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.
Bradley Robb says
I think the argument is a bit more multifaceted than you let on.
Yes, Amazon suddenly found itself selling eBooks for which it didn't have the rights to do. However, this is not a new instance on the internet. Legislation was put into place a decade ago to take care of just such instances, particularly the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA.
According to the DMCA, Amazon should (and did) immediately stop selling access to the illicit content. Where things get murky is in regards to whether or not Amazon should have taken the extra step to remove those books from the devices of users whom had already paid for them.
Why? Because Amazon's own ToS for the Kindle grants rights to users to permanently keep books which they purchase. That is, Amazon is selling a copy, not granting a conditional license.
The logical rebuttal is – Amazon had no right to grant such a sale, as they never had rights to that item in the first place. Thus, you can't give what you don't actually have.
Therein lies the rub, and it is one likely to be exposed in court, as a class action suit has already been launched.
Not that this clears away all the murk. The Orwell books in question have lapsed into public domain in some countries, while remain protected under copyright in others. Welcome to patchwork laws trying to work in a flat world. So, in some nations, MobileReference, the offending publisher in this instance, actual does have rights to electronically publish the Orwell works in question. Just not in the US.
Even still, this isn't the first time that Amazon has run into this mishap. Previous instances, as cited by numerous sources, include Ayn Rand's works, and several Harry Potter books.
All of which draw up several questions:
Should Amazon be responsible for enforcing DMCA requirements up to removing works from user's devices to maintain their Safe Harbor privileges?
If so, will Amazon have to change their ToS to retract the granting of permanent rights for users?
How would Amazon's shift from selling eBooks to licensing them differ from the proposed Google cloud-based streaming alternative?
And how much damage are these types of actions doing to consumer confidence in electronic publishing and purchasing of non-material goods?
As I noted earlier, much of this will likely be decided in the judicial system, but could prove to be a very important moment in the history of electronic publishing. This case is establishing boundaries between publisher and seller, and between seller and customer. As publishers and sellers start to look more and more alike in the future, it's going to be an important set of precedent to know.
Nathan Bransford says
jeff-
The true answer is that I just don't think about or worry about this stuff as a Kindle consumer. I know that I can't easily pass around my e-books (none of my friends have Kindles anyway), I know that Amazon has the ability to sync my e-books between devices, deliver and delete them… etc. etc. I accept the tradeoffs because it's convenient to buy and read books on the Kindle.
I just want to read my books. I'm not sitting around thinking about how I'm going to move them or how I can or can't give them away or how I can and can't get around the DRM. I understand these issues are issues for some readers, in which case I wouldn't recommend the Kindle. But I think they already know that.
Ultimately I still think Amazon is sufficiently paying the price for any wrongdoings or ham-fistedness. Their image took a hit. Probably some people are thinking twice about buying Kindles. It's bad for business. Consumers are exercising their collective power.
Nathan Bransford says
bradley robb-
Yes, I think all of that does add more content and layers, and thanks for summarizing.
Anonymous says
So a Kindle isn't anything like a computer? I don't own a Kindle, but I consider my computer private space and would be ticked if someone took something off of it, like Microsoft or Itunes or even some of my songs. May not be anything the same at all, but it kind of feels that way. It makes you wonder if they can see you personal notes on it.
AM says
Thanks Nathan, but I was already aware of Amazon's restore capabilities.
To be more clear, I was wondering about technical support for customers' current Kindles. If a customer has a technical glitch, what kind of support do they get?
The level of fast, friendly, and competent technical support for new technology is my last road block for trying the technology.
If it is in place and easy to use, I am closer to trying it… if not, I'll wait a little while longer.
If you haven't crossed this bridge yet, no problem. I just thought I'd ask.
Bane of Anubis says
Logic time:
Home = where the heart is –>
heart = love –>
NB has said 'I love my Kindle.'
Q.E.D. One of Nathan Bransford's home is his Kindle…
It's time to rethink your argument, Mr. Bransford :p
Nathan Bransford says
AM-
Ah, sorry, misunderstood. I haven't had any technical issues with my Kindle and so I don't know what their support is like.
Nathan Bransford says
BofA-
Ha. I stand corrected.
Kristan says
Thanks for keeping a cool head, Nathan. Granted I don't have a Kindle, but I thought the outrage was ridiculous. Yes, it would be irritating/weird to have something of mine disappear without warning — and I'd probably be pissed at first — BUT THE THING WAS ILLEGAL. I was losing something I wasn't supposed to have in the first place, so I'd move on. The end.
