Slashdot Mirror


Remote Kill Flags Surface In Kindle

PL/SQL Guy writes "The Kindle has a number of 'remote kill' flags built in to the hardware that, among other things, allow the text-to-speech function to be disabled at any time on a book-by-book basis. 'Beginning yesterday, Random House Publishers began to disable text-to-speech remotely. The TTS function has apparently been remotely disabled in over 40 works so far.' But what no one at Amazon will discuss is what other flags are lurking in the Kindle format: is there a 'read only once' flag? A 'no turning the pages backwards' flag?"

130 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. First post flag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There, I said it. Kindle remotely made me do it!

    1. Re:First post flag! by xp · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am kinda glad they are doing this remotely. I'd be upset if an Amazon SWAT team broke into my house and physically disabled my Kindle.
      --
      Slow Poke

    2. Re:First post flag! by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think this is funny, but I'm not laughing. Right now, in my mind, amazon is no better than Mr. Soprano.

      I bought a bunch of books to use the "text-to-speech" software while driving to work, and now suddenly that's been disabled, which makes those particular books practically worthless to me. Is Amazon going to issue a refund? No, because just like every other media company, they think it's okay to sell goods without warranty. Hell even the lowly food industry says, "We hope you are satisfied with you're candy bar, but if you're not, return unused portion for refund." Only the iuck-lcikers in the rcord companis, game cmpanies, and book sotress think it;s perfectly acceptable to FORCE customers to keep a product they don't want. No returns.

      If they go out of business, it will be their own stupid fault due to ignoring that age-old rule, "The customer is (almost) always right." Screw your customer by selling them product as "text-to-speech" and then disable that product, and you've effectively screwed yourself. Customers have a long, long memory. They will not come back for further frakking. Even the most rudimentary business class teaches you this.

      /end angry tirade

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:First post flag! by visigoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately they won't go out of business over stuff like this. Most consumers don't care about consequences of their purchasing choices, the reasons for which are numerous -- too dumb, busy, or simply apathetic. "The customer is (almost) always right" only applies if the available customer pool is small enough for that to matter; once a market grows beyond a certain size, companies only have to make X % of their customers happy, and marginalize or ignore the rest.

      I'd love for things to be different, for for a completely DRM-free eBook to be available, but I'm also too cynical to believe this could ever happen.

    4. Re:First post flag! by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would think that selling Feature A, then disabling said feature is a basis for a Class Action lawsuit.

    5. Re:First post flag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, did you actually ask them for a refund, or are you just assuming they won't give you a refund?

    6. Re:First post flag! by Dadoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You think this is funny, but I'm not laughing.

      Neither am I. I have friends who are visually impaired, and this will make it impossible for them to use the Kindle, at all.

      If anyone's interested, there's a petition you can sign, which will hopefully convince Amazon to change their minds at http://www.readingrights.org/.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  2. They asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, that's what you get for buying content instead of just copying it from pirate bay or whatever. Maybe it's time for us to finally learn our lesson?

    1. Re:They asked for it by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's what you get for buying content instead of just copying it from pirate bay or whatever.

      True. Except when that option can get you in more serious trouble than a copyright suit, e.g. losing your job.

    2. Re:They asked for it by paazin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. Except when that option can get you in more serious trouble than a copyright suit, e.g. losing your job.

      I fail to see how getting busted on copyright infringement will somehow cause you to lose your job - it's not a felony, so as I understand it, it'd have no bearing with your employer.

    3. Re:They asked for it by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Sure you break copyright law when you download. The problem is people break laws all the time when laws don't work.

      I don't smoke marijuana; however, I know plenty of people who do. This situation has existed since before I was born. People, and politicians (they don't count as people), have discussed making marijuana legal. It may never happen in my lifetime. That does not stop people from recognizing bad law.

      Copyright is there to protect the artist. I see little artistic protection in copyright law. I see corporate protection. I don't think I am the only one who sees this, hence all the downloads.

      People will NOT obey an unjust law. When corporations declare that they sold you a license instead of a product and start turning off access to what the customer paid for...well, you reap what you sow. There are not enough lawyers out there to sue everyone who downloads. Ask the RIAA if you don't believe me.

      Besides, downloaded stuff just works better. I hate to tell all those coke-sniffing, mistress pampering executives at all those corporations that their business model sucks donkey-dick, but I have to. Downloads don't pester people with advertisements. They start up immediately. They play the entire content. You can change direction when you want. You can shift the content to other media. Shit! What's not to like? Except that we do cheat the artist. That cannot be denied. We must find a way to support the arts, and dump the middle-man. That middle-man is getting in the way of culture.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    4. Re:They asked for it by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see how getting busted on copyright infringement will somehow cause you to lose your job

      Two words: company policy.

    5. Re:They asked for it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I mailed a cheque to the Merkin Vinyard in Arizona for the 10,000 Days album I downloaded.

      It was never cashed, but I feel good about it anyway.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:They asked for it by cml4524 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're comparing people who are demanding a proscribed product that they purchase and consume outside the law with people who just don't like how much the product costs or how its distributed. The government denying you access to a good or service you demand is not the same thing as a private company offering a good or service in a way or at a price you don't like.

      Furthermore, you have a legitimate means to air your grievances: don't buy. Not only do you send the clear message that you are unhappy with the product or service, you maintain the legal AND moral high ground in the debate.

