Amazon rears its censorious head again

[Einzige Mk. II]

A repost from a thread of mine on another forum:

Ars Technica reports:

Amazon may be in the process of stirring up some more trouble for itself thanks to reports that the company is deleting certain kinds of erotica from both the online store and users' devices. The erotica in question is controversial: it talks about certain acts of incest. Judging from Amazon's most recent bouts with book "censorship," users who have already paid for the deleted content are likely to get fired up.

Self-published author Selena Kitt was first notified that the print version of one of her fiction books violated Amazon's content guidelines last week, followed by the unceremonious removal of two more offerings from the Kindle store. After noticing that the three books that Amazon singled out were all "erotic incest fantasy fiction," she found at least three other authors whose incest-themed erotica had been removed from Amazon, followed by a Kindle support thread full of even more names.

"I want to be clear that while the subject of incest may not appeal to some, there is no underage contact in any of my work, and I make that either explicitly clear in all my stories or I state it up front in the book's disclaimer," Kitt wrote in a blog post. "I don't condone or support actual incest, just as someone who writes mysteries about serial killers wouldn't condone killing."

On top of the book removal from Amazon's store, Kitt's readers reportedly found that her books had disappeared from their Kindles as well. "When one reader called to get a refund for the book she no longer had access to, she was chastised by the Amazon customer service representative about the 'severity' of the book she’d chosen to purchase," Kitt wrote.

If true, then Amazon has some explaining to do. When the company "went Big Brother" and deleted unauthorized copies of 1984 from readers' Kindles, the company was slapped with a lawsuit for removing content that people not only paid for, but also made notes and highlights in. Amazon eventually settled the lawsuit late last year, and in the settlement, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that described its content deletion policy. When it came to books, Amazon said that deletions would only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user.

Fictional incest activities between two fictional adults doesn't appear to fall into any of those categories, but that may be neither here nor there, since Amazon's author guidelines restrict unspecified kinds of "offensive" content. This came to a head last month, when a furor rose among Internet users over Amazon's sale of The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure. Amazon eventually caved to public pressure and removed the book, despite the company's insistence that it tries to resist censorship whenever possible.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable," the company said in a statement at the time. "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Personally, I'm conflicted on this issue. On one hand, I strongly believe that private businesses, including retailers like Amazon, have a right to stock and sell the goods of their choosing, and that this extends to their right to refuse to sell material they for whatever reason oppose on 'moral' grounds. On the other hand, I find censorship abhorrent on principle, particularly counterproductive censorship that ultimately promotes broader awareness of a very niche genre market like incest fiction. I also find the idea that Amazon can retroactively remove content from already-sold Kindles dubious from a contract law point-of-view.

At the bottom of it all, the most that will result from this decision by Amazon is that it will lose more customers than it's worth. I had already decided to buy an e-book reader this holiday season, and it looks like Amazon has forced my hand into opting for another unit. And, mind, it's not because I love incest porn, but because I don't want to do business with a company willing to engage in censorship. The customer's right of boycott is a remarkable thing.

[J. J.]

I can choose what books to place on my shelves; so can Amazon.  I might not agree with their decision.

[Einzige Mk. II]

I can choose what books to place on my shelves; so can Amazon.  I might not agree with their decision.

Once a contract is signed and sealed, Amazon has no right whatsoever to renege on it without both consent from the contracting party and a full refund.

[Zarn]

I'm not into such literature, but Amazon looks worse every year.

[shua]

I have no problem with Amazon resticting what it sells, but once it sells something, that should be it. If you went into a brick and mortar bookstore and bought a hard copy of a book, they couldn't do this - it should be assumed that the same rules apply. and the idea that they can just delete content from a person's Kindle is crazy! how can they do that - do they send an electronic message to the Kindle. I guess Amazon might claim that you don't actually own a copy of the book, just the privilege of borrowing an electronic copy? can they delete a kindlebook from an Ipad too?

[Einzige Mk. II]

I guess Amazon might claim that you don't actually own a copy of the book, just the privilege of borrowing an electronic copy?

In which case I would advance the libertarian argument against intellectual property rights:

Property rights must be demonstrably just, as well as visible, because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all; it is merely might versus right again, i.e., the pre-property rights situation. But as libertarians recognize, following Locke, it is only the first occupier or user of such property that can be its natural owner. Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources.

