NY Times Goes Off On Amazon Because Some People Are Publishing Fake George Orwell Books
from the but,-hey,-what-about-that-public-domain dept
David Streitfeld is a NY Times reporter who, among other things, covers Amazon. As far as I can tell, he has never written about Amazon in an article where he doesn't present things in the worst, most distorted anti-Amazon light. It's gotten to the point where I generally just won't bother with a Times article about Amazon if it's by Streitfeld, because it's guaranteed to be misleading. Somehow, however, I made it through most of this recent article about counterfeit George Orwell books on Amazon before realizing it was yet another Streitfeld hit piece. The article itself is kind of interesting: there are a bunch of folks attempting to sell unofficial George Orwell books on Amazon, and sometimes they're garbage.
What I find odd, is that while the article admits that many are published in India, where Orwell's works are in the public domain, the article makes no mention of the odd copyright situation in the US and UK, where Orwell's books all should be in the public domain based on the copyright deal that was made with Orwell when he wrote the books. Under those terms, all of Orwell's books -- including Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) -- should have entered the public domain years ago, meaning that there would be a robust market for legitimate copies of those works.
Streitfeld also complains about some attempts to "improve" on Orwell.
Most of the distorted texts are likely due to ignorance and sloppiness but at their most radical the books try to improve Orwell, as with the unauthorized “high school edition” of his 1933 memoir. The editing was credited to a Moira Propreat. She could not be reached for comment; in fact, her existence could not be verified.
“Down and Out” is an unflinching look at brutal behavior among starving people, which makes Ms. Propreat’s self-appointed task of rendering the book “more palatable” rather quixotic.
Streitfeld is rather subtle in mocking "Moira Propreat" ("more appropriate") but misses the point again. If those works were in the public domain, as intended, then there would be plenty of opportunities for people to update, remix, change, edit, annotate and do whatever they wanted with Orwell's works. And that would, undoubtedly lead to a bursting of creativity. While it's more limited here -- because it's locked down by copyright -- it's little surprise that what few books have made it out there are of dubious quality and value.
But how is that Amazon's fault as opposed to copyright for limiting the ability of more thorough individuals and companies to do this kind of work? It's also unclear why Amazon is getting the blame for selling badly edited books. Going back decades to Smith v. California, the Supreme Court has held you can't hold bookseller's liable for the content of the books. But Streitfeld ignores all of that and seems to suggest that this is all Amazon's fault, because Amazon is Amazon. He argues -- taking talking points directly from the Authors Guild -- that Amazon won't vet these books because it will 'drag profits down," leaving out the fact that it's impossible to catch all such things.
Yes, there's a legitimate argument that buyers of such books may be annoyed and confused by a less than accurate copy of an Orwell book, but to blame Amazon, and to ignore the copyright issues that brought us here, is a really weird choice, but if it involves blaming Amazon for some other issue, it's the choice the NY Times and Streitfeld always seem to make.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1984, animal farm, copyright, david streitfeld, george orwell, public domain, remix
Companies: amazon, ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perfectly Upset
The Times writer is upset because without strong copyright protections (being flaunted by the nation of India!) George Orwell will not have proper incentive to create new works.
Very reasonable, since the only purpose of Copyright is to promote the arts.
Since Orwell hasn't made any new books - obviously we need stronger copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It IS Amazon's fault here
The issue is that Amazon sells a hundred different versions of the book using the same item description page. This is dumb.
Libraries (for a hundred years) have used very specific item-level records for very specific items, so that you can go to a library catalog and know precisely which edition is held there. There's zero reason that Amazon can't do the same.
Yes, there are obvious copyright issues with Orwell (and everything else). But that has nothing at all to do with Amazon selling fake versions of, well, anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
Amazon is not a library, nut rather a market place. Why should they employ a large number of librarians to put all books offered for sale in precise categories that most buyers do not understand. Also, many of their books come from self publishers, who are not usually familiars with library categorizarion requirements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
they don't vet their marketplace, letting people be sold fraudulent products. You'd think they care, but hey let's leave it with "amazon is not a library"?
Amazon needs to do more than minimal effort in their marketplace, but they don't. That's before I even get into any other category of anything sold on amazon.
All they're doing is setting the literal lowest bar on quality; and it's even lower than ebay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
The big gain for humanity from the Internet is that platforms that empower the Individual in the market place can be created and operated. Force those platform into carrying out significant validation roles, destroys that advantage, giving corporation significant power over who can benefit from the existence of markets.