Matilda McCloud says
Thanks for clearing up the Amazon Orwell controversy. Like some other poster said, I didn't even click on the articles. I find conspiracy theories pretty boring. Amazon is a monolith, but I can't help but love it anyway. I have actually dealt with human beings there and they were nice and helpful.
Christa says
My kindle came with a USB cable so that I could copy e-books onto my laptop/desktop as my kindle memory became too full. Thus keeping my e-books, but making room for new acquisitions.
Now, I haven't had the need to download my current e-books, so I don't know how this would work, but if I removed the Orwell book I purchased from Amazon onto my desktop before they did the delete, then a few weeks after the delete, copied the file back onto my kindle, would it be removed again? Or is that simply a one time "query and delete" by the giant Amazon query engine.
Ulysses says
"the mere sight of their logo apparently turns normal people into conspiracy theorists."
Hmm. Everyone I meet says this… there has to be a connection… 8)
Jeff says
Nathan,
I think you're right in that the consumer who is well informed about the Kindle may find that they will enjoy the device notwithstanding Amazon's mis-steps.
I know I enjoy mine, though I wish I had known some of these things in advance and could have done without the mis-steps. 🙂 However, I only use it for books that I don't want to keep long term. I originally reached that decision because I don't believe that digital files provide the same long term benefits as paper, both tangible (paper books are, absent a fire or poor binding, quite long lasting) and intangible (I love the smell of books). Amazon's actions just reinforce the tangible benefits of purchasing a physical copy of a book that you wish to keep long term.
Mike says
Your mom reads this? Does that mean you have to watch your language?
Hopefully the publishing world has learned from the mistakes of the music biz. We all know that when things can change they will and no amount of nostalgic sentimentality will stop that. Digital is here to stay so we might as well get used to it. Let's hope things stay fair and profitable and let's hope the advantages digital publishing brings end up outweighing the drawbacks.
Nathan Bransford says
jeff-
I definitely agree. There's also just something irreplaceable about the cover, the art, the look, etc. of a book you truly want to own forever. For that there's really no substitute for a paper copy.
For the books you want to read once: can't beat the Kindle.
terry donaldson says
Actually, in today's society, maybe some authors would've wanted amazon to keep the book on Kindle, but they'd sue them for an absurd amount of money to pay them back what they would've made on the book, plus punitive damages. Now that's a jackpot and more like what would happen today.
Angela says
RW,
Ah, I see what you mean. And as for the issue of taking back the book copies, Amazon's in trouble now for doing it and I think they'd still be in trouble – just with different people – if they hadn't.
Nathan mentioned the problems in his post – that there'd been no precedent, that Amazon botched the groundwork to SET a precedent, and in turn those problems made this decision seem like something they could easily repeat in the future.
AM says
Christa,
Excellent question…
Technically, I can tell you that if Amazon has assigned a unique identifier to each e-book and updated their software not to run that particular e-book, then you will not be able to restore the book and read it.
Functionally, I don’t know what they’ve done.
Btw … since you've mentioned using the backup functionality… may I ask, does it back up your annotations?
The reason I ask: In the article that Nathan provided, someone complained that when Amazon deleted his e-book, Amazon also deleted his annotations.
This particular technical problem opens up an entirely new legal problem. Whether or not Amazon was legally within their rights to remove the novel is one issue… where they were within their rights to take hours or days of that poor boy’s work… is another issue.
One last question: since Amazon's Kindle is proprietary, can you see/use the backups on your PC with Amazon's software – or do you just see a listing of the books backed up?
Vacuum Queen says
I think you have great common sense. No feathers get ruffled on you. It seems that sometimes the masses get crazy about Big Brother and jump to conclusions, when really…they have a pretty simple, believable story about what happened.
And no matter who sells it or distributes it in the future…people will always be interested in good story telling. There will always be authors writing and creating, and consumers hungry for new ideas and just good storytelling. I don't think one big bad company will ruin all of that.
Steph Damore says
Nathan said:
I know that Amazon has the ability to sync my e-books between devices, deliver and delete them… etc. etc. I accept the tradeoffs because it's convenient to buy and read books on the Kindle.
And I agree. It's a personal issue. If you accept the terms, fine. If you don't, that's fine too – don't buy a kindle.
e-books aren't the same as paper copies. Ownership isn't the same. It's definitely a trade off, but I'm willing to accept it.
Bradley Robb says
@Steph
Except that it was the same. According to the Kindle's ToS, you were buying permanent rights.
