|  Candace Talmadge Read Candace's bio and previous columns
July 24, 2009
Amazon and the Fine Print
in Digital Reading’s Future
Amazon.com really stepped
in it this time. And in so doing, the online retailing behemoth underscored
the urgency for all of us to understand the fine print in the digital future
of reading.
For good or ill, the rules
of the digital world are different.
For example, Kindle users
apparently don’t own the books they purchase from Amazon to read on their
devices. They merely lease them. The details are in the convoluted legalese
of the Kindle licensing agreement, which most likely few buyers ever read
from start to finish. Even fewer of those who do really comprehend the full
meaning of the terms.
Some of them found out
recently. Amazon used the wireless network it built for its electronic
reader to delete copies of George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm
from the Kindles of customers who had purchased bootleg versions. Amazon
earlier this year also removed what it said were illegal copies of Ayn Rand
books and Harry Potter novels, but the totalitarian ironies of its
latest remote kill proved too much.
The damage was done, even
though the company refunded the 99-cent purchase price of the Orwell novels.
Offended customers felt violated, and days later the Internet still
reverberates with their indignation. What probably hurts most is how much
they paid to hand Amazon control over their reading lists.
They also rightly wonder if
they can trust the company ever again, despite its reassurances that it will
no longer delete books from customers’ Kindles. There is one slight hitch in
this promise: As long as it operates its wireless network, Amazon retains
the capability to remove anything from a Kindle if/when the device user
activates the wireless connection.
Amazon is by no means the
only digital cop on the block. Every Apple iPhone regularly checks back with
the mother ship to determine that the applications on it are legitimate. If
not, Apple reserves the right to zap the offenders or any other application
for any reason at any time. Microsoft periodically pleads with its customers
to be allowed to verify remotely the authenticity of the software on their
computers.
The one good that comes out
of Amazon’s bone-headed move is to wake people up to the power of
digitization concentrated in the hands of the private sector. Imagine a
government with the same kind of intrusive electronic reach as Amazon or
Apple or Microsoft. We would be howling at the moon at the prospect.
The question then becomes:
Is private enterprise any more qualified or entitled to determine what we
read or listen to or watch on our TVs? Why should we trust business any more
than we trust the government? Business fraud and excess, after all, are why
our economy is on life support right now.
Some argue for changes in
the laws that apply to purchases of digital books, music or other
entertainment, but that’s only part of the solution. Statutes protect after
the fact, providing an avenue of redress for grievances already committed.
Perhaps a vote of no
confidence with our pocketbooks will encourage the purveyors of the digital
revolution to be somewhat less arrogant and high-handed. And now at least we
know a little more about where we are heading.
It all makes physical books
and analog music and films a lot more attractive, doesn’t it?
© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission. Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum. To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.
This is Column #CT169. Request permission to publish here. | 