The call for sites to do more to control speech, or items for sale will only result in corporations having even more control over what people can say, buy or sell, and who can speak or offer goods for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
This isn’t about free speech or asking companies to exert draconian controls over what people can or can’t say/buy. What Designerfx, I, and others are asking for is for Amazon to ensure their store isn’t filled to the brim with fraudulent and low-quality garbage. That’s all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
You are asking Amazon to curate the products on offer through its market place, and that will destroy the market place, including one of the places people can self publish. Also, it would put Amazon in the position of deciding who has a chance to sell through their market place, and who does not based on which few applications they can look at in a reasonable time from the submission.
In other words you change Amazon into a gate keeper, rather than a being a platform for sellers to find buyers.
At the sale that Amazon operates, the problem is not identifying dodgy products when you see them, but rather checking everything so that you can see and identify the dodgy products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
Amazon's item description bundling should be illegal, as it would be the same as a store advertising one product and delivering you something slightly different.
I once ordered a book in English, and what showed up was the same book in German... with the English cover on the outside.
THAT should be examined by the FTC, because it shouldn't be allowed.
Blaming Amazon for the rest of it though is just silly.
When I buy books on Amazon now, I purchase based on ISBN, because Amazon does provide that in most cases, and you can search by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
Where did that happen? Most likely at the printers, and not the Amazon warehouse where spare covers are hard come by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It IS (not) Amazon's fault here
Amazon's item description bundling should be illegal, as it would be the same as a store advertising one product and delivering you something slightly different.
It isn't Amazon's description - it's the sellers. If the info was wrong Amazon will refund the sale. Explain what Amazon is doing wrong here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It IS (not) Amazon's fault here
Amazon isn't vetting its shitty sellers and allowing things to more or less be a free-for-all. That's what's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It IS (not) Amazon's fault here
So now you know you might have to process a return when you order through Amazon. If you order through Amazon you do so because the price is good and/or shipping to your front door is super convenient and cheap. Both of those are possible because Amazon isn't inspecting each and every thing shipped in an Amazon box -- they don't even see many of those shipments because they're direct from the actual seller, not Amazon. If they did inspect everything their costs, and your prices, would go up.
Report the problem to Amazon. If there are enough such reports Amazon will boot the seller. It's really quite simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It IS (not) Amazon's fault here
I"m calling bullshit on this. I had one that the seller was fraudulent. I complained to Amazon along with others and we had our purchases refunded and the seller was banned. It worked how it was supposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It IS (not) Amazon's fault here
"If the info was wrong Amazon will refund the sale. Explain what Amazon is doing wrong here?"
No, they won't. That's why I no longer buy from Amazon. Bought a $500 phone, the seller sent a completely different $150 model (sending a phone locked to a specific US carrier rather than the international unlocked model they had advertised.) Amazon claimed it wasn't their responsibility because it was a marketplace product. Seller refused a return. Amazon ignored that the majority of the seller's positive reviews were all from one single account while most of the negative reviews were complaints about being sent the wrong product. Eventually had to do a charge back through the credit card. Amazon couldn't care less about fraudulent listings as long as they get their cut of any sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
From the FTC website:
When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses.
So, the FTC does and will investigate truth in advertising violations on Amazon's website. Did you file a complaint with them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
Although this is a reply to Michael’s original comment in the thread, this is actually directed towards a number of people on this thread asserting that Amazon is legally liable for people posting (potentially) copyright-infringing stuff and/or misleading item descriptions posted by users. I am not going to talk about what the law should be but what the law is.
Regarding copyright issues, it seems clear that Amazon is protected by the DMCA. Unless and until Amazon receives a DMCA notification and fail to remove the allegedly infringing content, Amazon is not liable for copyright infringing content posted online by 3rd parties.
Similarly, regarding false advertising, under CDA §230, Amazon is absolved of any false advertising in item descriptions for deals posted by 3rd parties so long as they didn’t create or develop the description.
Note that this is not the same as a defective product, as that involves the physical goods rather than online content. As such, Amazon’s recent court loss is irrelevant here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
No, I don't think so. Let's look at the most straightforward scenario: Bob puts up a listing on Amazon for what he claims is a public domain book, to be printed on demand. Carol purchases the book from Amazon (which collects a share of the payment) and upon receipt discovers it's obviously a copy of a still-copyrighted book.
Does 17 USC 512 protect Amazon?
Printing and shipping the hard copy print on demand book is a prima facie infringement of the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution under 17 USC 106(1), and (3) respectively. I think we can all agree there -- if it wasn't, there would be no need for the safe harbor.
Amazon printing a hard copy book is not a transitory digital network communication, so 512(a) is no help
Neither is this an example of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network, so 512(b) is out.
The hard copy is not resident on a system or network, so 512(c) (the one that is most frequently invoked because no one even bothers to sue over (a)) is useless.
And finally, the hard copy is not a referral or link by Amazon to infringing material, so that excludes 512(d).
And that's it -- those were the four types of eligibility for the safe harbor.
