Human Property

The development of electronic book readers like Amazon’s Kindle raises interesting questions about the future of books.

The portable nature of the book has been its greatest advantage as a tool.  You can hold onto a book for a long time and freely share it with someone else.  You can read it as many times as you’d like.  If what you’re reading is considered dangerous, you can hide it.  Books are small but possess a lot of power and influence.

The only restrictions imposed on book ownership are those placed by copyright laws.  These restrictions are relatively minor.  You have to purchase the book once, and you can’t make copies of it and sell it to someone else.  That’s about it.  You are even permitted to resell the book without any trouble, a concept known as “first-sale.”

Some companies are attempting to use technology as a way of changing the relationship to the book.  The current restrictions on the Kindle, for example, attempt to change that relationship.  Instead of purchasing a copy of the book, you are actually purchasing a license to view it on your Kindle.  You are not permitted to transfer downloaded copies of e-books to others, thus restricting the right of first sale.

In short, you’re not really buying a book — just the limited right to view its contents.  This is a lot of power for Amazon to maintain over book ownership, and it carries some disadvantages.  Amazon got into hot water about its behavior when it deleted copies of 1984 from hundreds of Kindles.  People were up in arms, even though Amazon had credited back the affected accounts.  Some line had been crossed by Amazon when it manipulated the data after selling it.

Google, as well, wants to change the relationship with the book.  Google has been scanning millions of pages into a large database which it hopes to make searchable to the public — a veritable digital library.  Despite the balking of other companies and even the government, Google seems set to make a deal with the Justice Department and other online competitors over its plan.  Google would prefer that we read books through some service.  It remains to be seen if people will want what Google plans to offer.

But there, too, relationships may be shifting.  If Google is planning a searchable library, will privacy become an issue?  Consider the provisions of the Patriot Act that permit the government to access library records of individuals through National Security Letters:  would Google’s library be subject to review by the US government for certain search terms?  Do you risk surveillance with Google’s digital library that would never be a concern by merely reading a copy of that book in the local library?

Companies should certainly innovate when it comes to books, but they need to consider the fact that old habits die hard.  The Kindle seems like a book, but Amazon made clear that it really wasn’t a book — at least in terms of what people are used to.  And if privacy ends up out the window with Google’s new digital library scheme, people may soon realize that the digital library is a lot less comfortable than the brick-and-mortar version.

Companies should thus be careful with how they package their products.  The common law may provide plaintiffs with avenues against companies that package their products with new, unfamiliar restrictions.  A jury may very well believe that the product known as the “book” carries certain privileges attached to it — ones that can’t be trampled on.

Maybe this is why Amazon settled a lawsuit stemming from the 1984 debacle for $150,000 for the two plaintiffs.  Those numbers can add up.