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.

[lvcsslacker]

Hmm.. that's odd... I wonder why...

[Jonathan]

Because Amazon doesn't own a pair?

[Random_Walk]

I wonder why the publisher isn't named and shamed...

[jakerome]

There is no news here. You've never had 1984 on your Kindle.

[assman]

Yeah the publisher is the real one to blame here, why is all the attention on Amazon?

[gggg sssss]

@assman - because Amazon is the hit man, the repop man, without a right to reo anything, the bounty hunter. RIP Amazon

[teachtopia]

This is unbelievable. I am in shock! It always amazes me to find people who think that they are "progressive" while using the most locked down device (the Kindle) that has ever come out. The Kindle even charges people to read blogs and only after they are approved for their distribution.<br /><br />There is no defense for this action.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I agree 100%. I've always thought that people who purchased those god awful things weren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.<br />That device is simply garbage, and the company that sells it is even worst than Microsoft and Apple put together.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I can't believe people own these things....what junk...

[Sporlo]

If Amazon's terms of service said that they had the right to do that, then yes, they could do that. The fact is that their ToS says they CAN'T do that though.

[ddhboy]

well, I guess I'll never get a kindle. The price put me off, but the whole DRM thing now is the final deathblow. What happens if I buy a textbook for the Kindle but the textbook publisher pulls it off the market. Now I'm suddenly textbook-less at 1:00AM while working on a paper due in the morning?

[SnidleyWhiplash]

It's less about DRM than it is about the whole "cloud" concept... if you don't own the cloud in which you're keeping your data, you can't be surprised when the owner of the cloud starts controlling it as if they owned it. This is all part of the wide-eyed naïveté of many proponents of open source and cloud type technologies seem to have about how the real world works.

[IgmoSavant]

@Snidley <br />Between the "English much?" comment below and comparing open source to cloud computing, methinks thou lacks attention. Blowhard? Windbag? Dufus maybe?

[Random_Walk]

The "cloud" has nothing to do with being "open source". Get your facts straight please.

[gggg sssss]

@ Random_Walk the cloud has everything to do with it. The cloud is a virtual world - you had a virtual copy of 1984 on your little piece of the cloud.. The powers that controlled the connect to you had suddenly denied you further access. That is what the cloud is all about. Now just think that you are using AWS or other Amazon services for your business, to run your store whatever. One day Amazon decides to cut you off. Then what? What if Google decdes that your little calandar and photo gallery looks like you are about to make kiddie porn and cuts you off, siezes your data and calls the cops - like the photo developers did? Heck, what if Cnet decides it does not like my post? <br /> <br />Fear the cloud.

[Random_Walk]

You missed the point. "Snidley Whiplash" conflated the two, assuming they were one and the same. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.

[SnidleyWhiplash]

Sorry if my point is too esoteric for you... but actually that's the point I'm making. I'm not conflating the two technologies, I'm saying that both have proponents who don't understand all of the ramifications of the rush to embrace those approaches. From a purely engineering and technical perspective, they may be lovely and noble. But they don't live in a vacuum... in fact, they are far more subject to economic and business pressures than many proponents understand (or, in some cases, care to understand). Open source and cloud are different, but both live in the real world... unlike some who promote them with religious-like zeal. Those folks are destined to be disappointed, such as in this case, when business realities bring the dream crashing back to earth.

[Random_Walk]

...nice recover! :)<br /><br />OTOH, that could go for any technology (see also the flood of zealots and fanboys for Microsoft, Apple, etc).

[qquidd]

Well, that about does it for me too - no Kindle for me. Thanks very much Amazon!

[Sandtigrr]

I was in the process of considering a Kindle purchase. Needless to say after this action by Amazon I will not be buying Kindle or any other DRM-crippled ebook reader.

[Random_Walk]

I never bothered considering one, for very similar reasons (as DRM invariably includes the right of 'license revocation', rendering your purchase useless... like the two books that got janked today by Amazon). I was called crazy (and worse) at the time by some rather over-zealous DRM supporters.<br /><br />I think I need to send some emails later today... how exactly does one spell "pppppfffttttt!", anyway? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[Kermode]

This shows the greed of "copyright", the author has been dead for 60 years! This should have been in the public domain a long time ago.<br /><br />But thanks for the info, I'll remember to never get a kindle!

[TomMariner]

OK, how many of you right now are finding ways to turn off the radio feature of your Kindle? <br /> <br />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? <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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.

[Random_Walk]

"OK, how many of you right now are finding ways to turn off the radio feature of your Kindle? "<br /><br />I don;t have one, which means I can spend my time reading a real book, not wondering which wire to clip. :)

[drlolipop]

This overexpensive piece of overtechnology should be forgotten in favor of real (physical) books. You can get real books dirt cheap places like Ebay and garage sales. The Kindle just seems like an overexpensive piece of garbage for pretentious techheads - not for real fans of books. Waste of $300+ in my opinion with this stuff going on.

