Joan Ball is a business professor at St. John’s University in New York and the author of Flirting with Faith: My Spiritual Journey from Atheism to a Faith-Filled Life.
I’ve coveted the Kindle since Amazon first came out with them. My apartment is overflowing with books, and I’m forced to carry an ENORMOUS purse to and fro because I refuse to leave the house without a book. I literally don’t want to spend a second in a waiting room or on line for a movie without reading material. I’d go nuts without novels, bonkers without biographies, pine for lack of prose… yeah, yeah, you get the idea.
So far, I haven’t been able to justify the expense of the Kindle, but every time I see someone handling one on the subway, I sigh a little and turn green with envy. But after today, perhaps less so?
According to reports, after discovering a third-party had unlawfully made two Orwell titles available to users (1984 and Animal Farm), Amazon simply deleted them from users’ accounts without notice and refunded their money. Subscribers, naturally enough, reacted with outrage and surprise. I would too!
I mean, seriously, would Amazon come to your house in the dead of the night and ‘remove’ a brick-and-mortar copy of the book if they discovered it was a pirated edition? I think not!
Many users complained they’d made notes on their copies, which were now lost. But it’s the invasion of the privacy on Amazon’s part that I think abused their customers’ trust the most. Nowhere in their terms of service agreement does it say they reserve the right to ‘backsies’ on their books.
C’mon, Amazon. At least have the decency to issue a product recall of sorts; send out a broadcast letting people know you’re going to do it, etc. While the author’s estate has a right not to be pilfered, users should feel as secure in their electronic property as they do in their physical property.
Safe to say, you’re getting a wag of the finger from me on this Orwellian ethical no-no.
posted July 18, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I was hesitating to spend money on Kindle and this has made up my mind for me. I can find a better way to spend money.
posted July 18, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Amazon didn’t really have a choice. They would be selling/distributing content they did not have the rights to, and would have been the subject of a major lawsuit from the true copyright holder. This is illegally distributed content. Imagine if Netflix or Blockbuster began renting or streaming a title that wasn’t released, or continued to rent/stream a title that was pulled from the market (like the Disney movies on moratorium).
Amazon did the right thing for the copyright owner by removing the illegally distributed content expeditiously, and did the right thing by the consumer by refunding the money expeditiously.
It would be a different story if the content was released for sale, and at some point in the future the copyright holder changed their mind. In that instance the content purchasers would have some standing.
posted July 18, 2009 at 7:28 pm
KES, I must disagree. I think the argument you’re making is flawed. First, using the analogy with Netflix/Blockbuster suggests Amazon is “renting” readers its electronic content. It is not, it’s selling it to them. Second, if they’re in for a lawsuit, that’s their problem, not their customers’. They should not be allowing third-party sellers such free access to their servers if they’re worried about piracy; they should monitor the content available for distribution carefully before allowing it to go out. That’s their responsibility. I agree they shouldn’t CONTINUE to allow further downloads of the illegal material, but the ‘books’ that are out there are now the property of the purchasers — or if legally determined NOT to be, in a court of law, then Amazon should make reparations to the author(s). They did an underhanded — nay, disturbing — thing by stealing into their customer’s property and deleting files without notice. Amazon could have handled things in an aboveboard fashion, admitting the error publicly and making reparations, or making people aware ahead of time that the content must be recalled, etc. They chose to go another route.
posted July 19, 2009 at 1:28 am
In this case you are purchasing the rights to an electronic copy stored on Amazon servers and delivered to your device. Kindle technology permits the retrieval of content which was in this case deemed “illegally” distributed and sold, even though that discovery was made post-sale. I think the portion of the EULA you are looking for is here: “No Illegal Use and Reservation of Rights. You may not use the Device, the Service or the Digital Content for any illegal purpose. You acknowledge that the sale of the Device to you does not transfer to you title to or ownership of any intellectual property rights of Amazon or its suppliers.” In this case the end user would be possessing goods essentially stolen from the owner of the copyright, and Amazon has a ethical/moral/legal responsibility to retrieve such property. The other portion that is pertinent is here: “Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.” This clause pretty much gives them carte blanche to change the rules.
The point really wasn’t whether the content was being rented or sold, it was that the distributor didn’t have the right to distribute the content through Amazon. In this case Amazon is acting as a intermediary between the distributor and the consumer. I’m sure Amazon’s monetary interest isn’t high enough to cover a massive lawsuit from the copyright holder for permitting the illegal sale and distribution of content.
Amazon could take the position of turning over the purchase records to the actual copyright holder for possible legal action, but that seems a bit extreme, and I’m not sure that would have absolved them of responsibility since the technology allows them to intercede. Taking your position to its logical conclusion, what you suggest is that Amazon allow the copyright owner to sue them for losses as well as possible punitive damages. I’m not sure that is in the best interests of Amazon as continuing entity, Kindle technology, or end users.
Technically, looking at their EULA I don’t think you’re allowed to sell or give away content you’ve purchased, even if you don’t want it anymore.
I do appreciate the irony of Orwell’s works being caught up in such a controversy. The could have handled it better. Should they have pushed an electronic notice to your device saying that due to copyright infringement they would have to delete your book but would refund your money, and that if you wanted to continue using your Kindle you would have to “click here” to accept their change in terms? Definitely.
A device linked to an outside server that is storing your “property” but not under your control is not exactly my idea of secure ownership. I am a proponent of cloud computing and such but there are definitely pitfalls, and this situation is a good example. I still buy my books on paper, even though it is more expensive and “wastes resources” because of this very reason.
posted July 19, 2009 at 8:25 am
In this particular case, maybe the overall issue is not one regarding morals or ethics, but rather simple legal ramifications of cause and effect. I think Nietzsche said it best when stating, “There are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena….” Personally, I have to confess that I love books as well and I still purchase them in the original form.
posted July 19, 2009 at 12:32 pm
KES: hmm. I was looking at the part of the agreement that says:
“Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you 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. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.”
I don’t know that one is using the device for an illegal purpose if it’s not you who has committed the crime, but rather the distributor. But maybe? In any case, you’ve given me food for thought. We’d probably need a contracts lawyer to help us make a final determination. Thanks for the spirited debate!
posted July 20, 2009 at 2:18 am
I’ve added a couple of links that some of your reader’s might be interested in.
http://gizmodo.com/5317916/australia-helps-get-1984-back-on-your-kindle
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/07/how_to_-_read_george_orwells_1984_o.html
posted July 20, 2009 at 2:53 am
Oops. “readers”
posted July 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Great article! Thanks for posting.
posted July 22, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Great article! Thanks for posting!
posted July 24, 2009 at 4:44 am
While Amazon doesn’t have another Kindle edition for Animal Farm, they do have 1984 on license from Houghton Mifflin. It’s ridiculous that they failed to offer the opportunity to transfer their purchase to the legal edition instead of this quasi legal search & seizure. At the very least, they could have password locked the books through the connection until consumers could be notified.
As far as the lost notes, that’s why you don’t write in books, including e-books.