Amazon treads Big Brother territory in Kindle debacle on clarkhoward.com

In the past, Clark has praised the Kindle -- Amazon's portable e-book reader. It lets travelers access multiple books while on a trip without over-stuffing their carry-on, and it offers a very easy reading experience on the eyes.

But now Amazon has done something with the Kindle that's really riled the consumer champ.

Amazon removed book titles without notice from customers' e-libraries because of a dispute with a book distributor. People only found out when they went to read a book and it simply wasn't there!

Amazon thought they didn't do anything wrong because they refunded the customers' money. But Clark likens this to Amazon sending a burglar to your house to steal back a book from your library!

The company hasn't officially apologized for the debacle, but did tell The New York Times they would handle the situation differently if it arose again.

The worst and most ironic part is exactly which book titles got pulled: George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, which surely drove the Big Brother conspiracy theorists crazy!

Meanwhile, Amazon is supposedly considering having content-specific ads in the Kindle's e-books, according to report out of London. So if, for example, a character in the book is eating in a restaurant, a food advertisement might pop up.

Clark feels that if the ads make books cheaper than they would be otherwise, he's all for it. But the thievery involving the book titles is unacceptable.

What others are saying

B&E to fix a crime is still a crime
lambmit, I think your example is flawed. It would be more akin to your house sitter selling some priceless collectibles to someone else who puts them in your house. While you absolutely have the right to retrieve your possessions, you shouldn't have the right to break into someone else's house to get them. Amazon should have announced first that they had to pull the items without doing it surreptitiously.
By Tom in GA @ 07/22/09 06:14:07 PMreport abuse
Bigger Brother
I refuse to have a device that can be tampered with without my knowledge AND having pop-up ads while reading a book is way out of a possibility for me! We have enough of that everywhere we look. I'm off to the used book store!
By sarah watson @ 07/22/09 04:15:13 PMreport abuse
If Amazon didn't have the right to sell the book
If Amazon didn't have the right to sell the book then they should have done what they have done. What if you were on a 2 week vacation and the person house sitting for you sell your car to someone else without your authorization or acknowlegement. You come home and find out what the housesitter did. Should you have the right to take your car back from the person he sold it to. That is what Amazone did. They sold books without the authorization from the book distributor. Now Amazon had to get the books back. At least Amazon gave a refund.
By lambmit @ 07/22/09 07:36:14 AMreport abuse
Disagree
I agree that its wrong. But I don't think we can accurately say who's fault it was. I didn't mean to infer that it wasn't wrong, just that we couldn't accurately say who's fault it was.
By RE: RE: BYU Student @ 07/21/09 08:04:32 PMreport abuse
RE: BYU Student
You are missing the point. How would you feel if you bought something, then the company broke into your house and took it back and left a refund in it's place. It has nothing to do with copyrights, and everthing to do with privacy and personal property. Shame on Amazon for not disclosing what they were going to do.
By drew @ 07/21/09 10:19:05 AMreport abuse
Bad Situataion, was it Amazon?
I love Clark Howard, I have learned so much from your show and website, but I think in this case, he's blaming the wrong person/company. Without knowing the details of this issue, we can't know whether it was Amazon or the content owner's fault. It could be that the content owner gave Amazon assurances that they didn't follow through with. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I'm not sure we can say for sure that it's amazon's fault, especially with a company that normally is fairly aware of consumer's needs.
By BYU Student @ 07/20/09 07:53:48 PMreport abuse
Read a real book for a change!
My grand children have discovered Grandpa's paperback library awhile back and they like it so far, as the oldest made a comment that it strange to read something printed on paper, there might be some hope for this teenager yet(15) knows how things should be. Oh well at least their reading now with gusto, might be the best gift I can give them after I hunt down the Sunday newspaper for I still haven't seen the comic's yet, got to have my Dilbert fix.
By Grandpa Gene @ 07/20/09 06:51:47 PMreport abuse

B&E to fix a crime is still a crime

lambmit, I think your example is flawed. It would be more akin to your house sitter selling some priceless collectibles to someone else who puts them in your house. While you absolutely have the right to retrieve your possessions, you shouldn't have the right to break into someone else's house to get them. Amazon should have announced first that they had to pull the items without doing it surreptitiously.

By Tom in GA @ 07/22/09 06:14:07 PMreport abuse

Bigger Brother

I refuse to have a device that can be tampered with without my knowledge AND having pop-up ads while reading a book is way out of a possibility for me! We have enough of that everywhere we look. I'm off to the used book store!

By sarah watson @ 07/22/09 04:15:13 PMreport abuse

If Amazon didn't have the right to sell the book

If Amazon didn't have the right to sell the book then they should have done what they have done. What if you were on a 2 week vacation and the person house sitting for you sell your car to someone else without your authorization or acknowlegement. You come home and find out what the housesitter did. Should you have the right to take your car back from the person he sold it to. That is what Amazone did. They sold books without the authorization from the book distributor. Now Amazon had to get the books back. At least Amazon gave a refund.

By lambmit @ 07/22/09 07:36:14 AMreport abuse

Disagree

I agree that its wrong. But I don't think we can accurately say who's fault it was. I didn't mean to infer that it wasn't wrong, just that we couldn't accurately say who's fault it was.

By RE: RE: BYU Student @ 07/21/09 08:04:32 PMreport abuse

RE: BYU Student

You are missing the point. How would you feel if you bought something, then the company broke into your house and took it back and left a refund in it's place. It has nothing to do with copyrights, and everthing to do with privacy and personal property. Shame on Amazon for not disclosing what they were going to do.

By drew @ 07/21/09 10:19:05 AMreport abuse

Bad Situataion, was it Amazon?

I love Clark Howard, I have learned so much from your show and website, but I think in this case, he's blaming the wrong person/company. Without knowing the details of this issue, we can't know whether it was Amazon or the content owner's fault. It could be that the content owner gave Amazon assurances that they didn't follow through with. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I'm not sure we can say for sure that it's amazon's fault, especially with a company that normally is fairly aware of consumer's needs.

By BYU Student @ 07/20/09 07:53:48 PMreport abuse

Read a real book for a change!

My grand children have discovered Grandpa's paperback library awhile back and they like it so far, as the oldest made a comment that it strange to read something printed on paper, there might be some hope for this teenager yet(15) knows how things should be. Oh well at least their reading now with gusto, might be the best gift I can give them after I hunt down the Sunday newspaper for I still haven't seen the comic's yet, got to have my Dilbert fix.

By Grandpa Gene @ 07/20/09 06:51:47 PMreport abuse

Listen Live:

Clark On Demand:

Clark's Advice:

Consumer Action Center:

Quick Links:

Clark Media:

Call The Show:

Jul 20, 2009 -- Amazon treads Big Brother territory in Kindle debacle

What others are saying