      Your post is labeled insightful. It is not.

    7. Re:They asked for it by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No shit.

      I have not bought a Kindle. This nutter thinks that newspapers could "save" by distributing over Kindle instead of on paper.

      Guy down later in the forum has it exactly right. You can't put a Kindle in your waiting room. If your "copy" of the paper is on a Kindle, you can't read the sports page while someone else has the world section or the comics. You can't hand "your copy" of the paper to someone else, or leave it behind once you're done with it if it's on a Kindle (something I do regularly - hey, I don't know the next person coming by, but I imagine they might want to read something too).

      Hell, if it's on a Kindle, we lose yesterday's newspaper - so how will we wrap today's fish?

      In all seriousness, that's the problem with DRM. It's never about "protecting copyright." It's always about some more nefarious purpose, like destroying the doctrine of first sale. Remember how $ony patented a method to have video games "signed" by the first console they were put in, and subsequently refuse to run on any other console? That was just one of them.

    8. Re:They asked for it by brkello · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, give me a break. It has little to do with working better and more to do with people not having to pay for stuff and little chance of getting caught or punished. Copyright laws may be flawed, but they are not completely unjust. The people who use things without paying their fair share are the unjust ones...not rebels against an unfair law.

      And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.

      I don't totally disagree with you, though. We do give the middle man too much and the artist too little. But pirating gives the artist less.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    9. Re:They asked for it by Mprx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Copyright is NOT there to protect the artist. Copyright is there to benefit the public by encouraging creation of new works.

    10. Re:They asked for it by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kindle in a doctor's waiting room?

      Gah! I wouldn't touch that thing, knowing that every germy hand had picked it up and played around with it.

    11. Re:They asked for it by D+Ninja · · Score: 4, Informative

      It might not have been cashed because he (she?/they?) may have a clause in his contract saying he cannot accept money directly for his music.

      Yeah...really...

    12. Re:They asked for it by inasity_rules · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm. Could that mean if they cash it they can't sue you, but if they don't cash it they have the option to sue you?

      IANAL, but that sounds sinister to me...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    13. Re:They asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      you do not violate copyright by merely downloading something. in the vast majority of cases, someone can only bring a civil action against you, not a criminal one, if you 'misuse' a copyrighted product.

      currently, in a civil action you are protected by the privacy of your own home and communications, not to mention privity of contract/license.

      in most common law jurisdictions you may infringe copyright by *copying* or *distributing* a copyrighted work without permission - usually in the form of a license.

      if you distribute for money, then there is criminal legislation dealing with counterfieting, fraud and actual piracy.

      in most jurisdictions, the mere downloading of copyrighted material for 'personal use' (ie: not 'for the purpose of supply'/'in the course of a business'), prior to the ease of digital copying/distributions, was utterly legal provided you did not alter it (ie: think book cover and content), creating a derrived copyright (a forbidden act under copyright law) in the process.

      how this applies to modern digital copies is a question for the courts as a philsophical argument on theft and loss. (ie: no contract. no agreement. is there a physical loss? since most losses are purely economic it is unlikely that there are any actions in tort, which forbids actions of pure economic loss)

      http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g107 - s.107 really does clarify what is a crime and what is not.

    14. Re:They asked for it by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.

      Like Securom or Sony's crap? Yeah, I trust the pirates more than the original.

      If you're really worried, look at the feedback for the torrent. Or look for names of groups who pride themselves on the quality of their cracks. There's an entire subculture based on that.

      And if the whole release is a .avi, there's not much to talk about anyway.

    15. Re:They asked for it by clifyt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "may have a clause in his contract saying he cannot accept money directly for his music."

      Or maybe because he has some integrity?

      I know when I was a performing musician, we could buy extremely discounted albums from our label, but it was considered by most to be slimy to go to the local duplicator and get a thousand or two printed up for your tour. Yet, some thought they could be a little cheaper by doing so.

      It also means that everyone that worked on the album and were not paid outright get screwed...often times, if you only pay the artist, folks like the songwriters and the producer and even the little guys that did something for substandard pay because they believed the work was good and would eventually get paid for it -- those folks get nothing when you send them the money directly.

      Honestly, this would be like stealing a Mac and sending Steve Jobs a check for the price of the machine...he is the one with his name out front, but it takes a LOT of work to bring something to market and with rare exceptions, it is not a one man show.

    16. Re:They asked for it by eiMichael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, give me a break. It has little to do with working better and more to do with people not having to pay for stuff and little chance of getting caught or punished.

      In terms of being locked into something like the Kindle, I sure as hell would not pay money for something where the terms of my purchases can be changed after they take my money.

      And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.

      The people who copy content aren't the ones who add that crap, it's just another attack vector for malware authors to use. i.e. They find out what a popular download is, then create malware to masquerade as that download.

    17. Re:They asked for it by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I choose to obtain a digital copy of a work I would never pay for, I am not actually depriving the creator of anything. It doesn't matter why I would choose not to pay. It might be because I am cheap, poor or lazy. It might be because I find something about the creator or publisher to be morally objectionable (like say, abuse of copyright). As such, I find no moral objection to obtaining an illegal copy, often made illegal through a law I find morally objectionable.

