When Amazon remotely removed George Orwell's "1984" from Kindle devices, copyright law and big brother clashed in the world of eBooks. But the copyright versus big brother debate is missing an important point. Amazon's control over how eBooks are sold on Kindle is a business strategy first and foremost.
Enforcing Copyright or Big Brother?
Amazon says it removed copies of "1984" because the publisher did not have legal rights to the book. Amazon's action has raised a controversy over the extent to which "network-connected devices" help enforce copyright law, while simultaneously permitting companies to control privacy and the unfettered distribution of ideas.
Amazon was able to delete the copies because it has complete control over the digital media downloaded by Kindle users. That is the nature of a network connected device, where the user is electronically bound to the network.
Further, the digital rights management (DRM) system that Amazon uses restricts what the consumer can do with the eBook after purchase. DRM aligns with copyright enforcement efforts.
Business Strategy, Not Legal Strategy, Drove Amazon's Decision
Was Amazon's motivation for removing the "1984" copies business strategy as much as -- or more than -- it was copyright enforcement?
Regardless of whether one believes Amazon acted as Orwell's big brother, it is difficult to dispute that Amazon enforced copyright law. Amazon certainly wanted to avoid a copyright problem. Given Amazon's total control over Kindle, Amazon could remove or replace a title for reasons other than copyright violations. Such reasons could conceivably be non-legal (e.g., violation of the DRM agreement).
Network connectivity enables and defines Amazon's Kindle strategy. Kindle's network connectivity is more than a technological artifact. It is integral to the product's design and functionality. Network connectivity also arguably benefits the consumer by facilitating software updates and customized recommendations.
Amazon can choose to cede control over the distribution of eBooks, and this incident has produced calls for Amazon to do so. If Amazon did not have control over the Kindle network, it would not have been caught having to choose between enforcing copyright law and becoming big brother. Seen in this light, Amazon deleted the legally suspect eBooks because doing so aligned with its Kindle strategy.
Amazon's Legally Informed Strategy
Did Amazon execute a Legally Informed Strategy? As I have argued previously, Legally Informed Strategy is a strategy that puts business strategy first, but takes into consideration the legal implications of that strategy. Although Amazon's implementation of its Legally Informed Strategy could have been more adept, Amazon did not follow merely a legal strategy of copyright enforcement. Instead, Amazon executed its business strategy based on control over the Kindle network.
The ensuing big brother controversy is a calculated risk that Amazon took. In a situation where Amazon maintained control over the Kindle network, it is not clear how Amazon could have deleted the eBooks without triggering the big brother issue.
Choosing to run afoul of copyright law would have been inconsistent with Amazon's strategy of control over the Kindle network. Thus, Amazon followed a Legally Informed Strategy that prioritized its strategy of network control. A better handling of the situation may have helped Amazon avoid the class action suit that has been filed.
Douglas Y. Park
Twitter: @DougYPark
