Amazon rears its censorious head again

[Einzige Mk. II]

A repost from a thread of mine on another forum:

Ars Technica reports:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.