    18. Re:They asked for it by WillDraven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell, if it's on a Kindle, we lose yesterday's newspaper - so how will we wrap today's fish?

      Phone books? I can't seem to find any other use for them other than kindling for my fireplace, and yet I continue to receive about 6 or 7 of them a year.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    19. Re:They asked for it by Danse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, give me a break. It has little to do with working better and more to do with people not having to pay for stuff and little chance of getting caught or punished. Copyright laws may be flawed, but they are not completely unjust. The people who use things without paying their fair share are the unjust ones...not rebels against an unfair law.

      It has a lot to do with both working better and being free. Copyright law is horribly flawed, to the point of being nearly completely unjust. I can't say that they're better than piracy at this point. It's just different people getting fucked in each scenario, either the public or the industry, but it's the industry that has brought us to where we're at through their constant lobbying for more and more monopoly powers over copyrighted works and durations that last generations. It's disgustingly corrupt and I think that's why people don't really respect copyright anymore.

      And I find it a bit ironic you trust pirates of all people to deliver you a product free of root kits and trojans.

      It's certainly not trust. Don't trust anything you download unless you verify that it's clean. There are some distributors that have earned a level of trust because they have consistently only distributed clean copies, but by and large you shouldn't trust anything you download. The fact that people will take the risk is simply due to the fact that the industry has ensured that they can screw us over with impunity.

      I don't totally disagree with you, though. We do give the middle man too much and the artist too little. But pirating gives the artist less.

      The artists have become collateral damage in a struggle between the middle men and the public. The middle men try to grab more and more power and control from the public and give the artists as little as possible. I think that they need to be killed off and copyright law reformed if artists are ever to get a fair shake and if the public is ever to start respecting copyright again.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    20. Re:They asked for it by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except the artist, unless they happened to make anywhere near the "advertising fees" extortion.

      Bands make money from concerts* and merchandise, not albums. Exceptions are indie and wildly wildly successful mainstream bands that make enough to pay back the fees and/or are popular enough to negotiate a fair contract.

      * Often the things they sell there as well as the tickets, many times they keep a greater deal of profit sold at concerts.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    21. Re:They asked for it by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize that you lose half of the audience every time you write "M$" or "$ony" in a post right?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    22. Re:They asked for it by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright is NOT there to protect the artist. Copyright is there to benefit the public by encouraging creation of new works.

      Thank you! Specifically, it's not there to protect the artist's source of income, or guarantee the artist any income, for that matter.

    23. Re:They asked for it by jra · · Score: 3, Informative

      And more to the point: if I purchase a *used book*, none of the parties involved get any (more) money -- they got paid the first time.

      But they'd certainly *like* to stomp out that "revenue leak", and eviscerate the First Sale Doctrine, as noted above...

    24. Re:They asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      [citation needed]

    25. Re:They asked for it by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I need less people thinking they can freeload off creative works because they rationalize that they "never would have paid for it."

      If you won't pay for it, don't take it. It's not rocket science.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    26. Re:They asked for it by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody is "offended", rather they look at the post and see a 35 year old with a neckbeard in his mother's basement railing against the machine.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    27. Re:They asked for it by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with depriving the creator of anything. It has to do with the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms.

      It's not a "natural" right in any way shape or form, it is inherently an unnatural right. You're not depriving the creator of any liberty, you're only going around the purely legal bargain between the people, and content creators, to give them this unnatural "right" with the hopes that in the end it will benefit us more than if we didn't relinquish our own natural right to do whatever we wish with our own possessions.

      Since the whole concept behind this bargain is that the copyright will help the creator make money and thus be incentivized to create, but in the case in question the person is most definitely not depriving the creator of any money, where exactly is this moral issue that you're so upset over?

      Is it simply that this is the law, and breaking the law is amoral? I certainly don't agree to that, but I will as always agree to have you be the first one subject to the world you wish for, and encourage you to eat a bullet the next time you break any law at all. Since you've certainly already done so willfully, I expect no further posts from you.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:They asked for it by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to the Internet, where frivolous discussions about anything elevate to the point of wishing death upon someone who has a different opinion than you. You obviously haven't been desensitized.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    29. Re:They asked for it by steelcaress · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You still need psychological help if you can't see that telling them that, then telling them to eat a bullet isn't....off your fucking rocker crazy.

      More redneck than anything else, I'd say. The United States was built on people objecting to laws on moral grounds, and flagrantly violating them. Generally the laws that originally governed this country when it was a colony were wholly unfair. They are unfair again, and I see little benefit to bowing to the whims of the filthy rich.

    30. Re:They asked for it by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Session musicians - already paid
      Studio Engineers - already paid
      Studio rental - already paid
      Production costs - already paid
      Cover artist - already paid
      Distribution costs - already paid

      The only people who get paid copyright fees are the production company and the artist, I personally do not care about the production company (and if the music is more than a year old, they will have already been paid in full, or are incompetent) and if pay the artist anything even 1 cent it would be more than will ever see by me buying the music legitimately

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    31. Re:They asked for it by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think he's smoking the Constitution.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    32. Re:They asked for it by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright only exists to encourage content creators to create more work, not to guarantee them money for the rest of their lives (and that of their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc...). When Disney decided that copyrights should be perpetual and bought a bunch of politicians to make it so, THEY didn't uphold their part of the bargain (as stated in the Constitution).