Bane of Anubis says
Legally, I believe, even a physical hard-copy would need to be returned. Of course, most probably wouldn't return it and few, if any, would be prosecuted (other than the seller by a lawsuit), but, technically, I believe, you'd be in possession of contraband.
Which, ultimately, means that digital law might be more readily enforced — b/c proprietary ownership can be more readily controlled — assuming they can get past all the pirating :).
Marilyn Peake says
From the length of your post, Nathan, I’m guessing you’re a huge fan of Amazon and Kindle. : ) I love the Kindle for convenience in storing large numbers of books in one device, and I purchase many, many books from Amazon; but I definitely understand the other point of view.
I know several authors who asked Amazon to stop selling illegally printed paperback copies of their indie print-on-demand books. Amazon refused to stop selling them so long as copies were available (and print-on-demand books by their very nature are continuously available). A large publishing corporation asked Amazon to stop selling illegally created eBooks. They took drastic measures to immediately comply, even removing purchased copies from Kindles. I think there’s a pattern here that many writers find unsettling.
Another problem exists for students and others who highlight passages and take notes in books they read. Readers are able to highlight text and take notes in eBooks they pay to download into their Kindle (technically, they don’t actually own the books). I think that Amazon’s recent move shows that Kindle probably isn’t the best place for students to read assigned books. I can’t imagine having had all my notes and highlighting disappear from my books two days before an exam when I was in college or grad school. It would have been a nightmare!
kneog says
You're not worried by the ability and willingness of Amazon to log onto a personal machine and remove material without advance notice?
Nathan Bransford says
kneog-
Nope, not really.
As others have mentioned I think the problem with this incident is that there wasn't sufficient notice and thus people didn't have time to prepare. That was a mistake.
But Amazon doesn't have any incentive at all to abuse this power. People will just take their business elsewhere.
T. Anne says
It would seem people glom onto the sky is falling mentality without hesitation these days. Amazonfail? Really?
Oh and, hello Nathan's mom!
nicov says
It was Amazon's mistake, clearly, and so Amazon should eat the damages. Not the writer, and not the readers.
Those readers, after all, were faithfully trying to legally buy a book. If I was one of those readers, I'd be mightily disincentivized to legally buy a copy of a book I thought I'd already bought if the author and bookseller snatched back the book without warning, explanation, or permission.
The action might be relatively defensible, but doing it in the dark of the night, without even a word of warning, is what rankles people.
The proper way to do it is for Amazon to pay the copyright holder out of pocket for the stolen copies and leave them on the machines. If they can't police their uploading system well enough to avoid this kind of problem, they have accept the consequences and not pass them on to readers or authors.
Marilyn Peake says
Nathan @11:06 AM said:
"… but, hypothetically, it may be that the publisher/estate simply doesn't want any electronic versions available for sale."
This happens all the time with eBooks. They’re constantly pirated. eBook and indie presses are constantly going after piracy sites and shutting them down. Piers Anthony (published by both big and indie publishing houses) has mentioned on his website that he frequently finds illegal copies of his books being sold on websites. He’s talked about how, after he manages to shut one site down, another pops up. I know an indie publishing house where illegal copies of their books are extremely popular in countries without copyright laws, but they have no way to prevent it. Amazon is the first company to take back an eBook from customers; other eBook companies simply try to stop future piracy from taking place.
Jenn Johansson says
Not only that, I am pretty sure they are controlling the lightbulb in my refrigerator. It only turns on when I am searching for foods that start with the letter A–coincidence? I think not.
Lupina says
A whole bunch of my work (emphasis on word "work" as in something done for a wage) is already available free through Google Books, so I would highly object to yet another form of unpaid access.
Amazon totally did the right thing with rip-and-refund.
As for Amazon being the new World Overlord, well, if you spell it backwards you get noz ama, or KNOWS ama — ama standing for American Medical, Management and Motorcycle Associations PLUS meaning "goddess" in Japanese! That is proof positive, enough anyway to add it to the lists of major world conspirators of the coming apocalypse.
Marilyn Peake says
This discussion is fascinating and led me to do more research. I started wondering: can companies like Amazon who are trying to enter the digital age have it both ways? Turns out that copyrights on the George Orwell books in question have expired in Australia, and are in public domain there (because copyrights for all books by authors who died before 1955 are legally in public domain there). People in the U.S. are warned that they should not download an Australian eBook copy of George Orwell’s books because it is illegal to do so in the U.S. where those books are still under copyright. So, in some cases the World Wide Web is not exactly … well, ummmm … worldwide. Commercial: "Here is the World Wide Web. Some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited by law."
