Guy Vs. Guy: Amazon Parties Like It's '1984'

Welcome to Guy Vs. Guy! In this recurring feature, Rick and Dave square off on the business and technology issues of the day. This week's topic: The Amazon Kindle. Recent headlines haven't done the beloved device -- or the company that sells it -- any favors. How can Amazon recover from this PR fiasco, and how can other businesses learn from its mistake?
Dave: Did you hear the news? Last week, all the people who had bought a particular book from their local bookstore woke up to find that employees of the bookstore had broken into their homes, stolen back the book, and left a refund on the kitchen table. Actually, the culprit was Amazon, and the books were removed wirelessly from their Kindles -- but it's the same basic idea. Way to go, Amazon -- you just demonstrated the single worst example of customer service I've ever seen in my entire life. What's next? Setting a basket of kittens on fire?

Rick: And not just any books, but George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984. Talk about burying the needle on the Irony Meter! At first I figured this had to be a joke, if not the work of some hacker out to prove a point about Orwellian companies.

Of course, the reality is that these two books were sold by a non-U.S. publisher in violation of U.S. copyright law, and consequently Amazon had every right to pull them from the Kindle Store. But to silently reach digital fingers into customers' Kindles and remotely erase the books, without notification or explanation, is inexcusable.

Dave: There's a strange feeling in the air. I can't quite put my finger on it. Is it... could it be? Yes, I think you and I agree about something. This won't last long. Anyway, this is deeply disturbing on a number of levels. First: Even if this truly was stolen property, I doubt that Amazon was operating within the law when they recovered it. You want me to return a purchase? Call the police. Don't enter my house and take it back in the middle of the night. Second: Amazon is apparently responsible for theft itself: The company deleted notes that users had taken along with the books. So anyone writing a research paper or book report on 1984 can now honestly claim their homework went down a Memory Hole. By which I mean Amazon stole their property.

Rick: I think the key issue here is that Kindle owners had no idea Amazon reserved the right to remove content at their discretion, at any time, without warning. It's one thing for Apple to pull an unauthorized or term-violating app from the App Store, but the company has yet to reach into users' iPhones and delete said offending app. (Note to Apple: please don't.)

And what Amazon should have done, without question, is send customers an e-mail describing the situation, issuing the refund, and requesting that they delete the book(s). Instead, the company pulled a Big Brother, generating some seriously bad press for the almost universally loved Kindle. I'm not the first to say this has caused me to rethink whether I'd ever buy one.

Dave: Actually, I think that you'll find that Amazon didn't even do what you claim -- the company did not reserve for itself the right to remove content from your Kindle at its discretion. Read the Kindle license agreement for yourself -- I did. Twice. I can't find any mention of the possibility of having content removed from the device without consent, which puts us back in the realm of theft. So, yeah, consider me something of a non-fan at this point. Amazon has managed to demonstrate in no uncertain terms the worst, most user-hostile, borderline-evil way imaginable that one can digitally interact with customers. If Apple is akin to Woodstock, I'd say that Amazon has become Altamont.

Rick: Woodstock? Altamont? You were making sense right up until there. Seriously, you're comparing a technology company and an online bookseller to famous (and infamous) music festivals? Uh, okay, in that case, the iPhone is like rubber, and the Kindle is glue. Whatever works for you, man.

I do applaud you doing your homework, however, and I agree that nowhere in the license agreement does it say Amazon gets to delete material from your Kindle whenever the mood (or copyright infringement) strikes. But it does note that content is "licensed to you," not "sold to you." Guess Amazon gets to revoke that license anytime they want. The good news is that they won't do it again, at least if you believe a recent statement from a company spokesperson. But I suspect most people will remember the crime, not the apology.

Dave: Too little, too late. At this point, Amazon needs to atone. An appropriate gesture might be offering $25 gift cards to every customer who was digitally pick-pocketed, and hope that people remember how quickly Amazon got its act together and apologized with its wallet. Note to Amazon: Time is running out for the "quickly" part.

Rick: I agree that a token gift would be a wise move at this point, but I also think Amazon should give back the books! (Not the pirated versions, obviously, but legitimate digital editions. Surely they can secure the rights.) I'm concerned that the company has lost of sight of doing the right thing when it comes to the Kindle. Witness the recent flap over cracked screens: Only upon threat of lawsuit did Amazon agree to replace Kindles damaged by the "protective" carrying case.

So let's put this out to the readers: What should Amazon do to restore faith, appease burned customers, and jump-start the now-tainted Kindle line?