      Meaning, I have no moral qualms pirating anything where the creator wouldn't receive any benefit from my purchasing it. Pirating Louis Armstrong songs is not morally or ethically wrong, for example, since purchasing it isn't encouraging his zombie to produce further work. The same goes for a stunning amount of music where the band receives very little to no benefit from album sales. For example, if you go buy a Beatles CD, no one from the band receives a cent, so why is pirating it wrong?

      Copyright does not exist to guarantee a revenue stream for giant faceless corporations.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    33. Re:They asked for it by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It does not matter if you and I don't agree that copyright laws are "completely unjust". What matters is that enough other people feel this way that they will violate the law.

      As I stated above, I have no use for marijuana. I don't care one way or the other if marijuana is legalized. All I care is that people are not allowed to drive or operate machinery under the influence of it. After that I don't care.

      Our problem is that so many other people care enough that they will smoke the stuff without your permission, or my permission, or the State's permission, or the Federal Government's permission. Regardless of how you and I feel about it, THEY feel it is unjust, and by sheer force of numbers (that is what counts in a Republic, right?) THEY are correct! The law is unjust.

      Same applies to illegal downloads. You and I may not like them. It doesn't matter. Enough other people have a different opinion, and by sheer force of numbers they are correct!

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    34. Re:They asked for it by digitig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the UK it would be an offence under, IIRC, the computer misuse act. One quirk of that act is that if you've been convicted once under it one's employer can in some circumstances be jointly liable. That can be seriously career-limiting. Oh look, there's a whole load of publicity at the moment about the Kindle being launched in the UK...

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    35. Re:They asked for it by djrok212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have pirated materials on a computer other then your own, then you are an idiot...

    36. Re:They asked for it by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they look at the post and see someone who doesn't like Sony or MS's business practices. Which is fine. A cantankerous connotation in a post does not him or her a troll make, nor does belittling a cantankerous post you a wiseman make. This is /. And if your user # is correct, then you should know better than raise your hoary head at this, of all things, to take potshots at.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    37. Re:They asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice list. Who paid all those things? Could it be the production company? So the production company is out a boatload of money, and you don't care if they get paid. Fine, so the production companies go out of business, now who is paying all those people? The cheap bastards who think everything should be 'free'?

    38. Re:They asked for it by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has to do with the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms.

      No such right exists. A temporary legal privilege exists, but only at the expense of our property rights. That is not an exchange I am willing to make.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    39. Re:They asked for it by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need, huh? What about our concerns? Think those concerns aren't legit, perhaps? We are the customers, have you forgotten? Our concerns come first, and we, not the mess that is the law, are the final arbiter of what is and is not a legit concern. We know quite well that the law has been tainted by special interest lobbying. We are more fair than the content providers. But you must provide good value. We will not part with our hard earned money for a bad deal.

      If I'm going to make a legitimate purchase, I demand that the seller not cheat me. That means no tricks! No DRM, no remotely controlled off switch, no time bombs, no surveillance for marketing or any other purpose. No lock in, no trying to hook me in order to gouge me down the road, no hidden gotchas. And none of this dodging around the first sale doctrine by trying to tell me I bought a license, not a product, no long complicated EULAs full of unenforceable and untrue nonsense trying to claim that I have fewer rights than I actually do. Like, don't try to tell me I'm not allowed to reverse engineer or hack something. And most certainly no root kits! Do you not understand how much contempt you show your customers when you treat them so, and not see the repercussions that will lead to?

      And, you know, there are people who don't buy or freeload either. What have you to say to that? That you don't think there's enough of those to matter?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    40. Re:They asked for it by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sort of but you are forgetting some critical details.

      That 15% that is expenses to produce and advertise the album, including those technical guys you mentioned who are paid from past profits... well the artist has to pay the studio back all of that from their cut. If an album is successful the studio pays NOTHING and their cut becomes 100% profit because the artist doesn't get anything until their advance plus all the expenses required to produce their music is paid off.

      What if there aren't enough sales for the artist to pay back those things? Well they either get a job at Denny's to pay it back or file bankruptcy. That's really the only way a studio loses money, when they are unable to recoup the expenses because they have bankrupt the artist.

      The studios collecting royalties on all internet radio and thus blocking independents from having their stuff broadcast and advertised without the studios is a crime.

    41. Re:They asked for it by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would say that they are terribly unethical if they don't offer refunds. Were I ever to change the licensing agreement in my software (which is already very permissive--about the only thing expressly banned is redistribution of copyrighted material outside of an out-and-out sale where all copies and backups must likewise be transferred to the new purchaser, or destroyed), of course I would offer a refund to anyone who disagreed with the changes. It's only right to do so.

      Most of the pro-piracy sorts seem to paint all content creators with a very broad brush. I spent a few hours with my lawyer drafting up the most permissive license possible that didn't screw me over (and, in some ways, it really does screw me over--for example, there is no prohibition on reverse engineering, for example, so somebody could reverse engineer it and build a competitor relatively easily). The laws that you hate because they give power to the big guy also protect the little guy and let us actually make a living, too.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    42. Re:They asked for it by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really that is a shame, you should call the police to help you recover this stolen work. It would be a shame for you to have deprived of it... wait, you mean you still have the work? Well if society (over 60 million downloaders in the US is enough to call "they" society or the people certainly) didn't steal the work then what did they steal?

