Popular for its massive website which originally provided the world with literature, and now just about everything, Amazon has hit news again today regarding its ebook reader the 'Kindle'. Sadly, not in such a good light. In an act of bizarre irony Amazon has remotely deleted copies of the George Orwell novels, Animal farm and Nineteen Eighty Four off of an abundance of Kindles last night. This news came with little explanation from Amazon, instead simply refunding the purchase price of the piece of literature. Many people the world over seem to be outraged with this act, which begs Amazon to reevaluate its interpretation of the definition of 'ownership.'
Apart from it being ironically Orwellian not much is known as to the reasoning behind the act, apart from the fact that their publisher for the novels in question a certain, MobileReference, have changed their mind about the supply of this content on the Kindle. Amazon then simply removed all previously purchased copies by remote deletion and those in the middle of getting to grips with these famous pieces of literature could no longer continue the story.
Commenters with Amazon released the following message from their customer service department, along with the inevitable deletion of content:
The Kindle edition books Animal Farm by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell. Also published by MobileReference were removed from the Kindle store and are no longer available for purchase. When this occurred, your purchases were automatically refunded. You can still locate the books in the Kindle store, but each has a status of not yet available. Although a rarity, publishers can decide to pull their content from the Kindle store.
While this publisher's version is obviously no longer, it seems that other versions of the novel are indeed available. Still no news as to the reason why this happened, hopefully I can insert an explanatory update in due course.
This seems to have had a negative impact upon some bloggers, accusing Amazon of essentially book burning and providing a parallel example of this occurrence in a more physical nature, IE: representatives from Amazon ransacking houses and removing these copies of literature. Whichever way you think about this, I do feel that this will likely be a bit of a knock for Amazon. I don't have a Kindle, but I think that perhaps an email to all those who purchased a copy, outlining the intentions of the publishers before the deletion would not have gone amiss, if only just to keep customers informed as to what is happening with goods which have been legally bought.
Just checked the authors bio, pretty funny this guy studies English Language Studies and then goes on to write this monstrosity.
I had no problems with understanding and reading the article, I had to have another look to see if I could see what troubled you. Perhaps you need to look to your own language ability before you start bashing others. I've struggled to read many book, articles etc before but mostly it was purely down to my own ability or the author's unfamiliar or old fashioned style (18th century English would make you cry if this upsets you, I think Shakespeare would have you in fits).
Last edited by Laura on 18 Jul 2009 - 11:02
No, it is not our ability to interpret the English, it is this author's ability to write that is definitely the problem. Reporting the post won't fix the fact that this person was allowed to write a front page story. Here are some random stupidities/inaccuracies from the story:
Commenters with Amazon released the following message from their customer service department, along with the inevitable deletion of content:
Amazon has something called 'commenters'? Is it meant to be commentators, and even then a company does not employ 'commentators', it has representatives or spokespeople.
This seems to have had a negative impact upon some bloggers, accusing Amazon of essentially book burning and providing a parallel example of this occurrence in a more physical nature, IE: representatives from Amazon ransacking houses and removing these copies of literature.
The actions of Amazon had a negative impact on bloggers? A rather clumsy and inaccurate statement. The actions of Amazon may have had a negative impact on its customers, but bloggers taking up a whinge is not correctly described as a negative impact stemming from the deletion of Kindle books. Then again, perhaps it is!
Oh, and it's i.e., not IE (IE capitalized stands for something, such as Internet Explorer).
Apart from it being ironically Orwellian, not much is known as to the reasoning behind the act, apart from the fact that
theirthe publisher for the novels in question, a certain,MobileReference, have changed their mind about the supply of this content on the Kindle.A horrendously long and badly punctuated sentence. It should have punctuation with the insertions/changes as shown in bold underline.
I could go on but I think you get the drift. Do not use this supposed English literature student again, as he is clearly not attending classes
Dare I also add, regarding the story itself, that as people have noted in the comments below, when you purchase certain content you are buying a license, a right to use that content subject to certain conditions. To equate the recall of an electronic book to book burning is sheer sensationalism and nothing more. No-one has destroyed these books for future generations, the Kindle versions of the books were recalled because of publishing rights issues, and people need to quickly get accustomed to the concept that they do not "own" content in the way they think they do.
Last edited by 7Dash8 on 18 Jul 2009 - 14:55
Neowin: Where unprofessional journalism looks better.
See my point?
I haven't even read the article, but should an author make a mistake, at least try and help him/her out, perhaps by sending them a message, as opposed to insulting them and their work.
You will either get told to 'use the report button' or be fed the catch-all excuse of 'where unprofessional journalism looks better'. I believe the first one is designed to make you feel better, while the second one is designed to make the author feel excused for basic errors in grammar and punctuation.