[play7]

Indeed............I have this bok in to different languges. Those lazy book readers are just another way justify buying over priced hardware hwn book form cost less and gives one the sence of reading and not looking smart holding a useless device which people thee days don`t even use because they don`t read....... <br />Buy A Book

[mkgmkg3]

I agree that if you're carrying around a Kindle, you just as well carry around the real thing, BUUUUUUT I have managed to get a great more reading done since buying my iPod Touch. It is compact enough to carry around and the screen is large enough for easy reading. It also is a great deal more multifunctional than a Kindle.<br />Real books are great, and I still like turning pages, but electronic files are a lot lighter and require fewer trees in their production.

[Gryphon29]

That allows me to cross one item off my Amazon wishlist!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[michaelejahn]

One of the things that truly bothers me is "who insisted that this occur" - that would be Pengiun.<br /><br />I wish some of the writers would come down on these people for making such a horrible decision

[oscarmatic]

doubleplusungood. <br />praise Chairman Bezos and the wisdom of AmSoc. <br />Unperson Ina should bellyfeel plushappy for the unmaking.

[SnidleyWhiplash]

English much?

[Kermode]

SnidleyWhiplash didn't get it - I do.<br />(If you had read the book "1984" you would understand as well)

[pmfjoe]

Thanks Kermode I didn't get the joke until you put it in context. Now I find it rather funny.

[codynews]

Snidley: He was trying (but failed) to be funny... <br /><br />(it was a good try though)<br /><br />Cody

[gggg sssss]

worked for me

[El_Segfaulto]

If Snidley hadn't had his copy of 1984 pulled by Amazon he would have gotten it.

[funkyboot]

I'm assuming this was a bone-headed decision by someone at Amazon that's going to get reversed now that the press has picked up on the story. I have no doubt that those copies will be returned to the users accounts, and I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon did something extra to make up to their effected customers for this fiasco. In fact, I'm convinced that's exactly how this will play out.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />...I just hope no one had their books removed prior to finishing them. That would just be horrible.

[p1j2h9]

What I think is the funniest and I mean haw haw you twits funny is that one thinks that electronic material which is known for transient and volatile nature is as permanent as a paper bound book aka HARD COPY. Agreements are made to be broken but I can still pull my paper copy of 1984 off my shelf [and my Animal Farm] and read it right now. Which is more than I can say for Kindle owners of 1984. If you want to keep it don't buy electronic. [eyes rolling]

[Perry_Clease]

Maybe they are having Winston Smith rewrite some portions of the books.

[Random_Walk]

At least we know now that the other end of the Memory Hole is in Jeff Bezo's office somewhere...

[vakayaker]

LOL, i can download these books for free off the net and read them on my sony PRS. Keep on buying those Kindles people, and Amazon will be your "big brother"

[Junkmail05]

I also was interested in buying a kindle. I will not be buying one now. If I shell out $300 for a <br />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.

[saromero23]

I don't really see this as "Orwellian." That analogy puts Amazon in far too important of a role in our society. <br /> <br />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). <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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 . <br /> <br />I look forward to your upcoming updates. <br /> <br />Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist <br />http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

[codynews]

"IT Governance Evangelist "<br /><br />omg, you use that title? Really?

[doctordawg]

Is this a "mistake" or a "dry run"?

[DanRobinson]

No, not Orwellian.<br /><br />Just a neighborhood bully. And not a very big neighborhood, either.

[gggg sssss]

the electronic version of Farenheit 451

[markdoiron]

It is Orwellian, Mr. Romero, because it suggests that digital literature/political speech that doesn't meets someone's criteria for distribution could be recalled at the whim of some governmental flunky. As for the inverted Jenny, for those who are unaware, the post office attempted to recover that sheet immediately after it was purchased. Unlike with Amazon, however, they were not successful because the owner hid the stamp sheet. Such is the protection of physical media. --mark d.

[Random_Walk]

"the electronic version of Farenheit 451"<br /><br />...that's only if your Kindle comes with a crap battery and catches fire.

[gggg sssss]

@ Random_Walk good analogy - but Farrenheit 451 was less about burning teh physical books but aboutr burning their content and ideas. Paper is hard to erase so there is no choice to burn it. Electronic media can just be erased to acheive the same effect.

[rzager04]

Idiots.

[cube3]

the issue is NOT DRM.. its every "virtualized company" headed to the making of "a "service" what used to be a "sale". <br /> <br />you now can only read a product at the service contracts said times.:)

[Jonathan]

BS it isn't DRM. If it wasn't DRM I could copy the book off my Kindle via USB and then turn off Whispernet and copy it back. I then would have it whenever I want. However you try that and the book will fail to open. This is as much about DRM as it is about horse**** publishers being Ahats.

[Random_Walk]

IT is DRM (DRM includes the right of license revocation... like what happened in that article way the heck up there...)

[raigne86]

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.<br /><br />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.

[Kermode]

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)