    43. Re:They asked for it by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No one cares man... get over it..
      I work in the IT field and i write code all the time and I don't get some nice 200 year "it's mine" law....

      It doesn't mater how much you complain about how wrong it is... no one cares... no one will ever care... you can sue everyone you like and take their Dr. pepper and pizza money but it isn't going to make any difference..

      Normal people work and never get a right to demand that what they create is theirs..

      Times have changed and you can cry and moan but no one cares,

      Thank You,
      ae

    44. Re:They asked for it by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I earnestly want him to shuffle off this mortal coil because people like him directly harm me and my ability to make a livelihood, for the puerile benefit of free entertainment.

      Can you explain how, exactly, this directly harms you? Can you even explain how it's indirect harm? And no, you're not allowed to assume they would pay for whatever it is you're selling if that was the only way to obtain it.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    45. Re:They asked for it by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Capitalism implies risk. In fact, when Ronald Reagan was running for President back in 1980 I remember him saying capitalism did not guarantee anyone the right to succeed, it guaranteed them the right to fail. I never forgot that.

      Now, I don't have a problem with the production company making money. That's a good thing.

      I have a problem when they step on my rights to make that money. We can argue all day over what my legitimate rights are and get nowhere. I just think you should pop over to The New York Time's web-site before too long. On Monday they had a really cool article on how production companies are requiring artists to produce two CDs worth of material for every CD they market. It usually takes twelve songs to make a CD. The production companies are now requiring artists to produce as many as twelve additional songs so that Target can have two exclusive songs to match the two exclusive songs on the Best Buy version, and so on.

      Wait a minute! Who's getting screwed here? I'm starting to lose track.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  3. We need a "sensationalist" tag by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for when we vote stories down. "Stupid" kinda works, but IMO it's not specific enough.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by Manip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it sensationalist? Perhaps.
      But are people who struggle to read being hurt by it? Yes.

      But I'm sure to 95% of the population "those" people aren't important.

    2. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by tolan-b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't think that having functionality removed from something you've bought, after the fact, is a problem?

    3. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do we need a "sensationalist" tag? Is CmdrTaco abusing his power as editor? What's stopping him from using these powers to spy on your Slashdot viewing habits? Will he kill your family and steal your very soul through your nose? And what about his wife? Why don't we ever hear about her? What's she got to hide?

      All very suspicious. Terrifying, you might say...

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    4. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by ukyoCE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a great point, and really drives to the heart of the problem with this stuff. Someone needs to start suing for misleading advertising, whatever laws cover that.

      I'm sure they have a TOS that says they can come by and bang your mom whenever they want, but hopefully the courts will call BS on that.

      To be somewhat fair to Amazon (and Apple, and so on) they're not exactly the boogeymen here. Obviously Amazon thinks automated text-to-speech isn't a "performance" and should be included and allowed in all works. But the content owners are saying "disable text to speech or we pull our works". Just like the music labels with DRM.

      We know for a fact that the content owner's are serious - they think they have a monopoly, and would rather make their content unavailable than to make it available in the form customers want.

      Perhaps Amazon is even sitting back praying that a customer will sue them for disabling/removing text-to-speech so that they can point their finger at a court when telling the publishers "We can't disable text to speech".

    5. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by dnormant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This story was important to me. My wife wants to buy one of these and as long as stories like this come out I'll encourage her to buy the paper copies.

      In my house this isn't sensationalist, it's a story about DRM and Amazons growing use of it.

    6. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't think that having functionality removed from something you've bought, after the fact, is a problem?

      This is the big issue for me.

      Say I'm shopping for a new toaster. There's all sorts of toasters on the market, lots of good models to choose from. Ultimately I decide to buy one specifically because it has a built-in bagel slicer... But not just any bagel slicer - it's some kind of high-powered laser bagel slicer.

      But, after I buy the thing, lawsuits start cropping up. Kids are sticking their fingers in the thing and getting them sliced off. Traditionally manufacturers have done a recall if something like this happened... Or issued a warning... Or designed new packaging that indicates it isn't kid-safe... Or redesigned the product so that kids can't stick their fingers in it...

      Not anymore though. These days they'd just send the kill signal and disable the laser bagel slicer. Suddenly my toaster, which I bought specifically for the bagel slicer, has no bagel slicer.

      A key feature that made me buy that product, instead of another, is gone. A feature that may have made one product cost more than another, is gone. A feature that I liked and used, is gone.

      I definitely have a problem with that.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:We need a "sensationalist" tag by Danse · · Score: 4, Informative

      It should be considered to be theft on a massive scale. What else would we call it when A deprives B of something that they paid for fair and square?

      The problem with "buying" digital content these days is that the only way you can legally purchase it is by agreeing to 50 pages of legalese that basically strip you of any rights you could possibly have with regard to the information you're buying. Thus, you are giving them money without any assurance that you'll actually be able to make any use of what you're buying. Nice racket they've got going, huh?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  4. tags are in the books by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unless they upload a replacement, the book would have to have all the possible tags attached. I'm assuming the books are on the device itself. Obviously, I don't know enough about the Kindle2.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:tags are in the books by wstrucke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a law suit waiting to happen if there is no disclosure that the books will have these "flags" at the time of purchase.

