Amazon recalls (and embodies) Orwell's '1984'
Much is being made this Friday over Amazon's move to essentially forcibly recall two e-books that some customers had purchased.
According to multiple reports, Amazon removed the books from users' accounts after the publisher decided to pull its e-book. (My favorite headline, by the way, was Seattlest's "Amazon's Kindle: Now with new take-backsies feature".)
(Credit:
Amazon.com)
The publisher is certainly within its rights to stop selling the e-book and certainly Amazon needs to honor those wishes. But its hard to understand by what rights the retailer can remove the book from those who have already purchased one of the titles.
The added irony is that one of the two books in question is George Orwell's "1984." The other is Orwell's "Animal Farm."
The New York Times David Pogue quoted one reader that likened the move to "Barnes & Noble sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we've been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the coffee table."
Peter Kafka at All Things Digital cites Amazon's terms of service, which don't seem to permit the move, noting that once users buy a book, they get "the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."
Even if there are contract terms somewhere that permit this, it sets a terrible precedent for the company, as it plays into some of customers' worst fears around digitally protected content.
One of the things I value as a customer of digital content is the idea that I can keep a book and have it with me whenever I want. It's one of several reasons that I own one of the e-book readers.
The idea that at any point Amazon can take it back and give me a refund is disturbing, to say the least. I've asked Amazon for comment and will let you know what I hear back.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
%20Orwell's%20'1984'%20%7C%20Beyond%20Binary%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10289983-56.html){kind=small}
There is no defense for this action.
That device is simply garbage, and the company that sells it is even worst than Microsoft and Apple put together.
As for the sucker....people who bought them, told ya so. You purchase a reading device that restricts where you can get your content from, what content is available and then has "take-backsies". Who would buy a TV that would restrict what content you can watch?
Why is no one pressing charges? If you purchase that book, and they remove it from your device without your permission, isn't that theft? Why should this company Amazon (they ACT like Amazons) able to remove ANYTHING from the device?
I can't believe people own these things....what junk...
Between the "English much?" comment below and comparing open source to cloud computing, methinks thou lacks attention. Blowhard? Windbag? Dufus maybe?
Fear the cloud.
The OS on the computer I'm currently typing this on has an open source core, and no company can remove it (or its contents) without my knowledge and consent. It relies on no "cloud" to operate (and trust me, it's a Hackintosh ATM, and Apple cannot remove it even if they wanted to... by the by, my old dual G5 is sitting next to it, and my Ubuntu box next to that).
As for cloud services? Yep - you're at the mercy of the provider. OTOH, thanks to competition and local backups, I don't have to fear it. Now a business may have to, considering that it would be one drunk backhoe operator away from being cut off from their customers, data, etc.
This is where balance comes in. The vital stuff you keep local (@ work, I run our public DNS master server locally, if that gives you an idea, and few companies would even dare attempt that). The not-so-vital stuff? You let the SaaS providers handle it.
OTOH, that could go for any technology (see also the flood of zealots and fanboys for Microsoft, Apple, etc).
I think I need to send some emails later today... how exactly does one spell "pppppfffttttt!", anyway?
Of course note that anything with DRM in it (with no means of conversion) can do this, for spineless-yet-malicious reasons (e.g. Amazon), or from technical glitches.
iTunes was (before going DRM-free) borderline because you can always convert the tracks and videos to a format that is free from DRM (meaning you can keep it forever after you bought it). The Zune software piece I don't know about, since I don't know if it has the option to ditch the DRM restrictions that it may still have (e.g. the songs may be individually free from DRM, but the device and subscription service most likely aren't). Rhapsody, Amazon (Kindle), and Napster? No frickin' way.
But thanks for the info, I'll remember to never get a kindle!
And how many of you lawyers out there with Kindles are gearing up privacy law suits against Amazon for every second until they update the software to prevent the removal of anything without your express permission? OK, Class Action?
Scary -- You have to think the PR damage from this one will be enough to pay those with the rights to Orwell's works $1000 per copy.
If this were April 1, given the extreme irony of Amazon acting like 1984 with the book of that title, I would be suspicious of the announcement. Amazon certainly can't be that brain dead and customer deaf.
I don;t have one, which means I can spend my time reading a real book, not wondering which wire to clip. :)
Buy A Book
Real books are great, and I still like turning pages, but electronic files are a lot lighter and require fewer trees in their production.
Not only does this set a bad precedent with the Kindle but also with their "Video On Demand" movie service in which you can purchase a film and watch it whenever you like later on a pc or via Roku.
I'm floored that they would do this. I was planning to purchase a Kindle in September for my birthday, but no longer. I'll wait for the Crunchpad instead.
I wish some of the writers would come down on these people for making such a horrible decision
praise Chairman Bezos and the wisdom of AmSoc.
Unperson Ina should bellyfeel plushappy for the unmaking.
(If you had read the book "1984" you would understand as well)
(it was a good try though)
Cody
The biggest question I have is: will whoever actually made this decision be held accountable in any meaningful way? Whoever made the call to remove the books from the accounts deserves more than just a slap on the wrist.
...I just hope no one had their books removed prior to finishing them. That would just be horrible.
little device to ensure easier reading, I damn well better have control over the device. NOT Amazon. This is an example of how far DRM tech goes.
I certainly agree that this is bad news. I am sure the publisher views this as a benefit of digital publishing, while every consumer should view it as a major potential downside. Once we purchase something, it should be ours forever unless it poses an unmanageable threat to innocents (think safety recalls).
Yes, it is nice to undue a mistake, but those mistakes can become powerful lessons and influences in our future behavior. And people who purchase those "mistakes" can end up with something more valuable than initially purchased. Think of the upside-down-airplane stamp mistakenly issued by the U.S. Post Office years ago.
The point is, once I buy it, it is mine. I find it heartbreaking that my beloved IT industry might now make it possible to take that away .
I look forward to your upcoming updates.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/
omg, you use that title? Really?
Just a neighborhood bully. And not a very big neighborhood, either.
...that's only if your Kindle comes with a crap battery and catches fire.
you now can only read a product at the service contracts said times.:)
- by raigne86 July 17, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
- While the act of removing something users have already purchased bothers me a great deal, I'm not clear on why everyone thinks this means the Kindle's worse than other eBook readers. I can put books from anywhere on it. Kindle doesn't have a lockdown on file formats. I can put a number of formats on it, and most of the books on my Kindle came from somewhere other than Amazon.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Kermode July 17, 2009 4:43 PM PDT
- Did you read the small print? Perhaps one day they'll start deleting books which match a certain digital fingerprint (as in you got them from piratebay)
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (111 Comments)This was a violation of trust, sure, but the "my eBook reader's better than yours because I don't have DRM" attitude is tripe.