most people only re-read a fraction of the books they own. I don’t worry about keeping every single e-book on my virtual shelf in perpetuity. I’m not really going to re-read them, and if I do want to re-read something again and again I’ll either figure out a way to migrate the electronic version I do own, or I’ll buy it again in a new format to support the author, or I’ll just buy the paper version. And people who are creeped out about the impermanence of digital content tend to stick to paper books to begin with.
So yeah. Amazon can effectively delete your books and e-books are more akin to rentals. Got it.
But it’s a pretty fantastical leap from there to assume that they or the government are going to start using these these nefarious devices to control what people read. Sheesh, people, we’re not living in a police state (resist political jab). Also: Kindle sales represent at the very most 1-3% of total book sales. Not exactly totalitarian control of the book world. And even if you assume Amazon is bent on world domination they really don’t have any incentive to mess with your legally bought Nora Roberts novel, nor do they have or will they have the monopolistic power that people are imagining for such an apocalyptic scenario to come to pass in the future.
What is it about Amazon that causes such hysteria? I mean, I’m in contact with Amazon a lot, and let me tell you: it’s a company populated by extremely nice, extremely smart people.
Well, aside from some unforced errors, I do think the suspicion comes down to the fact that Amazon is the 5,000 pound gorilla in the book world and people are worried they are going to eventually possess some sort of book monopoly. Obviously Amazon is having a huge impact on brick and mortar bookstores, people are worried about their power, but perhaps most importantly, because they so firmly represent the new world of books they’re basically the receptacle for our anxieties about the future.
I personally think a lot of the fears of Amazon’s coming world domination are seriously overblown. Amazon may well emerge from this period of transition in the publishing industry as a dominant player, but it’s not as if they’re going to be the only player. If Apple and the iPod have taught us anything, killer devices drive where and how people buy digital content, not habituation to retailers such as Amazon. (The Kindle: love it, but not so much a killer device). And if anything, the buying possibilities will be more dispersed and decentralized in the e-book era. Yeah, iTunes is the dominant player in music, but how many places are there on the Internet to buy digital music? A bazillion.
Ultimately, I just can’t get too worked up about all of this. If there’s anything we should fear from Amazon it’s that the mere sight of their logo apparently turns normal people into conspiracy theorists.
I thought Google was our great digital overlord. Now I have to fear Amazon, too?
Oh, yeah, the conspiricists are everywhere. Did Amazon do the right thing by taking back the illegal copies and refunding the money? Absolutely. Your analogy to the house sale was perfect.
Oh the irony of it being Orwell – I think the whole thing is hilarious AND Amazon acted correctly. Another reason why I'm sticking with good, old-fashioned door stoppers.
People like to overreact — particularly in this day and age (where everything we see and hear in the media is hyperbolic overload – before, it was to outdo the competitors, now it's just to keep our dwindling twitterized attention).
The irony of Orwell, IMO, is that he got it almost completely backward. Big Brother is the internet, which is an independent conglomerate with far-reaching (if sometimes unguided and misdirected) power.
The massive instant intercommunication flow reduces government control and, if anything, makes governments and government like entities (Amazon, Microsoft, etc…) more susceptible to the whims of the twitching populous.
Nathan, sorry to hear your father doesn't read the blog – he must be too busy in the courthouse… he should twitter about it, methinks, and rouse the masses 😉
Bravo, Nathan! Extremely well-said. I agreed with every word. And I like the irony of this being around Orwell.
And I'm a great Amazon supporter – I think Amazon is brilliant. But people do get scared of change.
I also think people are forgetting that the internet and electronics make censorship even more difficult, rather than less. It's easier to distribute and recieve information. Look at what happened recently in the Middle East and the rebellions, which in the past the government would have been able to keep quiet. So, setting up and maintaining the type of totalitarian goverment which would control books would be much more difficult to do nowadays.
Oh, and can I take a second to say hello to Nathan's mom? Hello out there. Your son has an awesome blog.
What?
Your mom isn't a writer?
What's the point in having a son who turns out to be a literary agent if you're not a writer?
The Goose.
Holy cow, I can't believe how quickly this section fills up with comments?
Don't you guys have anything better to do than to sit around waiting for the literary agent to post his morning blog?
I've got lots of stuff to do myself.
The Goose.
I think it was Amazon on the grassy knoll.