In many ways, it’s important to enforce the laws of individual countries, but difficult to enforce such laws on an Internet that’s a kind of Wild West right now.
Mira says
Jenn – Lol.
AM says
Jenn,
The conspiracy deepens.
Apple, asparagus, apricots, avocado …
That’s a flagrant display of power and it’s just mean.
Liesl Shurtliff says
A little off the topic, but I like the thought of comparing digital books to rentals. Only problem for me? They're expensive rentals. I know they're meant to be owned but maybe this is the way e-books needs to go. Lower the prices drastically to say two or three dollars and do make it a rental, like i-tunes movie rentals. You have two to four weeks to read the book and then it's gone. The turn off of e-books for me is you have to buy the pricy device and then buy the pricy digital book. I get books for cheap anyway in various ways, usually less than $10, or I go to the library. If e-readers are going to appeal to the masses they need lower the prices a LOT. The device can be expensive, fine, but if you're taking away the romanticism of paper and binding you need to make it appealing in some other form than convenience. Pricing is key. It could be great, but it's not there yet for me.
Lisa Schroeder says
Ahhh, your mom reads your blog? Hi Nathan's mom!!
Marilyn Peake says
Finally caught up reading everyone’s posts here. Fascinating discussion! I feel your pain, Angie, having been through piracy issues with my own books, many times. It truly sucks.
Liana Brooks says
If Amazon already had the money couldn't they have asked for permission to sell the books at the current price, updated the Kindles, and split the royalties correctly? Wouldn't that have been fairer all around to both buyer and author's estate?
Somehow just deleting a book seems… dodgy. If I buy a physical book it's mine. Short of committing theft you can not take it away even if I bought it second hand or without permission. Yes, the author could sue me, but the book is mine.
A bookstore owner is not going to raid my house at night to get my paperback.
It was Amazon at fault in the end, after all. They didn't check the rights for the Kindle book. They didn't send the royalties to the right people. Ideally, they should have kept it quiet and dealt with everything in house UNLESS the person who holds the rights to the books doesn't want them distributed.
If the estate didn't want the books sold I can see asking for people to bring it back. But to suddenly find the books been banned by the friendly neighborhood Big Brother Amazon?
Irony doesn't even cover all the issues.
Firefly says
Natahn, you note 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.
Yup — that's exactly it. Many a corporation has had to live with those fears… case in point … IBM in the 70's and 80's. The good news is — a corporation is only feared if it is indeed successful.
Shaun Hutchinson says
It kind of scares me that so many people are okay with this. Even Nathan says, "But Amazon doesn't have any incentive at all to abuse this power. People will just take their business elsewhere," which is like saying police who abuse power don't have any incentive to beat suspects.
Look, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't sit around in my boxers and contemplate all the ways in which the government is watching me, but the fact is that Amazon HAS this power. They have the power to alter what you read. They can upload a different version of a book right to your device and you'd have no way of knowing. They can change the way a product is ranked and effectively banish it from their site. If the capability is there, rest assured that at some point it will be abused.
Sure, maybe people overreacted that doesn't mean they were wrong. It's totally plausible that a large consumer group (like conservative christians) could demand Amazon censor books it finds salacious, and Amazon could use this power to censor books without you ever knowing. And if you think it can't happen, they're the same kind of consumer groups who make sure Wal-Mart doesn't sell certain books or CD's or movies.
I'm just saying it's a slippery slope.
Nathan Bransford says
shaun-
How in the world could Amazon censor books without anyone knowing? They apparently can't even delete a couple of illegal copies of 1984 off some Kindles without a public relations catastrophe. You think the Internet would let mass censorship and willful changing of texts go silently?
Jens Porup says
If it can be, it will be. That's the nature of power. It doesn't matter how "nice" the people at Amazon are.
See this essay:
https://www.jensporup.com/essays/george_orwell_is_dead.html
Lisa Melts Her Penn says
Nathan, you are just so CUTE with all your world domination and e-overlord talk. And that reader request the other day — I think the best way to get people to send their partial mss with the original query letter would be to ask those same people what they think other people would need to hear to do that. Ah, yes, that's what you did — pretty shrewd! I'm still un-Kindled, though I look at them longingly when I see one on someone's lap.
