The Internet Mass Media have found yet another reason to attack Amazon.
Thousands of people who’ve never owned a Kindle are enflamed by how inappropriately Amazon has treated some people. Many of them are even claiming that this is the reason they’ll never buy a Kindle – conveniently switching from ’no color’ or ‘i read on my iPhone’ to ‘it’s so 1984′.
Some even managed to add the obvious non-fact that this was a legal copy the publisher wanted recalled. Thankfully they clarified it once they found out they were wrong.
There’s no denying that Amazon is to blame.
However, everyone is being rather short-sighted here. Once the pirated books had been sold, Amazon was in a catch-22 situation -
- It either recalls the books and refunds customers (and gets some of them upset).
- It tells publishers that pirated books are removed – however, ones already sold won’t be recalled (and gets some publishers upset).
The Internet Mass Media were going to attack it in either case. Even if Amazon sent a hard-cover book and flowers to every owner of a pirated 1984, the media would still crucify Amazon.
The Real Reason People should be upset with Amazon – Insufficient Policing
What everyone is missing here is the cause – Why were pirated books being sold in the Kindle Store?
You can look at it in two ways -
- It’s just a byproduct of a new store and a new way of selling books. In that case you’ll be likely to not mind too much.
- It’s inexcusable – there should be strict policing to ensure nothing illegal ever happens. In this case you’ll be rather angry with Amazon.
There’s going to be the inevitable law-suit from 1 or more customers. There might also be a lawsuit from the Publisher.
From my perspective it’s just getting in the way of the progress of ebooks.
Confirmation Bias – Why all the negative PR doesn’t matter
First – What is Confirmation Bias?
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions …
… and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
What this means is that people tend to do and believe what they really want to do and believe, and then rationalize it afterwards.
Just off the top of my head, here are a few of the numerous anti-Kindle ‘issues’ raised recently -
- Kindle account closed because of too many returns (of electronic goods).
- The current 1984 george orwell fiasco.
- The number of downloads limited fiasco.
- The Kindle Books contract is too limiting.
People ‘warning’ users about Kindle are basically giving Amazon free publicity. People read the report and make up their own minds on whether Amazon acted fairly or unfairly.
An example of Confirmation Bias
One great example of this is where Cory Doctorow wrote on Boing-Boing about how messed up Amazon’s Kindle contract is. He quoted someone named Celia -
Celia sends us “an annotated copy of the Kindle contract. Based on my decidedly non-lawyerish interpretation of this contract and the annotations, I think it says that Amazon now owns everything it wants to own, and you’re out of luck if you don’t like that.”
A few lawyers added these comments -
#3 posted by thebestthing, July 9, 2009 1:24 PM
Haven’t looked at the full contract, but the excerpt quoted above is a standard assignment clause. I’m a lawyer and I insert that clause (or something similar in substance to it) in nearly every contract I draft. Seems fair to me.
#4 posted by william, July 9, 2009 2:01 PMI’m always glad to bag on large corporations, but I don’t see the problem here …
You’re letting them distribute your book. They want to be able to sell their e-books business without having to track down eight zillion sellers and renegotiate. They’re saying that you can transfer your rights to somebody else as long as you notify them.
People who are attacking amazon on grounds that are personally important to them are just providing publicity, especially if their facts are wrong (the geardiary post, and the above example) or if their beliefs are not shared by the readers.
To the ordinary user - what matters much more than actual and perceived kindle flaws is value.
People who get value from the Kindle will still buy it
If someone loves to read, and finds a Kindle valuable they’ll still buy it -
- Every single article attacking the Kindle creates awareness of the Kindle.
- At that point people use their own brains and beliefs to make a decision.
The Internet is not TV where you can put a supermodel next to your product and the world’s ugliest dog next to your competitor’s product and brainwash people.
- If customers feel that the Kindle is a good fit for them, they then buy it.
- They buy a Kindle even if the first time they got to hear of it, it was because Person X was decrying its use of DRM.
The only effective way of hurting the Kindle is indifference. Thankfully for Amazon, most anti-Kindle sites and people won’t figure that out for a few years.
Filed under: news Tagged: | confirmation bias, kindle cons
If Amazon were to sell 1,000 physical copies of a book, then learn the copies were unauthorized, would they demand their customers return the unauthorized editions for refunds? Would they sneak into their homes at night, grab the copies, and leave a check for a refund ?
No, what they’d do is remove unauthorized copies from their store catalog, perhaps pulp what copies remain in inventory, and leave their customers be. This is how they should handle their Kindle books as well.
By handling this situation the way they did, Amazon announced that publishers (vendors) come first, customers second. And that is not how you attract customers. Publishers (and I am a Kindle publisher) may piss and moan if we don’t get exactly what we’ll want, but we’ll go where the customers are, every damn time.
But the law in question specifically does not apply to physical infringement: it’s the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and Amazon must do something to maintain its common carrier status.
A Kindle store where Amazon can remove infringing works quickly with a common carrier exemption from most litigation risk is a hell of a lot more open than a Kindle store where Amazon has to worry about infringement, obscenity, libel, etc.
Further, this is a created outrage–nobody said a word when Harry Potter books were pulled a few years ago.
The only losers here are the small publishers.
Amazon can maintain its common-carrier status under the law by removing the unauthorized work from customer archives, then sending a notice to the customer that the work is unauthorized and will no longer be accepted in the Kindle archive. The customer can then choose whether to keep the copy on his Kindle, store it on his computer, or delete it.
Harry Potter books were pulled a few MONTHS ago.
You make some very good points, and I’ve been guilty myself of anti-Kindle bias. However, it’s not for no reason. I don’t like the Kindle—and I didn’t get one myself—for two specific reasons: pervasive DRM and no library ebooks.
Most of the major gripes you listed above (Orwell, device limits, and account shutdown) are made possible by DRM. I vehemently dislike DRM, and so I do take a little schadenfreudic pleasure when it causes problems.
Also, it’s worth remembering that Amazon is the de facto ebook leader right now, and ebooks are still a very young industry. That means that we should be keeping close tabs on them, because we’ve got to establish standards for what is and isn’t acceptable with ebooks.
And, I could honestly care less whether people buy a Kindle or a Sony, as long as they know what they’re getting into, and aren’t surprised by the advantages and drawbacks of each device.
All this is by way of saying that, while some of us might be guilty of confirmation bias in Kindle-bashing, that doesn’t mean we don’t have a point.
[...] [...]