Goose,
Do as I say and not as I do?
Hmm, this shows how important it is to select a good agent and publisher – they'll be looking out for your best interests even after you die….
Big Brother giveth and He taketh away.
One thing this whole debacle has pointed out to me, which I wasn't really aware of before is the problem with copyright outside of the U.S. There are a fair number of books that are still under copyright in the states but are now public domain in other countries. This would seem to be a bit of a mess of publishers when dealing with e-content.
The point I find disturbing about the whole mess is not that Amazon took back the books and refunded money. That was, IMHO, what they ought to do in this situation. No, the problem is this: prior notification. The way the Kindle works, you can have a good bit of your own content on that file – notes, musings, meanderings. All that stuff that came out of your brain is yours (granted, it probably wasn't really smart to store it on the Kindle, but…). Because of the WAY Amazon handled the recall, people did not have a chance to retrieve their notes and other content that was, in fact, not affected by the copyright problem. I do have an issue with that.
In the case of your house analogy, I strongly suspect that any accidental buyer would be notified that they had to move – they wouldn't just suddenly find themselves on the street with all of their stuff still in the house.
So, to sum up: Should Amazon have recalled the books? You bet. Should they have done so without notification? Well, here I'm not so sure. I think a 24 hour notification would not have been out of line. A little note from Amazon saying "It has come to our attention that there is an issue with this content. Amazon will be recalling/deleting the content from all Kindle units a X o'clock EST. Thank you for your understanding."
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
elise-
I agree, I think that's how they should have handled it. A lot of people would have still freaked out, but the volume probably wouldn't have been as great.
I mostly agree, except that as the 500 lb. gorilla, Amazon now has the responsibility to be a squeaky-clean corporate citizen.
While both of the incidents in the book world have been overblown, it doesn't change the fact that Amazon could and should do better.
For a short list, check out their controversies (via Wikipedia)
Also, such enormous retailer should be as environmentally responsible as possible.
Amazon stinks in this department. Climate Counts scores companies on a scale from 0 to 100. Amazon gets a 5. Their former score was zero.
So maybe there's a bit too much hype. But keeping their feet to the fire is the only way to keep them accountable, since they're basically now an e-commerce monopoly.
Elise – I think your comment sums it up nicely:
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
People, including companies, learn from their mistakes. I'm sure in the future Amazon will communicate a recall to the Kindle community (at least I hope they will).
Nathan – I agree. I wouldn't want people downloading illegal copies of my work. Yeah, I want people to read it, but not that way. Unlike music, you can get a free copy of a book at a library (okay, so it's not an e-book, but still). There's absolutely no excuse for downloading books illegally.
I'm definitely not with you on this one Nathan. Disagreeing respectfully!
You may not have a certain kind of personal attachment or future plan for the e-books you bought and apparently own. But buy means buy and own means own and aren't conditional on how strongly the purchaser feels about it. I either bought it or I didn't. When I think I've bought it, I assume I own it. To find out that it's all just semantics really sucks.
Every property dispute, and most financial disputes, come down to ownership. To take your stolen house analogy . . . yes, it would wrong to end up that dispute by saying there's nothing that can be done about it and the purchaser of stolen goods gets to keep it. But the thing to be done about it isn't necessarily for the seller to show up at the door and unilaterally impose a resolution. The buyer is in possession, did buy it, feels like they own it and may have another POV than the seller. In this case, it seems like Amazon's POV is the only one that matters.
From this situation perhaps it's an exaggeration to fear some kind of state control in the future. (I saw the same headline and skipped it. Yawn.) But it's reasonable to wonder about it, because when government does overstep, it's after groundwork has been laid by the kinds of arguments being made here — Amazon needs this kind of power; it's no big deal when they abuse the power; I don't personally mind the abuse of power; if I had skin in the game I'd want Amazon abusing its power on my behalf. I'm glad we have the sensitive types to keep trying to break up that groundwork.
LOL I'm with Kristi. My first thought when I heard of this was "Orwell, of all authors!" Big brother is definitely watching, but is it truly through Amazon? I think not.
Great blog, Nathan.
RW-
Just to clarify, in the house analogy how would you want it resolved?
And similarly, if you were an author, you would be fine forgoing lost revenue in the event someone uploaded and sold your book illegally?