    2. Re:tags are in the books by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a law suit waiting to happen if there is no disclosure that the books will have these "flags" at the time of purchase.

      Big fucking deal. If history is any guide, the affected consumers will get a credit for $0.99 off their next purchase from Amazon while the law firm who initiated the lawsuit will walk away with millions. Amazon will just write it off as a cost of doing business and go right on screwing their customers, albeit this time with a disclaimer about the DRM flags clearly displayed in a 2pt font.

      Call me cynical.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:tags are in the books by dfay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, I'm sure there is something about it buried in the 20 page license agreement.

    4. Re:tags are in the books by jgtg32a · · Score: 5, Funny

      You sound like an optimist to me

    5. Re:tags are in the books by sciencewhiz · · Score: 4, Informative
      Do you really think Amazon would be that stupid? Once again, a sensationalist story is posted without proper fact checking. From the Kindle DX Product Page

      Kindle DX can read to you. With its Text-to-Speech feature, Kindle DX can read books, blogs, magazines, and newspapers out loud to you, unless the book's rights holder made the feature unavailable.

    6. Re:tags are in the books by ukyoCE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AFAIK Amazon clearly wants to have text-to-speech enabled for all books. It's the publishers (and their threat to remove works if speech is enabled) you should be mad at. Amazon is trying their damnedest to make a compelling ebook product, and like Apple with iTunes, trying to drag the publisher's kicking and screaming onto the internet.

      Like music, I expect once the market is there, people will demand the functionality (or pirate for it, or sue for it) and it will become commonplace.

      If Amazon took a high and mighty moral stand, they would just be killing the market (and their own business opportunity) and letting another eBook maker who WILL compromise their morals take over the market.

      At least we know Amazon is trying to open things up as much as they can.

    7. Re:tags are in the books by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. Great point.

      If you have something against class action lawsuits or "ambulance
      chasers" then feel free to have this stuff litigated on your own
      dime. You will be paying something on the order of $200/hr - $500/hr
      minimum and there will be lots of labor involved.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:tags are in the books by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AFAIK Amazon clearly wants to have text-to-speech enabled for all books. It's the publishers (and their threat to remove works if speech is enabled) you should be mad at.

      If Amazon wants us to direct our ire towards the publishers, then they should have come clean about these flags before selling the Kindle. Except, wait... then it would have flopped, and hard. Instead, they pulled a bait and switch fraud on their customers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Flags by captainboogerhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes I wish Slashdot had a "baseless speculation" flag.

    1. Re:Flags by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clearly you're new here - the "baseless speculation" bit is implicitly set on all stories.

    2. Re:Flags by troc · · Score: 4, Funny

      From his UID, I'd say he was half as new as you :)

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
  6. The Flag That Cannot Be Named by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    But what no one at Amazon will discuss is what other flags are lurking in the Kindle format: is there a "read only once" flag?

    No. But there inside your home on your desk inside your kindle is a flag so vile, so full of hatred, so very <insert your opposing political party here> that when activated it will only let you read books from Oprah's Book Club.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. Hey, it's me pot! Over here with kettle! by its_schwim · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kindle: The iPhone of readers. Proprietary schemes rock.

    1. Re:Hey, it's me pot! Over here with kettle! by ukyoCE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very astute of you to make the comparison between iTunes/iPod/iPhone creating the market for digital music and the resulting consumer demand that allowed them to drop DRM.

      It does indeed sound just like Amazon's Kindle creating the market for E-Books and the resulting consumer demand (and default of enabled) resulting in Text-To-Speech being standard on all E-Books and E-Book readers.

      ...

      Oh wait, or were you trying to say there's something wrong with the iPhone and Kindle?

  8. TFA About Reading-Disabled Students by ancarett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article doesn't talk about the Kindle's other technological back doors at all, so colour me disappointed.

    Still, as a parent of an autistic child, I know how valuable the TTS function can be in our computer programs. As an author, I'm saddened that Amazon's rolled over on this for the publishers' and Author's Guild panic. TTS is not the same as an audiobook performance, nor does it have that possibility any time soon.

    --
    ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
    1. Re:TFA About Reading-Disabled Students by BaileDelPepino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TTS is not the same as an audiobook performance, nor does it have that possibility any time soon.

      For many intents and purposes, TTS *is* the same as an audiobook. Nobody really believes that TTS is actually copyright infringement; not even the folks in the book industry. They just know that eBook + TTS will compete with their audiobook offerings for the people who like to, say, listen to a book while they drive. Crying "copyright infringement!" is just the most convenient tool at their disposal to protect their bottom line. Now, I'm not saying that I'd be satisfied with a robotic voice croaking out the text of my book, but when faced with a choice between re-buying your content in audiobook format and letting HAL read to you for no additional cost, a lot of people will put up with HAL.

      --
      Miren al Pepino! Los vegetales invidian a su amigo, como él quieren bailar. Pepino Bailarín!
    2. Re:TFA About Reading-Disabled Students by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      The government agrees with you here, which is why there is an exception to the DMCA act for the purpose of enabling TTS.

      Amazon allowing this flag to be switched creates a very real problem for them when it comes time to go after any DRM crackers who are bright enough to claim their tools are only meant for enabling TTS.