Conclusion: 17 USC 512 is of no help to Amazon in at least the scenario where it -- even unknowingly, due to vicarious liability -- allows itself to be used for print on demand piracy. I'll bet this is not the full extent to which it is in trouble, too.
Do you disagree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It IS Amazon's fault here
Is Amazon printing the book? If it is, we’ve reached a gray area. Otherwise, I believe my point stands. This isn’t just about the DMCA but also the knowledge requirement for books sold at bookstores that are infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaming Amazon for shitty books?
That's like blaming the NYT for all the horrible stuff we did in Vietnam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming Amazon for shitty books?
Or all the shitty reporting We get now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they are not publishers, and they allow far more people to publish that the traditional publishers could ever handle. Perhaps that is what is really upsetting the authors guild, a big increase in competition due self publishing on well known platforms where people can find the books..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesus, this is a bad article!
First, from a legal standpoint, Amazon is indeed liable. This is a fairly straightforward vicarious liability infringement case. The elements are: 1) There is an underlying direct copyright infringement (the pirated books); 2) Amazon has the right and ability to control the infringing activity (eg by banning the listing or seller); 3) Amazon has a a financial interest in the infringement (their cut of the sale).
That's it! There is no knowledge requirement!
Smith v. California is not a good cite for this.
And marketplaces, like flea markets, are hit all the time for this sort of thing.
Second, Amazon's whole deal has always been obsessive attention to good customer experiences. Lately their failure to curate at all, and to sell pseudocurated attributes like "Amazon's Choice" tags, that just confuse things, have fucked that up.
What they need to do is to carry products they get directly from manufacturers, to carefully regulate their product listings, to only allow third parties to sell products that Amazon itself chooses to carry (directly or not), to verify what third parties have for sale, and to be real careful about allowing listings of things Amazon itself doesn't have. Human Amazon employees that are knowledgeable in the relevant field of goods should be approving and rejecting listings before they go up, and rejecting third parties if need be.
Third, Amazon should clear out even legal crap in the interests of their customers. Don't let people sell print on demand public domain stuff or wiki printouts -- sell good quality Amazon copies of public domain stuff, (or used books from reliable used bookstores) and bar hard copy Wikipedia printouts altogether.
They need to clean house. No one needs it to turn into a crap hole, and that's where Amazon is presently heading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Strongly agreed. Amazon's problems go far beyond just counterfeit books, and an Amazon filled to the brim with quality curated products is of much more value to consumers than whatever the hell is going on right now. They could also work to ensure the conditions in their sweatshop fulfillment centers are less... well, less like a sweatshop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, make an American company liable for allowing non-Americans to sell books that are not infringing in their region... That’s exactly the best way to respect the wishes of a dead author who wrote a dystopian novel about the dangers of Big Brother, state control, and censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So long as the books are only being sold in and shipped to places where they're in the public domain, it's fine. But that's not what's going on.
As for the wishes of the author, he could've dedicated his book to the public domain everywhere if this was important to him, or at least could've failed to get copyrights on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"As for the wishes of the author, he could've dedicated his book to the public domain everywhere if this was important to him, or at least could've failed to get copyrights on it.'
That only makes sense if you choose to remain utterly ignorant about the way copyright has been retroactively changed since his death. Under the terms that were in place during his lifetime, there would be no question that the book would be public domain before now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"he could've dedicated his book to the public domain everywhere if this was important to him, or at least could've failed to get copyrights on it"
And he COULD have then bought a mimeograph and cranked it till his arm fell off.
Under George Bush The Elder, publishing tax law was changed, making the re-printing of old titles not profitable, except that hopeless myopic Charles Dickens, whose pap every schoolkid must be fed. Amazon allows poor underclasses ( 10% of all US census tracts ) to buy and read something besides the latest spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look, I know George Orwell is frequently praised for his prescient predictions about the future, but I'm pretty sure when he wrote 1984 he didn't actually know he was going to die at the age of 46 and then, 50 years later, copyright terms were going to be extended. He may have been a man of considerable foresight, but let's not pretend he had any inkling of what the copyright status of his work would be in 2019, or could reasonably have been expected to plan for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. The man's been dead for several generations at this point, and the contract he published under stated that the work would be public domain by now. It's hardly his fault that the contract changed several times after his death, although trying to blame him for that is a good example of some of the things he wrote about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feels more like Douglas Adams to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, the Supreme Court has said you're wrong. So long as the books are printed legally (in whatever jurisdiction that happens), they can be sold, then shipped and re-sold in the United States.
And this is a very good thing. Why should I be deprived of a lawfully-made copy of a book simply because it's only being sold across the border?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're thinking of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 US 519 (2013). It doesn't say what you think it says.