'I mean, it's not as if the police says, "Sorry, sir, your house was broken into and then the burgler sold it to another couple for $10. But that couple bought it fair and square so you're just going to have to find a new house, there's nothing we can do about it."'
Heh. It works for the British Museum and the Elgin Marbles.
Sorry. Shouldn't have said that …
I think it really boils down to a lack of transparency. Almost all publishers, booksellers, &c give reasons for why they pull a book or recall it (plagiarism, book went on sale too early, high incidence of defective stock, extreme controversy, and so on). Amazon didn't tell anyone what they were doing or ask anyone to return anything; they simply took and didn't explain, and people are, I think, right to feel that their property rights were infringed.
In the house analogy, if I was the person who had their house stolen, I'd want the person in my house booted ASAP. If I was the person who bought the house, I'd WANT to keep my absurdly cheap new house. I'd expect forewarning and reasonable compensation for my trouble. I definitely would not be satisfying with the seller who screwed up being the arbiter of that dispute. Thus courts and so on . . .
Which is overkill here obviously. So, another analogy. My local used bookstore is considering buying some books brought in to resell. They decline. They are left on the counter unattended for a minute. I pick one up and it is mistakenly sold to me. If that bookseller let themselves into my house to reclaim the book, I'd pretty upset.
If I was the author of a pirated book . . . well, first I wouldn't harbor any illusion that after Amazon retrieved the pirated copies that I would suddenly gain a bunch of legit sales from those customers. I'd expect the protection before that point.
The solution I think best here is that Amazon reimburses the rightful owner (Orwell's estate) for the lost sales so far and lets the pirated copies so far go. They might also invite to the buyers to SWAP their pirated copies with free legit copies on their own dime.
now some websites, like Boing Boing, are encouraging Kindle owners to illegally download Orwell's novels from from foreign websites stationed overseas, where the copyrights aren't valid. Absolutely disgusting and vile.
RW-
Pogue also used the "breaking into the house to retrieve the books" analogy, but I don't understand that one. I don't live in my Kindle.
I do think the solution you outline about compensating the publisher/estate for lost sales is one that Amazon should consider, but, hypothetically, it may be that the publisher/estate simply doesn't want any electronic versions available for sale. And I agree that there should be better controls in place to verify that people uploading material really are the rights holders.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, I can definitely understand how you've reached your conclusions.
I keep waiting to hear about Google jumping in on e-readers. They've been scanning books since December 2004 and already have bajillion digitized. E-readers could really take off if Google makes all their books available on an reader. They'd instantly have a massive digital library if they let everyone download free copies of books in the public domain.
That scenario might be a game changer.
The real question is: What Would Brian Boitano Do?
Well, further incentive for me not to convert over to e-books. 😛
Not because they can delete books from my Kindle but because they're actually only "rented." Sure, I rent from Netflix at a price per month, but I know it's on loan and that it has to be returned. I also know that they won't just disappear from my coffee table because Netflix needs to rectify a mistake 😛
I'll just stick to renting from the library for free rather than paying $7-$10.
I do see your point though and really don't think this is worthy of a conspiracy theory and a Big Brother type crisis.
Now if Amazon was actually owned by the government, then I would be saying something completely different…:P
As far as I know, the pricing of e-books does not reflect the risk to the purchaser that the book may be recalled at any time if the relevant rights have not been cleared.
anon-
What risk is there with regard to pricing if they refund your money?
I have to disagree with you, too. It wasn't that they recalled books that should never have been sold to begin with. It was that they did so and didn't even bother telling people why. No forewarning. No explanation until after the crap hit the fan.
If I held a garage sale and my nonexistent kid sold my friend's nonexistent Tiffany lamp for $5, I don't get to break into the new owner's house, leave a fiver on the table, and take it back just because it should never have been sold to begin with. I have to go through legal channels. And they might just tell me it was my fault, and I owe my friend the cost of the lamp.
The courts might have decided Amazon was required to pay the Orwell estate for the sales that occurred because they didn't have a structure in place to prevent illegal copies.
I think the key point of your post was this: "Where I think they really erred was that they didn't recognize that it would be unsettling to consumers (and rich with irony given this is Orwell), and didn't sufficiently lay the groundwork for a forced recall."