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html - reference

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  9. Remote kill or flag change? by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    TFA is very unclear on whether
    • the book binaries have changed, so that the new ones have the flag turned on - but if you already have an existing binary in your Kindle it will work fine; or
    • the Kindle looks for updates to existing book binaries, and applies them automatically

    I think the first is more likely - although the second could be useful in other ways (the Kindle could automatically correct errors in books as they are found).

    1. Re:Remote kill or flag change? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (the Kindle could automatically correct errors in books as they are found).

      Yeah, especially the inconvenient ones in history books.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Remote kill or flag change? by Zerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The book file has to be redownloaded. But you can take all of your book files and archive them to a computer before turning on the cell connection, just in case.

      If book publishers start acting like software publishers, you can always just skip to pirating the books, this doesn't affect user added files(with or without paying, depending on the color of your hat).

  10. forget it by jcgam69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I pre-ordered a Kindle DX. Thanks to the information in this article I have changed my mind and I'm now canceling my order. I would be stupid to pay $500 for a device that can be remotely crippled, when cheaper ebook readers give me full control. What was I thinking?

    1. Re:forget it by jo42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What you really want is a tablet PC running Linux if you are concerned about DRM. Any product where you don't have control over the operating system or environment will always be suspect to the whims of corporate lawyers.

    2. Re:forget it by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm curious what other ebook readers you're looking at. So far, I've used a Foxit eBook reader, Sony PRS-700, kindle, iPhone and various computers.

      The Foxit totally sucks. It's got a nice formfactor, but it's slow and difficult to read PDFs without having the text get wrapped and lose all spacing (sometimeswordsgetjumbledtogetherlikethis).

      The Sony reader is pretty good except that the glare totally sucks and when reading PDFs, it's only got pre-set zoom levels; no fit-to-width, so the text is constantly either too small or it's the right size, but wraps all over the place.

      I was waiting for the PlasticLogic to come out (something like mid 2010, last I heard). It's a good size, so PDFs will render well and it seems fast and very sturdy.

      I haven't had a chance to check out any ePub books, yet, but I've heard good things. The only problem is that Amazon has a HUGE selection of eBooks for the kindle and ePub doesn't have that many commercial books; at least, I was only able to find 1 book I wanted in ePub format and 2 or 3 in PDF format.

      Considering that books from O'Reilly, Pragmatic Programmers and other tech publishers are available only in PDF (since the kindle format doesn't support fonts for code snippets), I feel like the new KindleDX is the perfect solution--not only does it allow me to buy the most widely available eBook format but it also allows me to read PDFs on an acceptably large screen.

      I tried to hold off, but I HAD to preorder the KindleDX... I'm a little concerned that it's not gonna be as good as I hope, but I think it'll be a good purchase in the longrun. I really hope that amazon/publishers come to their senses and stop with this garbage of disabling TTS or other features.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    3. Re:forget it by sciencewhiz · · Score: 2, Informative
      The "crippling" was disclosed on the product page. Did you not read it before spending $500 on it? From the Kindle DX Product Page

      Kindle DX can read to you. With its Text-to-Speech feature, Kindle DX can read books, blogs, magazines, and newspapers out loud to you, unless the book's rights holder made the feature unavailable.

    4. Re:forget it by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, considering that the kindle is already powered by linux, it's completely idiotic to assert that he's "shoving your pet OS down your throat" because you're already running linux on the Kindle.

      Also, there is a text-to-speech is a standard package in one of the most common desktop managers for linux. I use the text-to-speech sometimes while I'm doing the dishes, etc. It does about as well as most text-to-speech programs do. You don't have to use kde to do it, ktts is just the front-end, it uses the festival synthesis system, so a front end might be out there can use a less full-featured OS than kde, which might be faster and hence more suitable for an e-book reader device. I wonder if it's possible to get the festival speech synthesis system running on it and bypass amazon's DRMed solution all together.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    5. Re:forget it by bartosz.broda · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are a few problems with tablets. Most important ones IMO are: power consumption and comfort of reading.

      Maybe you should try something like Hanlin V3 . Cheap, reliable, and comfortable. Of course it runs linux, and you can get some free OS/software from OpenInkpot

    6. Re:forget it by Speare · · Score: 3, Informative
      [blockquote]No, what I really want is the Kindle without kill switches, but thanks for shoving your pet OS down our throats.[/blockquote]

      Take it as shorthand. Considering that (1) the proprietary Kindle product has kill switches, (2) other proprietary products and OSes have demonstrated their willingness to include kill switches, what you really want is some sort of machine and OS that is completely open to auditing, ensuring that you have the capability to do whatever is within your legal rights, despite any consumer-unfriendly corporate opinions to the contrary. The word Linux is just quicker to type.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  11. Killflags... by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and they are internet capable? I'm going to laugh my ass off when some hacker reduces every ebook on every Kindle in the world to a useless pile of bits.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Killflags... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and I hope one does, and soon. People need to know the risk of all these kill switches everything is getting.Better the learn it now when it only impacts a relatively few people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. As my wife says, "Fuck 'em." by Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was going to get my wife a Kindle for her birthday. She asked, "What's the point? The books are almost as expensive, and I can't send them to my mom or sister when I'm done. And what happens when the hardware breaks, and I need to get a new one? I don't want to be forced to get a Kindle just because those are the books I bought before. Fuck 'em."

