There's a great deal of shouting going on.
[Edit: for the latest on this story, look at the bottom of the post - I'm updating as and when.]
Amazon, in case you don't know yet, has been accused of closing a customer's account and deleting the contents of her Kindle without explanation. The story started here. It's a cracking read, and it inspires a profound fury, in me at least, not because it's particularly bad corporate behaviour - no one has been murdered, no rainforests have been burned to make room for golf courses - but because in the field of the natural justice of consumer and supplier, it is marked out by a high-handed and aggressive obscurantism which is almost perfectly calibrated to produce rage.
We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.
Per our Conditions of Use which state in part: Amazon.co.uk and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders at their sole discretion.
Please know that any attempt to open a new account will meet with the same action.
It has all the makings of a perfect reputational storm. Amazon has run afoul of its own authoritarian instincts before, notably in removing copies of 1984 from customers' Kindles back in 2009 - a blunder in self-presentation which raised eyebrows and provoked wry comments registering the apositeness of the book in question. This is different. It's not a donnish irony, but a flat out conflict between a user and the company supplying a service which calls into question the reliability and usability of that service. In other words, digital poison. It's what Neal Stephenson called 'mediapathic' - a hugely appealing story which has already started to appear on reddit, BoingBoing and the rest.
Something I don't understand is the speed with which this is being called a DRM issue. DRM facilitates this, of course, and it turns out that a lot of the more switched-on Amazon customers routinely strip DRM from their purchases in order to immunise themselves from this sort of incident (demonstrating once again just how futile DRM is in the first place, and how increasing protections and centralised control drives legitimate purchasers to seek out and adopt tools many publishers prefer to think of as the tools of piracy) but the issue is more profound than a single technology. It brings up the question of who owns ebooks, what exactly is being sold when you buy one, and ultimately what the price of an ebook buys you. Bluntly: if you're buying a limited-time licence which can be revoked at any moment, most people will feel that their money is not well-spent. And that is, presently, what you're buying when you purchase a digital product, something Amazon, Apple, and others should be wary of causing the customer base to realise. Not because the punters will stop buying, but because they will simply refuse - understandably enough - to accept it when the remedy is a download away.
I'm fascinated to see where this goes, but right now it's a pleasingly deranged and bewildering situation which shines a light into a lot of awkward corners. Bring on Act II.
[Edit @ 18:44, Monday: a lot of people are asking whether I/we know that the story is accurate, and of course the answer is "no". It is possible that Amazon has a genuine beef, although even in that case the handling is less than ideal. The authoritarian feel plays directly to the idea of the company as an artbitrary dictator. The key point, irrespective of the truth of this particular story which I obviously cannot judge right now, is that the issues thrown up by it are real whether or not the case in question turns out to be as it presently appears. Unless the story is resolved fast and with considerable energy and care by Amazon, the truth of the specific case won't matter. On the other hand, if it ultimately turns out that Linn - whoever she is - is the victim of a miscarriage of the company's algorithms, the general approach will look extremely unsympathetic. With this coming on top of the ebook VAT story this morning, I'm assuming that the PR department at Amazon is getting some serious grey hair today.]
[Edit @ 18:54, Monday: it appears the 'deletion' may be inaccurate. Off to have a life now, see you tomorrow for more thrilling installments, no doubt.]
[Edit @ 08:21, Tuesday: Wired have the story, and have managed to get a response of sorts from Amazon -
"Account status should not affect any customer’s ability to access their library.
If any customer has trouble accessing their content, he or she should contact customer service for help.
Thank you for your interest in Kindle."
Which, by virtue of being an oblique semi-denial of the 'wipe' part of the story - though obviously it doesn't actually say that they couldn't or wouldn't wipe a Kindle, just that it isn't automatic if your account is terminated - seems to confirm to some extent or other the rest of it, or at least to say that Amazon is content to be represented in this way. I know it's not news that the tech behemoths mostly don't do people stuff well, but I still find the grumpy, monosyllabic legal/corporate communication here staggering. An opportunity? It's something the publishing industry would do well, if it could ever be bothered to try.]
[Edit @ 13:52, Tuesday: It seems that Amazon has re-opened the account, though once again without explanation. An actual phonecall was placed to Linn Nygaard to tell her she'd been reaccepted into the Amazon fold. The joy of complete bewilderment continues, though - this latest news would seem to propose that Nygaard's Kindle was locked and/or wiped. (Google Translated post here, original here.) And it also seems that Amazon specified that no explanation would be forthcoming for what has happened. My bogglement at this apparently needlessly aggressive approach continues, though a few correspondents on Twitter etc have taken the line that of course, big companies are rude and opaque, and it's just what one should expect. Maybe I'm just turning into an old fart.]
Recent blog posts
- #FutureChat: Can we float more indie boats?
- Measure for measure: the Digital Census since 2009
- A chuffed market's Children's Conference: #PorterMeets Charlotte Eyre
- #FutureChat recap: Publishing innovation
- Night of the Social Media: #PorterMeets Jonathan Maberry
- Alta Editions' cookbook innovation recipe
- WhereWereYouThen.com: Mining the memories of Ken Follett's readers
- The FutureBook Innovation Awards are open for business
- #FutureChat recap: Torchin' for books data
- Reedsy: Bending into digital self-publishing
- ISBNs in the aggregate refer to titles
1 week 4 days ago
- A question about ISBNs
1 week 5 days ago
- Not impressed by a data collection argument
2 weeks 2 days ago
- Understanding the reality of bookstore inventories
2 weeks 3 days ago
- Thanks for the input
5 weeks 5 days ago
- In this case, compliance is expensive
5 weeks 5 days ago
- I totally agree with JA Konrath's 12 points
6 weeks 2 days ago
- Tone vs Substance
7 weeks 23 hours ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
Tweets from @thefuturebook
TheFutureBook Come along for our #FutureChat today on "opening up to indies" 5pCEST / 4pBST / 3pGMT / 11aET 8aPT t.co/Mk9Tmlms25 @TheBookseller
TheFutureBook .@TheBookseller's new @NookBN-partnered Independent Author Previews initiative: #FutureChat Friday 4pBST / 11a ET t.co/Mk9Tmlms25
TheFutureBook Join our #FutureChat Friday prompted by @theBookseller's new @NookBN Press plan to boost indies: t.co/Mk9Tmlms25 @Porter_Anderson