My guess is most of those customers had no idea they'd purchased an illegal copy (I keep hearing it was a rights mix-up, but that's another discussion!), so Amazon's intrusive behavior was even more unsettling. A little conversation would have gone a long way in this case. Those of us who are intimately involved in these topics on a daily basis often forget that the average reader doesn't know or care about the vagaries of digital content, and having your books (and associated notes, in the case of at least one consumer) removed from your reader is disturbing.
The fact that it was Orwell, well, could there have been a more perfect attention-grabber?
I think the key point of your post was this: "Where I think they really erred was that they didn't recognize that it would be unsettling to consumers (and rich with irony given this is Orwell), and didn't sufficiently lay the groundwork for a forced recall."
My guess is most of those customers had no idea they'd purchased an illegal copy (I keep hearing it was a rights mix-up, but that's another discussion!), so Amazon's intrusive behavior was even more unsettling. A little conversation would have gone a long way in this case. Those of us who are intimately involved in these topics on a daily basis often forget that the average reader doesn't know or care about the vagaries of digital content, and having your books (and associated notes, in the case of at least one consumer) removed from your reader is disturbing.
The fact that it was Orwell, well, could there have been a more perfect attention-grabber?
I adore a good conspiracy theory, really I do, but Nathan, you are so right on this.
The outrage was so great that I actually had to check in several different places to see that the books were refunded. I thought Amazon must have kept the money in order to make people so angry.
In addition to prior notification, which would have been the good sense thing to do, they might have offered 10% off the next eBook purchase for readers affected. I know they aren't making money on the eBooks but that would have smoothed some feathers.
And BofA: WWBBD is hilarious.
I agree both that it was the right thing for Amazon to do, and that they should've done it better. They definitely should've given some kind of warning and explanation for pulling the material if they wanted to prevent doomsayers of the apocalypse and consumer protests.
RW – Out of curiosity, which do you consider the abuse of power; Amazon taking down the material or Amazon not forewarning the customers? From your comment it sounds like the former, and if that was your meaning, I don't believe Amazon overstepped its boundaries – if it didn't tread as gracefully as it should've – because, at the end of the day, it was still illegal material.
The government has the power to confiscate pirated DVDs. YouTube has the power to delete copyrighted videos. They don't say, "Because it violates copyright laws, in 24 hours we're going to delete your upload." They just do it, and people don't get into an uproar every time this happens. You buy pirated DVDs, you might go to jail. You upload copyrighted a video, YouTube might get rid of it.
These mega-guys do so not because they're taking over the media or increasing their power over the consumer culture, but because they have the responsibility to do so. Orwell's estate could feasibly go after Amazon for letting sellers profit from pirated Orwell works, and Amazon had the responsibility to the proper rights-holders to take those illegal copies down.
Amazon did NOT communicate this to the consumers, however, and that's wrong. They had the responsibility to do that as well, and I also agree with you in that I would definitely expect protection from Amazon before it reaches that point, but in a situation like this I don't think Amazon could have solved the problem by letting the pirated copies go.
Nathan,
Here's why people were so freaked. It's not because Amazon wanted to correct an error that gave customers an illegally uploaded book, it's because they pulled the books off people's Kindle's without warning. Compare that to a similar situation with a physical book and a brick and mortar store. Mom & Pop Books accidentally buys 1,000 copies of 1984, illegally printed by some kid down the street. Upon realizing their error, they come into your house, get the book off your bookshelf, and leave you the cash.
Had Amazon simply sent all people who had purchased that version an email saying what they were going to do 24 hours prior to doing it, it would have gone a long way toward this having been a non-issue. But instead they abused their ability to delete books and also the trust of the people who own Kindles.
It's an abuse of power that can have insidious consequences. And maybe that's taking it to it's most extreme, but the fact that Amazon's shown that they can and are willing to do such a thing, only proves that it could happen again in the future.
I disagree with the house analogy, one house is not the same as another and can not be replaced easily. One book is just as good as another (unless it's a textbook you've written a ton of notes in :P).
I think that the books should have stayed with the owners and the company who caused the problem (you know the one that published illegally) should have paid the original publisher the damage. It wasn't the fault of the customer, or Amazon's fault for that matter. It was the illegal publishing company's fault. They are the one to blame, they should be the one to pay. Amazon should have ceased sales when they found out.
My concern is that publishers of media get out of hand when they have all the power. Just one example https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading.
This is just another legal and technical issue that e-book providers need to address. No biggie.
