Amazon does not ban 1984

What is with the use of 'Remotely Delete'... either they (Amazon) delete a book from their own system (which is just Deleting) or they 'Remotely Delete' by.. well someone deleting the book through Amazon using their Iphone...

The phrase 'Remotely Delete' is just so strange!

"When Amazon had discovered the unauthorised sales it did the right thing. It reversed them, deleted them from users' Kindles and refunded them the cash."

Why is this "the right thing?" It's not what US copyright law says that they're required to do; it doesn't unring the bell of the original infringement or reduce AMZN's liability in respect of the Blair estate.

"Amazon has seen the error of its ways and will no longer remotely delete books."

That's not what they said. They said they wouldn't delete books *in cases like this*. They continue to reserve the right to arbitrary remove paid-for content from your Kindle for other reasons.

We can imagine what those reasons might be: say you bought something that was lawful in the US for your Kindle but unlawful in the UK (because of a libel claim perhaps) -- they might delete your content based on where your credit-card is billed. Or they may delete your library because you move to a jurisdiction where a different publisher has rights, whether or not those books are available for the Kindle in your new location (my books are published by Tor in the US and HarperCollins in the UK, and many books have ebook editions in the US but not the UK or vice-versa).

They might delete your books because you terminate your Amazon account, or because they believe you've committed fraud or because you looked at them cross-eyed. As we novelists say, "A gun on the mantelpiece in the first act must go off in the third act."

Mike,

The Kindle communicates through Sprint's wireless network. The Kindle also has remote killswitches to books purchased through Amazon.

If the radio is on, and the Kindle is in range, and the book is marked as "delete me," it will be removed.

Note: I do not own a Kindle.

If I download something to a computer there is no way it can be deleted remotely. If this electronic book allows such a practice then I am pleased I did not get one.
As a test I just search for 1984, found, and downloaded a PDF copy of it for free. It seems most books can be found on line for free whether it be legal or not.

The fact that Amazon has the power to do the "right thing" shows what digital "buying" means: non-transferable rental that can be revoked without user's approval. That is Big Brother, whether right or not.

I've not read anything about Amazon banning 1984 (perhaps I use more reliable sources), the fuss was about Amazon remotely deleting books, amongst them 1984. It's the equivalent of HMV rifling through your cassette collection and deleting those you'd copied from friends or the radio - only Steve Jobs has that kind of power.

"After all, is not 1984 all about free speech?"

Uh, no. Crudely, very crudely, it's about the use of central control of History as a tool of social control, and the relationship between memory and identity.

Making the no-longer-officially-allowed-to-exist piece of ersatz paper disappear into the shredding slot above the desk is is about as ironic as it gets in this context.

Now, what else can Amazon do with these devices? Can they air-brush inconvenient people out of photographs in my books? (I could have sworn Commissar Yezhov was there beside Stalin on my Kindle. Damn! I must be losing my memory.) Or "correct" a libel? (Will my copy of Advertising in the 21st Century suddenly deny that Apple computers were ever more expensive than competing products after the lawsuit?)

Writing is about memory, and the Amazon product is about forgetting. Worth remembering.

Luckily for those of us in those parts of the world with slightly more sensible copyright regimes than the USA, 1984 is available for $FREE (i.e. $0.00 or $NIL) from Project Gutenberg Australia.

Love the way these pro-DRM bigots say the anti-DRM people are all a bunch of whiny-ass pirates who are only complaining because they cant get their free music.

Then the DRM *does its job* - which is to control access to protected material (eg by deleting it) - and then the boot is suddenly on the other foot and "they shouldnt do that if youve paid for it, Waa! Waa!".

The real irony, IMO, is with Animal Farm. You know, the revolution and that? I wonder if that could be a metaphor for something? The internet, maybe? And the people you thought were your friends who turn out not to be? Does that remind anyone of anybody? No? Never mind.

These are little men who will never stand on the shoulders of giants because theyre too busy trying to stamp on each others fingers.

History is a bunk on which I am trying to awaken.

et cetera

I believe the book you mean is Fahrenheit 451, which is about books and firemen wielding flamethrowers.

This is the after-the-fact strawman being pushed by Amazon.

The fuss was never about 1984 being "banned" and I never saw anybody suggesting such a thing. The fuss was about Amazon remotely deleting somthing that users had already paid for and which was resident on their own devices (also, apparently, deleting users' own annotations that might have existed).

Whether this was the result of the publisher, using Amazon's retail system, not having appropriate rights to the work is irrelevant; any such dispute was between Amazon and the publisher, and didn't involve the users who paid Amazon for the work in good faith.

There is no way that Amazon can be considered to have done the "right thing" here, and apparently they know it. Why else would they have promised not to do it again?

If it is public domain elswere then it can be printed elsewhere.

In the UK, Amazon's delete action may well be a criminal offence. Unauthorised changes to data etc. come under the scope of our Computer Misuse law. It does not just apply to PCs. Five years or a nasty fine or both is a possibility.

You decided to write an article to spread your opinion that they aren't acting like the dictators from 1984 because, as you argue, they were in their legal right to do so.

In the book 1984 the laws were also written so that everything Big Brother did was legal.

So if I go into a bookstore, buy a book that later turns out to have been sold incorrectly, you tihnk it's "the right thing" for a representative of the company to come around to my house, break in, STEAL THE BOOK I PAID FOR BACK, as long as they leave a cheque on the table and a note explainng why they broke into my house?

As soon as you make the direct physical analogy you can see how staggeringly wrong this behaviour was...

This can't fall under the UK law's purview since the Kindle and its content is not sold in the UK.

What if I had a Kindle and I wasn't in the US at the time? Would it still be deleted? If so, I would expect some compensation -- not just a refund.

It's moot anyway -- no way I'm buying one of them.

The killswitch is the problem, NOT that the book was sold without approval of the copyright holder.
The killswitch means they could delete whatever they want, if it is deemed somehow "inappropriate" by whatever powers that be.
That's actually more like "Fahrenheit 451", not like "1984".

Not that I was interested before, but learning that Remote Delete has been implemented is a real black mark for me.
I don't care what is technically possible - if it is my property, then nobody has the right to change anything without my permission first. Intellectual property stops where my property starts - and once I've paid for it, it is mine.