Amazon Explains Why It's Okay to Sell Books About the WikiLeaks Stuff It Won't Host

December 9, 2010 at 10:52 am PT

UPDATE: Amazon UK is no longer selling the WikiLeaks book; a note on the site says the self-published title “has been removed by author.” Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener says he doesn’t know why author Heinz Duthel pulled the book, and says Amazon has had no contact with him. UPDATE 2: And now it appears to be back. Here’s an interview with Duthel explaining why he pulled the book, and why he asked Amazon to start selling it again.
————————-
EARLIER:

Last week Amazon pulled the plug on WikiLeaks by refusing to host the group’s data on its server. But Amazon is now profiting from some of that data, via a Kindle e-book title now available through its U.K. outlet.

Hypocrisy! says the Internet.

Not at all! says Amazon. But it can understand why you might think that.

When reports about the book first surfaced today, the title on Amazon’s site sure made it look as if the e-book were simply a bundled version of WikiLeaks’ documents: “WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000.”

Since then, though, Amazon has added this wording: “[DOES NOT CONTAIN TEXT OF CABLES].”

Adds Amazon PR guy Drew Herdener, via email: “This book contains commentary and analysis regarding recent WikiLeaks disclosures, not the original material disclosed via the WikiLeaks website.”

But that’s still confusing, since the book does indeed contain the text of cables–but in excerpt form, according to the AP.

So let me try to make Amazon’s case for them. Here’s what they might say if they were allowed to speak freely: Sorry about the confusion. But of course it’s okay for us to sell books about WikiLeaks that contain WikiLeaks data we don’t want to host ourselves. There’s a big difference between a data dump and writing that incorporates and comments on that data. See, for instance, the New York Times and every other news outlet that have written about WikiLeaks while using information supplied by WikiLeaks. We sell the Times and other periodicals that report on the topic, and we’re going to sell this book, too.

You’re welcome, Amazon! No need to send a check–I do this kind of thing gratis.

Tagged with: Amazon, analysis, AP, book, commentary, data, data dump, digital, Drew Herdener, e-book, e-books, host, Internet, Kindle, MediaMemo, New York Times, periodicals, Peter Kafka, reports, software, U.K., WikiLeaks

comments so far. Add yours.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5J3PULDW6YC6MUYXSPUR5VVBZI Bob

Q: What’s the difference between the Amazon PR department and a cesspit?
A: There are some days when a cesspit is not full of sh*t!!!
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5J3PULDW6YC6MUYXSPUR5VVBZI Bob

Q: What’s the difference between the Amazon PR department and a cesspit?
A: There are some days when a cesspit is not full of sh*t!!!
http://twitter.com/Bala_Perdida Bala Perdida

Yeah right. You refuse to give hosting to Wikileaks but you equally make a profit out of them. That’s the summary. If your “ethical rules” don’t allow you to give hosting to a client (no matter which), those same rules wouldn’t allow you to sell any material concerning that client (which, by the way, is too hot now to be ignored by your buyers… smart move, ain’t it?). Any excuses on this are, honestly, LAME excuses.
Anonymous

seems that they were trying to confuse people into believing( or perhaps getting their hopes up) that they would be able to contribute to Wiki through this purchase. Seriously, misleading. I write descriptions up ALL day that make or break my business. They knew how this was going to be interpreted.
http://twitter.com/RobShaver Robert Shaver

So if Wikileaks turned it’s leaked documents into book format would Amazon sell it? If Wikileaks added commentary to its web site would Amazon then host it?

I think Amazon has a perfect right to not host Wikileaks web site just like I have the perfect right to stop doing business with them.
Ardiva

No matter how Amazon tries to justify their action on this..it is still wrong and VERY hypocritical of them as well.

Money sure has a strong voice, doesn’t it?
http://twitter.com/scyfox Scyfox

“I do this kind of thing gratis.”

you ment “for free”
Anonymous

Amazon sells books on the Manson family, but it doesn’t go around cutting babies out of pregnant women.

Not sure why this is controversial.
Anonymous

For the record, Wikileaks hasn’t dumped all the data, either. As of this morning, only over 1000 cables had been release, along side the release of them by the various media partners. It’s a huge factual distinction, and makes a liar of Amazon (and many reporters who are still claiming that WL has released all the docs indiscriminately).
http://twitter.com/iceshards Michael

I’d just like to repeat a bit what others have said here. Wikileaks hasn’t released cables that new york times, guardian, etc hasn’t released. They even include the same redactions. This is all just total lies and hypocrisy.
Anonymous

OK well that makes a lot of sense when you think about it, Its logical.

http://www.privacy-solutions.edu.tc
http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Mc/100001605142837 Thomas Mc

Hypocrisy, thy name is AMAZON.COM !!!
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

Right! That’s why I wrote “gratis”!
Anonymous

most people know what ‘gratis’ is,

they also know how to spell “meant”
http://twitter.com/jsnapp556 John Snapp

sarahpac website is now down…
Alcmene

These cowards are not listing it any more…
One hour ago, we had more than 120 comments all saying more or less the same things (hypocrisy, profiteering, I’ll close my account), and the tags were especially fun to look at.
But I guess that the fact that they got scared means more people than they expected actually closed their accounts. I did, myself.
http://www.change.org/codepink.....and_paypal
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TL7GM3JFL3IG6NZ5XBSJUUKVBU Synez Lan

Epic. They:

(1) slap WikiLeaks in the face by cutting off their paid hosting,

(2) then make money off selling the leaks that they had unilaterally refused to host,

(3) *then* have the guts to tell us it’s fine for them to sell it because it’s derived material, ignoring the question of how they would have been able to write this analysis if other, more conscientious people had not continued hosting the original datadump?

What a lame excuse for shameless cowardice and profiteering. And I thought my respect for Amazon couldn’t drop any lower.
Anonymous

Using your analogy, Amazon is selling the babies that someone cut out and gave to Manson.
http://twitter.com/hyrcan Hyrcan

So it should be ok when I put a website on amazon’s cloud that paraphrases all the cables?
Anonymous

billygray already commented on this, but it bears repeating: Only about 1300 of the diplomatic cables have been published by WikiLeaks, and The New York Times (for example) has published those same documents, with the same redactions.

If “data dump” refers to the full 250,000 cables that WikiLeaks has in its possession, then whatever distinction you are trying to draw that excuses Amazon’s distribution of this book also applies to WikiLeaks itself! They have published, in HTML form, a website that incorporates excerpts from the full “data dump”, along with commentary on it.

And even aside from that, any claims about the contents of the cables that WikiLeaks has published also apply equally to The New York Times, since they have (last I heard) published all of that same content.

Amazon Explains Why It's Okay to Sell Books About the WikiLeaks Stuff It Won't Host

comments so far. Add yours.

AllThingsD by Writer