Here's the key language:
So the question is whether the foreign-printed copy is made with the permission of the US copyright holder. (Personally, I would hazard that it is whether it is made with the permission of the current US copyright holder, or in a chain of permission stemming from a prior holder of that copyright, to avoid the risk of special purpose entities being used to frustrate the precedent)
Copies made by just anyone because of the work being in the public domain will decidedly not qualify, even if it was lawful in the place where the copy was made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do love it when random jackholes on the internet tell multi billion dollar companies how they need to be operating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you have some reason to think that Amazon is not exposing themselves to substantial liability, by all means let us know. These risks are totally needless and between copyright infringement and products liability, could cause a lot of harm. Plus it's no good for their goodwill, which they spent decades achieving, having made that, above all else, their primary focus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do love it when random jackholes on the internet stick both their feet in their mouth simultaneously by calling a lawyer and longstanding member of the community a random jackhole when said lawyer lets us know what the law actually is.
He has schooled me before, and on this issue, and you know what? I believe him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Insist that all platforms on the Internet do quality and legal control of products they sell, and you remove the means of individuals from finding a market, unless they indenture themselves to a corporation.
Amazon make it relatively easy to assess both the product and seller via reviews, and the occasional bad deal is a reasonable price for having a single market to search, and a safe way of paying hundreds of suppliers..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what would be a good case to site. i think this got hashed out over a dangerous product that amazon sold and that made more sense(not that the law has to make sense), but if amazon gives a refund then nobody makes money. who is harmed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't understand the recent complaints about that tag. If you asked me how a large multinational corporation makes its choices, I'd say "to maximize profit." It's not like they're saying this is Jeff's choice for what he'd buy for himself. They're literally saying it's the company's choice, where the company has a well-known penchant for automating such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Regarding copyright issues, it seems clear that Amazon is protected by the DMCA. Unless and until Amazon receives a DMCA notification and fail to remove the allegedly infringing content, Amazon is not liable for copyright infringing content posted online by 3rd parties.
Similarly, regarding false advertising, under CDA §230, Amazon is absolved of any false advertising in item descriptions for deals posted by 3rd parties so long as they didn’t create or develop the description.
Note that this is not the same as a defective product, as that involves the physical goods rather than online content. As such, Amazon’s recent court loss is irrelevant here.
Furthermore, despite your claims to the contrary, every court case on the issue has held that bookstores and libraries are not liable for copyright infringement from the products they sell being infringing as long as they remove the infringing material when asked. (IOW, there is a knowledge requirement.)
Also, according to the Supreme Court, if a book is printed somewhere where it is legal and then sold in the U.S., neither the seller nor the buyer are liable for any potential copyright infringement.
As such, because of the DMCA’s safe harbors and CDA §230, along with some court cases on point, Amazon has no liability whatsoever for the item descriptions of products sold on Amazon or any books sold on there that Amazon itself didn’t create. Vicarious liability doesn’t enter into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984, anyone?
Can someone tell me how copyright is NOT Orwellian based on this story?
In regions where the book is in the Public Domain, creators are free to do whatever they please with the work. Yet, Amazon is on the hook for not policing copyright law the way the news reporter sees fit? If we’re going off of US public domain standards, we have to wait until 2044 (95 years after publication, in the case of 1984), while nearly everyone else will get a chance to adapt it at the beginning of next year (2020 marks 70 years since the author’s death)!
So does that mean that new versions of the work can’t be sold on an American site, effectively controlling and censoring new works? Sounds an awful lot like a 1984-type future to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984, anyone?
They can't be imported into the US and sold here, and that is apparently happening. What can legally be done in other countries depends on the law there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1984, anyone?
First rule of Tautology Club is First Rule of Tautology Club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just Amazon, but all book-selling platforms are plagued by rip-offs. What is offered for sale is no more than a simple print-on-demand copy of a PDF downloaded from Google Books or The Internet Archive. Now there may be reasons you want to have such a thing printed, but the problem is that such copies are not marked as such, and, but when you want to buy real antiquarian books, locating them becomes very hard. Some sites have options to exclude print-on-demand and new books, but book sellers appear to intentionally mislabel their offers. Now selling them is legal (for out-of-copyright books), but this strongly undermines the value of the platform. I've totally stopped buying via Amazon since 2013 (for other reasons, and won't be back), and also try to avoid other platforms, contacting booksellers via other channels after I've confirmed they offer genuine antiquarian books, or just going to physical shops to buy books, mostly to digitize them for Project Gutenberg, which is by the way another source of many books being sold on Amazon.
Hint: always check archive.org and gutenberg.org before buying any old book, if all you need is a reading copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The car enthusiasts of the world say "Welcome to 1974". Why would you buy a non-commodity item of value from a seller without first verifying the authenticity of what's being sold?
How is it that this is apparently new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]