#ref-menu
Amazon Removes E-Books From Kindle Store, Revokes Ownership
Amazon removed 1984 Farm of George Orwell animals of its Kindle e-book store. The company also has forward and removed any digital trace of the books, too, the removal of digital lockers both users and Kindle devices. This disturbing Orwellian move highlights how, despite comments not a purchase in the digital domain can not be compared to the physical property of content.
I have long considered more ephemeral digital than physical. It's why I still, for artists you like, buy the physical CD of an album. It is why I prefer to buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs, rather than relying on the possible today, gone tomorrow offers electronic distribution. Why my advocacy of physics? It is certainly not because I enjoy the store, I can tell you. It is because I have access to it whenever I want, wherever I want. I do not have to worry about content is out-of-print, or do I need to keep track of where I argued, if my hard drive crashes.
The world of digital distribution could theoretically offer unlimited content, for an unlimited period, simply because of the absence of physical distribution costs. The other theory, however, is one that is pervasive, but more strongly developed in a difficult economic environment like the one we are in now. This theory is governed by the basic principles of the company, who are looking at profit and the bottom line. If the content does not generate revenue, so why a digital distributor maintain the server space to track data, even if it all up are more bits and bytes?
What Amazon has done with the Orwell books is different from the above concerns, but it fits in the same issue of the permanence of digital property. Yes, Amazon refunded the money for the books - but that's not the point. When we buy something, we acquired the product and assumes ownership of this article. This post is there.
This unusual maneuver, which Amazon says occurred because Orwell's publisher changed his mind to offer the electronic version of these titles is all the more troubling simply because readers already bought the books and had their property of the removed item. In Orwell's library, the question was simply gone - it was as if these users never Kindle owner.
The implications of the case are very disturbing Orwell - for any type of content protected against copying, but especially for the printed content. What happens if a controversial book comes out, and a publisher decides to withdraw from distribution? Now a book is banned for any reason. Neither is a common scenario but both are examples of the command that we, as owners, can potentially lose the content that we bought in the digital domain. With physical content, nobody, not even a disgruntled copyright owner can take away what you paid for.
A final thought: If, in this digital world, we are not really buying content, but rather "borrow" for a fixed price, and according to another person changing rulebook, we, as consumers, we deserve to know that front, in clear and conspicuous language (unlike clear references to books Amazon 'buy', and all assumptions of ownership that come with the purchase of books). If the rules have changed for us, we have the right to know.
#ref-menu