Jenn Johansson says
AM –
Finally someone who understands just how disturbing this is. I also think PETA could be involved. Think about it, how many meats do you know that start with an A? Difficult to find one without your fridge light on. You know what else starts with A? Anemia… I think you can see where I'm going with this.
They are beyond sneaky.
😉
K.C. Shaw says
Nathan @1:32 wrote "But Amazon doesn't have any incentive at all to abuse this power. People will just take their business elsewhere."
Yeah, people who have Kindles will just go download ebooks from other companies. Like, um, um….
Well, I guess people who own Kindles just should have bought a Sony Reader. Glad I did.
Chuck H. says
First off, Hi to Nathan's Mom. You do good work.
Second off, if you want to keep a book forever, buy it from Easton Press–leather bound, gilt edged and paper that will easily last till the next millenium and the smell. Ahhh.
Nathan Bransford says
k.c.-
Like Fictionwise, which sells e-books that work on the Kindle.
Nathan Bransford says
Incidentally Fictionwise is now owned by Barnes & Noble.
Angela says
Shaun,
I know very few people personally who use an eBook reader and none of them use it exclusively. Like Nathan mentioned in his post, Kindle represents a scant 1-3% of total book sales, which isn't the equivalent of Amazon taking over the publishing industry and being single-handedly responsible for censoring what the public reads.
If consumer groups like the conservative Christians you mentioned somehow DO manage to force Amazon to censor books they disagree with, people are definitely going to find out, and if they can't find out for certain, they'll make their own conclusions from the clues at hand just as quickly (look at #amazonfail), which can lead to public outrage over a 'scandal' even more damaging than the truth. If there's one thing people don't want to see in this kind of industry, it's censorship, and this blog discussion proves it.
And then, even then it's 1-3% of sales. The e-book industry is growing but the vast majority of books are still sold as just regular books. Kindle can ban or censor or alter all the books it wants and it won't take people long to notice. The only way anybody might be able to get away with it is if every single person in the world only read books using a Kindle and the traditional publishing industry had gone kaput.
The fact that Amazon can pull material, that it CAN be done doesn't mean we've started to slide down that slope, any more than the fact that YouTube CAN take down any video it wants to (and we know it) means we're going to lose free speech in the online video medium anytime soon. YouTube, like Amazon, is a company. It can do whatever it wants but in the end it depends on its consumers to survive.
And, like Amazon, YouTube only one of many. If it wants to delete a video, in five minutes you'll be able to find it somewhere else. Amazon, likewise, can control what it removes from its Kindle – the Kindle is, after all, Amazon's product – but it can't control what other companies do with their products, and it can't control the fact that it's competing against others and that competition will only get even fiercer in the future, as the electronic part of this industry continues to grow.
Of course it has the ability to happen. Of course Amazon has the power to take books off the Kindle and this incident has just proven it. But look what happened here, and on such a small scale compared to the predictions for the future. The reaction to the Orwell problem was immediate and it was fierce. If something on a much bigger scale could even hope to happen, we're all going to have to turn into sheep first.
Moreover, Amazon has little to gain and much to lose should they let this happen again. Like any other company and any other store, they depend on consumers for profit. Unhappy consumers, as Nathan said somewhere back there in the comments, take their business elsewhere, as in the WalMart example – sure, WalMart can refuse to sell something and we know that. But for every store that decides not to stock something there's another store that wants to profit from it.
And for every #amazonfail, there's an explosion on the Internet from millions of people who – if worst-case censhorship ever does rear its ugly head – are armed and ready to take it down.
I wouldn't give up on the future of publishing just yet.
Marilyn Peake says
Nathan – I remember when Fictionwise was one of the new kids on the block, founded in 2000 by Steve and Scott Pendergrast. My first book was posted for sale there in 2004 when they were still fairly new and eBooks were considered mostly experimental. In less than a decade they were able to sell Fictionwise to Barnes & Noble for $15.7 million. Pretty cool. Things are happening so quickly in the digital world.
Just finished reading a fascinating three-part interview with Amanda Palmer, musician and girlfriend of Neil Gaiman … I know that from Neil Gaiman and Amanda Palmer on Twitter : ) … about how rapidly her world is changing as a musician due to the digital age (warning: some four-letter words included):
Part 1
and
Part 2
and
Part 3
Anonymous says
I can't believe how many good looking people there are posting here?
Is it necessary to get published?
I can see, judging from these comments, that there are a lot of talented writers posting here as well.
Man, good looks, AND talent.
How the hell are the rest of us supposed to compete with this?
The Goose