Either way, you are wasting your time.
I think I see your point though... although Neowin has a lot of potential, it seems the powers that be are more interested in quantity rather than quality.
I won't waste any more of my time or that of anyone else with this sort of thing. If the "editors" at Neowin think this article was worthy of posting in its current state, then maybe Neowin is perhaps not a site I should be reading.
If you have a problem with an article that is more than just spelling or grammar mistakes, then you should contact either the author or one of the editors to get your message across. We do listen. Although you might not think so, we discuss these issues often, as staff, and we are always happy to improve.
There's not a problem with you complaining or making suggestions, it's just that posting it in the comments section isn't the best place for it.
We rely on you - as members - to assist us in improving our content, as you are our readers. However, all I'm saying is that a PM to someone, or the use of the "Report a problem" button (which posts your problems in an area that all staff can see) will go a lot further than a comment, and it wouldn't hurt if you could make suggestions in a positive manner either.
You mean, just like Microsoft doesn't consider you to "own" Windows or Office?
Yeah, like that.
Material goods, like the media, you own. You own the paper and the physical book. You do not own the written content - that is, you are not free to republish and copy.
The issue we should be concerned about is the amount of power publishers have (or governments, for those of you who paid attention during history class in high school...) to suddenly revoke a purchased license without warning and without due cause.
If the agreement (or EULA or whatever) that customers agreed to gives the publisher the right to revoke the license agreement at any time for no reason, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for entering into the agreement in the first place.
But then, we are a generation of Next->Next->Next clickers...
Yeah, like that.
Material goods, like the media, you own. You own the paper and the physical book. You do not own the written content - that is, you are not free to republish and copy.
Your comment got me thinking. If we own material goods but not the content, then let's ponder this situation. It's inconceivable that someone from Barnes and Nobles would show up at my house and begin to erase the "content" from a book on my bookshelf. Likewise, they couldn't take the book back either, because I own the paper, binging, etc.
Now, let's look at the Kindle situation. I own the device once again, but not the content. Because of its digital format, it has now become convenient for Amazon to remove the content (i.e. they don't have to come to my house), but is it anymore ethical than the situation described above? By removing the content, they have altered, without my permission, the hardware that I actually own.
It doesn't seem ethical. The DMCA needs to be rethought. It doesn't take situations like this one fully into account. At least, for the time being, Amazon refunded the money, so it could be worse.
Now, let's look at the Kindle situation. I own the device once again, but not the content. Because of its digital format, it has now become convenient for Amazon to remove the content (i.e. they don't have to come to my house), but is it anymore ethical than the situation described above? By removing the content, they have altered, without my permission, the hardware that I actually own.
It doesn't seem ethical. The DMCA needs to be rethought. It doesn't take situations like this one fully into account. At least, for the time being, Amazon refunded the money, so it could be worse.
You are right in that paper books are treated differently than electronic copies.
I believe that this is because paper books take an effort to print and "revoke". They would also take effort (time and money) for me to try to copy. Electronic copies are much easier to copy and redistribute. And to "revoke" as we see here.
Yes, they are treated differently, only because the technology and ability to do so is available to the electronic copies.
I believe that this is because paper books take an effort to print and "revoke". They would also take effort (time and money) for me to try to copy. Electronic copies are much easier to copy and redistribute. And to "revoke" as we see here.
Yes, they are treated differently, only because the technology and ability to do so is available to the electronic copies.
This may be all well and true because of the different media outlet on how you have the book purchased makes it easy to do. Though I have to agree with wakers in the sense that it still isn't ethical and in your own companies best interest logical to do this. Not only is it devious to just mass delete it the books without warning. It now also gives you a bad reputation and shows to everyone who thought their purchases were safe are now really just waiting for the next publisher to yank their books off the service.
The problem here is that digital media should be treated like traditional media. Their are laws that say once you buy something even if the content on it is not yours the company can't just come and take it back. Digital Media should be handled the same way that when once you buy something it's yours to keep and can never be deleted or reclaimed by the service or vendor you bought it from. Now the vendor you bought it from could still take it down to where no one else could buy the product. They just wouldn't have this god complex of being able to remotely delete already purchased products.
And on the DMCA lets not full ourselves that thing was written with the companies whispering their likes and dislikes into politicians ears the whole way while slipping cash into their pockets.
Yeah, like that.
Material goods, like the media, you own. You own the paper and the physical book. You do not own the written content - that is, you are not free to republish and copy.