When property rights in scarce means are allocated in accordance with first-occupier home*steading rules, property borders are visible, and the allocation is demonstrably just. Conflict can be avoided with such property rights in place because third parties can see and, thus, sidestep the property borders, and be motivated to do so because the allocation is just and fair.

But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were in*finitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.” Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.

Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must be allocated in accordance with the first-occupier homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce; and, further, that such property rights are not, and cannot be, allocated in accordance with the firstoccupier homesteading rule, as will be seen below.

[Grumps]

I'm not in favor of censoring, but it's easy to punish Amazon if you don't like their policy ............buy elsewhere.  Money talks, always.  If you need to feel especially principled, email them and tell them to f-ck off you'll spend elsewhere.....a private company has every right to censor and I have every right not to patronize them.

[Einzige Mk. II]

I'm not in favor of censoring, but it's easy to punish Amazon if you don't like their policy ............buy elsewhere.  Money talks, always.  If you need to feel especially principled, email them and tell them to f-ck off you'll spend elsewhere.....a private company has every right to censor and I have every right not to patronize them.

Some clarification is needed: Amazon was engaging in censorship by deleting material from already-sold Kindles after the material itself had been sold to its customers. I agree with you that Amazon can sell whatever it likes, but it certainly cannot take back what it has sold after-the-fact. And the worst of it is that Amazon has not apparently offered any refund to these customers.

[bullmoose88]

Are the kindle media/books sold with some sort of license (ala dvds or more importantly electronic software?)

If so, does the licensing agreement speak about this sort of scenario?

(I don't know the answers here, hence the questions.  There's a chance the bastards have put this into the agreement.  Otherwise I agree with what E and Gramps have already stated.)

[Einzige Mk. II]

Are the kindle media/books sold with some sort of license (ala dvds or more importantly electronic software?)

If so, does the licensing agreement speak about this sort of scenario?

(I don't know the answers here, hence the questions.  There's a chance the bastards have put this into the agreement.  Otherwise I agree with what E and Gramps have already stated.)

I have no idea, and if it is I'll certainly not be buying a Kindle this year. But even if it is in the contract, I'd argue that it still violates the spirit of contract law. I can think of no other parallel or precedent in the common law system that provides for the wholesale repossession of a sold good in the absence of outstanding debt.

[Grumps]

I'm not in favor of censoring, but it's easy to punish Amazon if you don't like their policy ............buy elsewhere.  Money talks, always.  If you need to feel especially principled, email them and tell them to f-ck off you'll spend elsewhere.....a private company has every right to censor and I have every right not to patronize them.

Some clarification is needed: Amazon was engaging in censorship by deleting material from already-sold Kindles after the material itself had been sold to its customers. I agree with you that Amazon can sell whatever it likes, but it certainly cannot take back what it has sold after-the-fact. And the worst of it is that Amazon has not apparently offered any refund to these customers.

Yeah that's a problem, E.......I've heard of stuff vanishing from Kindles......

[bullmoose88]

Are the kindle media/books sold with some sort of license (ala dvds or more importantly electronic software?)

If so, does the licensing agreement speak about this sort of scenario?

(I don't know the answers here, hence the questions.  There's a chance the bastards have put this into the agreement.  Otherwise I agree with what E and Gramps have already stated.)

I have no idea, and if it is I'll certainly not be buying a Kindle this year. But even if it is in the contract, I'd argue that it still violates the spirit of contract law. I can think of no other parallel or precedent in the common law system that provides for the wholesale repossession of a sold good in the absence of outstanding debt.

I doubt I'll ever buy a Kindle or a Nook or whatever else they're trying to put books on.  I like my books the old fashioned way.  In print.  Preferably with spines that look awesome on a bookself or if they're paperback-unbroken spines and in as good condition as possible.

E-books just dont do it for me.

[J. J.]

I can choose what books to place on my shelves; so can Amazon.  I might not agree with their decision.

Once a contract is signed and sealed, Amazon has no right whatsoever to renege on it without both consent from the contracting party and a full refund.

Now you are talking contract law, not censorship.  I'm wondering if the contract might not cover this.

[Storebought]

I can choose what books to place on my shelves; so can Amazon.  I might not agree with their decision.

Once a contract is signed and sealed, Amazon has no right whatsoever to renege on it without both consent from the contracting party and a full refund.

Now you are talking contract law, not censorship.  I'm wondering if the contract might not cover this.

Or if the contract allows Amazon to renegotiate terms of the contract by itself, for any reason, with no exceptions allowed by the consumer allowed without binding arbitration, at the consumer's expense.