Did Amazon notify the customers that due to copyright infringements they were removing the e-books and refunding the purchases … or did they just take the book? Either way, they will live and learn like the rest of us.
Many more issues will be identified and addressed as the technology is adopted.
Obviously, Amazon needs to vet their policies and procedures regarding ‘authorized digital books’ and establish a published policy and procedure regarding recalls.
If people want to freak out, they should worry about how everything they do in this electronic age can be monitored, recorded and used by technically savvy hackers and authorized government offices.
Easy electronic access is both the good and ugly of technology.
My concern is the article was blatantly one-sided and intentionally flaming negative, alarmist sentiments against e-books.
I also find it very difficult to believe that a ‘chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce’ didn’t know exactly what he was buying when he bought a Kindle. I mean, really, someone needs to look into this guy’s credentials and/or competency.
Amazon HAS been frightening me lately… and it's not the computer glitch and it's not the kindle thing… but those incidences have got me thinking about the cultural power Amazon currently has, and THAT terrifies me. I worry that all these book discussions, links to books, pictures of books, book reviews are posted on a for-profit site. That site can then chose to highlight certain books, hide others, suggest others. It just seems an enormous power in the world of literature.
So they're a great site, and some of the best customer service I've ever encountered, but I have been taking my web footprint elsewhere lately.
Wow, what an interesting debate. Thanks for bringing this to my head-in-the-sand attention.
I actually own a Sony e-reader, and while I love reading e-books (classics and new ones) on it, I feel very much in the middle on this issue.
On the one hand, as a writer, I absolutely agree that Amazon should have recalled the illegal copies of Orwell's books (haha! – that is irony for ol' Georgie-Porgie) and refunded customers' money. But, on the other hand, I agree with RW – you're spending good money on an e-book (often three times as much as a movie rental might cost), so I think you've bought it fair and square – and I find it more than a wee bit unsettling that Amazon can simply delete it from your e-reader withour prior notice. So, I agree with Elise – Amazon should have, at the very least, given customers 24-hour notification before violating the sanctity of their e-readers (even if said customers had already agreed to the sneaky fine print of their terms of service).
As to the house analogy… this very situation happened recently in Southern California. An Asian couple purchased a house, but before they could move in, a bogus "landlord" rented the house to a Mexican family. The so-called "landlord" then disappeared, and the new homeowners were out in the cold. Now, this is no surprise in a state like California, where tenants have WAY more rights than in other states. But, quite frankly, I think the homeowner has the right to boot out the renters – I'm sorry, but it's a buyer-beware scenario, and it just BOILS MY BLOOD when these sorts of situations happen.
So, my only question is this… does the same thing happen with the Sony e-readers? It hasn't happened to me yet – but now I AM a little worried that the next time I turn it own, my Jane Austen novels will have disappeared like the proverbial fart in the wind.
–Laura, the Newly Turned Conspiracy Theorist
Cory Doctorow has the better of the argument, Nathan.
https://boingboing.net/2009/07/20/amazons-orwellian-de.html
You're not involved with the GLBT end of the industry, but I can assure you that those of us who are are definitely not wondering what we were all freaking out about. We're well aware of what we were upset about, we've taken some actions to plug a few leaks, and we're keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't do it again, or at least that we won't be left flailing if they do. It's easy for people who are part of the mainstream majority to eyeroll when someone slams a minority group, and then does a quick backpedal while babbling lame apologies. To members of that group, the incident is just one in a long line of similar and we're not willing to be quite so naive or forgiving.
And your example of someone buying stolen property and getting upset when the police come to reclaim the item is inappropriate. A much better example would be of someone buying a pirated knock-off. The authorities close down the manufacturing centers of unauthorized knock-offs (if they're in a country which will cooperate) and come down on the people who sell them, but they don't go after the people who've already bought the pirated object. If you have a pair of fake Gucci shoes, even if you knew when you bought them that they were fakes, you get to keep them. And I imagine that if the cops or anyone else broke into your house, rummaged through your closet, confiscated the shoes and left a few bills on your dresser, you'd feel pretty darned upset about it, fair compensation or no.