Your comment got me thinking. If we own material goods but not the content, then let's ponder this situation. It's inconceivable that someone from Barnes and Nobles would show up at my house and begin to erase the "content" from a book on my bookshelf. Likewise, they couldn't take the book back either, because I own the paper, binging, etc.
Now, let's look at the Kindle situation. I own the device once again, but not the content. Because of its digital format, it has now become convenient for Amazon to remove the content (i.e. they don't have to come to my house), but is it anymore ethical than the situation described above? By removing the content, they have altered, without my permission, the hardware that I actually own.
It doesn't seem ethical. The DMCA needs to be rethought. It doesn't take situations like this one fully into account. At least, for the time being, Amazon refunded the money, so it could be worse.
I agree I would be seriously disgusted if Amazon came along and deleted books I had purchased, if, I owned a Kindle. Yes you have a licence to use, but it's not as if MS or Apple (well possibly Apple they own everything even though you paid for the item-[flame wars begin please])would delete an XP, Vista, 7 or for fair's sake OS X, off my PC.
I would seriously consider this a serious breach of my privacy, remotely accessing my hardware and deleting my software. Maybe the EU can do soemthing useful for once and look into this??!?!?!
Not impossible that they didn't have the authority to distribute in the US to begin with.
Regardless, Amazon could not do anything BUT delete the copies in question. They were no longer legal.
At least you got a refund though. Just think if they didn't at least give you your money back.
Where does it say it applies to everything in the Amazon store. It talks about books pulled from Kindle because the publisher didn't have the rights to the books. How you managed to compare this to buying a cellphone I don't know.
Way to overreact.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10290047...torsPicksArea.0
The whole owning thing when it comes to digital stuff has been argued to death ever since MP3 started coming out.
As for them just removing content from the Kindle: it was refunded, in full. It's digital content, and I'm sure the fine print that it's very apparent everyone who purchased the book read, says they could possibly remove things if they're required to do so.
I'm sure when the books are available again Amazon will either give a discount on the repurchase or something. They have some of the best customer service. If you want to get angry with anyone, why not take it up with the publishers of the stupid books ... they're the ones that did it... and I'd bet it was for a legality reason, too.
As for the irony, it was George Orwell, the creator of Big Brother.
I'm sure as noted above Amazon/Mobi were in every way legally allowed to do it and there would have been conditions stating such...but I don't agree with the practice nor the clauses used to cover themselves in such a manner.
Bah, I hate to sound like one of those crazies who hate technology, but if thats how the kindle is gonna work I'll never buy one and I will certainly refuse to let anyone I know buy one without getting an earfull!
was gonna get one of these things for my wife for her birthday, not now, easier and cheaper to get a library card and head to a book store
forgive me if this is illegal. I just think that it's funny that it's online for anyone to read.
No, they deleted what they had previously sold you.
There is a difference.
It is a Judge who rules about it not the same entity who sold the goods to you.
so this means that amazon (or the owner of the company) could be convicted of selling unauthorized material? just getting all the ducks in a row, kinda puts the whole "copyright infringment" in a new light, huh? "someone got a song and sold it to this guy for $.00, but its ok he/she just needs to delete it and everything will be fine"
http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/17/amazon-...es-unpersons-r/
These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
So it's a US thing? I read once that the intellectual property laws where changed so that disney could retain the rights to mickey mouse and all those old characters after like a century
Not to mention all the stuff Disney basically took from the public domain like Snow White, Cinderella, etc. They never give anything back though.
Yes, and it stinks. Our copyright law gives people that didn't actually create a work the ability to retain copyright over it, and for a ridiculous time period.
I have some old stuff from Amazon and i wonder if i can ship it back to them and automatically deduct what i paid from their account? Seems fair to me
For all others, here is the public domain version: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt
Just a thought... If you live in the US, is it legal to read the above link?
For all others, here is the public domain version: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt
Just a thought... If you live in the US, is it legal to read the above link?
Yep, you just can't republish it.
I Lol'd... It would be different if it were something on the App Store or whatever... Perhaps Amazon should moderate the content going onto the Kindle store? Like Apple do with the App Store?
With digital content, I'm assuming the publisher didn't get off scot-free, but now consumers have to worry about being inconvenienced remotely because of publisher actions. That's a turn off for digital media - If there's a chance someone is going to take the book I'm reading because someone I've never met screwed up, I'll just buy the paperback, thanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_en_ot/us_..._orwell_removed
"These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third party who did not have the rights to the books," spokesman Drew Herdener said Friday.
"When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."
Thanks likeAP for posting a link with an explanation.
I don't think piracy is a good excuse to remove legit customers rights. I'm not a conspiracy type of guy but this is something that bother me a lot.
In the digital world companies definately hold the bigger part of the stick. Customers have next to no right at all.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.