Amazon's '1984' Kindle Recall Was Legal, Not Big Brotherish

A kerfuffle hit the Internets on Friday, as news that Amazon had remotely wiped thousands of copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from people's Kindle e-readers hit. As with many Internet rumors though, it entirely missed the point.

1984Independent publisher MobileReference was behind the issue—it had copies of the two George Orwell classics on sale via Amazon's Kindle bookstore for a bargain price of $0.99. But, after several thousand copies had been sold, Amazon discovered that the copyright of the two works was in question, and that MobileReference wasn't authorized to distribute the two texts in the U.S.—despite their copyright having long expired in other countries. So Amazon did what it could—far more than a physical bookstore would do if it found itself in a similar situation—it issued a command to delete the offending copies on its user's devices and refund their money.

And that's what caused the blogs to explode with witty headlines. It's a disturbing idea that a big nasty company—essentially a commercial version of The Man, since it was responding to copyright law—could remotely reach out from its base into your home, to a machine that you own to delete a copy of something you bought in good faith. It's exactly the same fuss that surfaced when Apple suggested there might be a similar remote Kill Switch for offending apps on people's iPhones.

But Amazon's action shouldn't be surprising, and it's legal. In the terms and conditions of Amazon's Kindle system there are some subtleties in the language used to describe downloaded texts that means you never quite own them anyway—they're more sort of rented from Amazon. After discovering the illegal sale of the texts, Amazon merely invoked its right to withdraw user access to them.

Though this is just one of the ways we have to think about what ownership means in the digital era, Amazon, it would seem, has done itself a world of harm by behaving as it did. By acting unannounced, and with no explanation, it cast itself as the bogeyman in this story, appearing as a bully to its users who've plonked down $300 to buy the Kindle e-reader in the first place. It's been such bad PR that the company has, in fact, vowed to never delete texts remotely again.

The best bit of all this, of course, is the delicious irony that it was George Orwell's seminal work on censorship and authoritarian control of the common man that was at the center of the fuss.

[via CNET, The New York Times]

Related Stories:
The New Rules: Copyright Infringement and Digital Media
Authors Guild Says Kindle 2's Text-to-Speech Violates Copyright
Is Your Kindle Cracking Up? Amazon Sued in $5 Million Class Action

Add New Comment

1 Comments

  • Jonah Sabean

    Just because it was legal and just because they state they can do it in the terms and conditions doesn't make it ethical. You know it was "legal" for the Soviet authorities to send people of religion to be exiled to Siberia, or even potentially deported, or worse, that didn't make it ethical just because it was lawful.

    So to say this was not big brotherish is absurd, that's exactly what it was. Today modern society is willing to go as far as ripping whinny the pooh laptops out of 9 year old's hands for even attempting to listen to a song online, you say that's not Orwellian? Freedom is a fine line my friend, and when you're willing to go after young children or engage in digital book burning for a little bit of money to unsuspecting people, you've overstepped your boundaries.