Note that I'm a writer whose only publications so far are electronic, and I've been pirated. And yes, I'm upset about that when it happens. There's a difference, though, between selfish jerkwads downloading something from a pirate board, and honest people buying something from Amazon (or any other legitimate retailer) in good faith. It was Amazon's system that let the illegitimate copy be sold, so they should be the ones to clean up the mess — and not by barging into their customer's readers and rifling through their books. I can think of several better ways they could've handled this.
About e-book permanence, I personally can't afford to re-purchase every book I want to reread. I buy e-books and expect to keep them essentially forever. I refuse to buy anything with DRM on it and all my e-books are installed on my desktop, my laptop and a flash drive. If one of them gets lost it won't be because I didn't have them backed up, and it definitely won't be because some vendor I chose to do business with decided to unilaterally nullify the transaction.
Angie
Nathan,
Although I work in information technology, I am always a late adopter. I believe in letting others pay for and suffer through the debugging phase of new technology.
So I thought I'd ask you a couple of questions:
1. What happens if you have a technological problem with your e-reader? For example, you're in the middle of the climax – pow – it stops working.
2. I'm sure e-readers have had and will continue having some form of media corruption and part or all of a customer's books (and innotations) will be lost – do you back up your Kindle?
If I am the writer in this situation I am not going to piss off a bunch of people for downloading a copy of my book that they paid for through Amazon Kindle. But, I will go after Amazon who is ultimately the vehicle for this kind of theft. Amazon will have to improve the system itself to prevent it from happening again. In my mind, they own the playground and they should be responsible to the writers.
So first Amazon sold books they had no right to sell electronically and then they took them back without explanation in what can only be called an intrusive and unsettling manner. On top of this books purchased in this manner should only be considered as rented not owned. Why?
This sort of behaviour is not going to quiet conspiracy theorists and you it's not hard to see why. Amazon does not seem to have shown any sort of respect for either side. When any corporation so dominant in a market behaves like this people are right to voice concern.
jeff-
I disagree with Cory. Consumers do have a seat at the table, both in terms of where they decide to take their business and, through debates such as this one, in shaping a company's image. People choose Amazon because it's convenient. If they're overly exercised about Amazon's specific policies they can take their business elsewhere. The consumer absolutely has a seat at the table.
I feel like DRM is somewhat tangential. Yeah, DRM is what allows Amazon to do this, but it doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of Amazon's actions.
Angela,
I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean the former. Definitely, Amazon was right to take down the problem books and not sell any more of them. I mean they overstepped their authority when they snagged back the copies they already sold.
BTW, there is a terrific novel that is instructive on this similar to the California house case someone else mentioned. The House of Sand and Fog by Dubus. And like all good literature, both sides in the dispute are sympathetic. It's a heartbreaker.
AM-
Amazon keeps a record of what books you have purchased, so you can delete them from your Kindle or iPhone at will and re-download them later. If you buy a new Kindle you have access to the e-books you've already purchased.
You can't take the e-books elsewhere to a new device, which rankles some people, but that doesn't worry me too much because I'm not planning on re-reading the books I bought on the Kindle anyway.
Angie, it comes down to legality… technically, the wite is Amazon's but if they have the obligation to retract all digital copies, they should retract all digital copies. Are there better ways to go about communicating/implementing it, sure (as many people have pointed out), but, legally, they're obligated to do what they did (and refund the issue).
As far as earlier issues w/ Amazon, as a non-govt entity, they have a right to do almost whatever (within the strictures of capitalistic tenets as defined by our govt) they want in terms of defining their selling structure (whether they were hacked or not is a different matter, but ultimately a trivial one); whether that's in their best interest is a different story… just as it's our right to get pissed by arbitrary classifications and subsequently to veto/reject using said seller.
angie-
Actually I am involved in the GLBT side of the book industry as I represent the estate of John Preston. I just accept Amazon's explanation for what happened. There really was no incentive or reason for them to miscategorize a bunch of books, and I just don't see a diabolical hand at work.
I still don't get the breaking into the house analogy. Again, I don't live in my Kindle. It's not my personal space. Amazon isn't committing a crime in the process of retrieving the book. It's ominous-sounding but it doesn't make any sense to me.
Nathan,
Part of the problem that Cory alludes to is that Amazon does not disclose all of their policies or the powers that the DRM grants them. How can consumers have a seat at the table when there's no disclosure? How many of the books on your Kindle have flags that limit the number of times you can download it (another issue that has recently come to light)? Can you say that you know the answer with any confidence?