    My wife, the non-geek. She gets it.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:As my wife says, "Fuck 'em." by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't use amazon as your book source use TPB, it has a rather nice selection

    2. Re:As my wife says, "Fuck 'em." by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Informative

      She obviously doesn't read anything from the Gutenberg project, which for me, is entirely the point of my Kindle.

      This is what I'm reading currently. I've wanted to read this for years, but I'm cheap.

      http://www.amazon.com/Greens-History-English-People-D/dp/0260218839/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242313760&sr=8-10

      $110 is the price for 125 year old books. It's only available used. Note: this is different than Green's SHORT history. This one is the big one, Green's Opus Magnum. The best history of the English People ever written to that point.

      Got the entire text for free on Gutenberg and am reading it on the Kindle. At this rate, it won't take me long to be able to completely justify the entire purchase cost of the Kindle.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  13. I'm done with Amazon by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was a customer for over ten years. Spent well over ten thousand dollars there in books and other items. But for the last several years their customer support has declined, their partner businesses engage in numerous disreputable practices that mirror the abuses at ebay, their manipulation of book rankings on so-called adult material (gay), and they seem intent on monopolizing the epublishing trade. I closed my account and won't look back.

    Yes, the Kindle-DX looks like a nice machine. But what one gives up in basic rights as a reader is more than enough to keep me buying used books printed on dead trees for some time. And I can always scan the books I buy to load on an ereader with less virulent DRM limitations and corporate controls. I own an iRex iLiad, that while not the best manufacturer, at least they offer a free Linux development environment to download and install. Users are hacking new software on that platform. Does anyone here expect Amazon to allow that? Not me.

    BTW: closing my account with Amazon took several phone calls and numerous transfers from one department to the next. They don't like it when customers attempt to leave them and make the process as difficult as possible. Yet another reason to never give them my money again.

    1. Re:I'm done with Amazon by barzok · · Score: 4, Funny

      BTW: closing my account with Amazon took several phone calls and numerous transfers from one department to the next. They don't like it when customers attempt to leave them and make the process as difficult as possible.

      Sounds like canceling an AOL account in the '90s.

    2. Re:I'm done with Amazon by maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

      To remove my credit card from their database. Also, to remove my customer record. And finally, to let them know just how displeased I am with their business practices.

    3. Re:I'm done with Amazon by castironpigeon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After spending the better part of 2 days on the phone with Amazon support staff I had to threaten that the next person they'd be hearing from was my lawyer... all to get tracking information on a package that was almost 2 weeks overdue. This sort of shit seems unbelievable until it actually happens to you.

      --
      mmmm...forbidden donut
  14. I have remote flags also... by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...such as the "don't buy anything I can't substantially control" flag.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  15. Solution by bhunachchicken · · Score: 3, Funny

    Buy a real book and then have it read to you by your girlfr... oh, wait, this is Slashdot. Ignore me :)

  16. Lawsuit? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't one of those Blind Advocacy groups sue them for discrimination?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:Lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't one of those Blind Advocacy groups sue them for discrimination?

      They would if they could see the article.

  17. Re:No Turning back? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  18. Random house by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget to direct your ire at Random House for doing this as well as Amazon for rolling over.

    Call them and bitch.
    http://www.randomhouse.com/about/contact.html

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. And that's why my Kindle's flag... by bobdotorg · · Score: 3, Funny

    And that's why my Kindle's flag will be a Jolly Roger.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  20. You Don't Own MY Works. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is my post. I wrote it. Is is a creative and inventive work which benefits society at large. Moreover, it is a concrete example of intellectual property. This post, that you are reading right now, belongs to me. It is mine.

    This post is mine in the same way that my house, or car or clothes are mine. These words that I have written are given as much protection as freedom of speech or to vote. They need it. If just anyone is allowed to come along and copy them, or alter them, or include them in another work without my permission, then it will be as though my right to speak freely has been taken away, or I have been disenfranchised.

    If someone else reads these words without paying me, or worse sells them to others to read, I will have been robbed. It will be as if my home was burned down, or my family sold into slavery. An injustice of the highest order.

    These words need protections. Strong protections. This post needs to be defended, even as it is copied endless and effortlessly across millions of computers, each recopying it hundreds of times, at negligible expense. The worth of these words is worth more than all the bits it occupies in cyberspace. Indeed, their worth is worth more than the worth of cyberspace, and even society itself.

    For if these words, if this post cannot be afforded the most stringent, uncompromising and sacred protection that our society has to offer, then our society will not be worth the bits it is represented on. The reality of digital worldwide transmission must not be allowed to compromise the most fundamental rights we have. The protection of this post is a challenge which our civilization must meet, or else our civilization must fall.

    This post and all related materials, Copyright © ObsessiveMathsFreak 2009.

    All rights reserved, worldwide.

    None of the materials provided in this post site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without express permission in writing from the author, along with suitable monetary compensation.

    Unauthorized use of the materials in this post are subject to prosecution to the fullest exent allowable by law.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  21. memento flag by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the memento flag:
          you can only read the chapters once and in reverse order only.

    the pulp fiction flag:
        chapter order is randomized

    the Bedazzled flag:
        last page is missing in mystery novels

    the pat robertson flag:
        all naughty words like "gay" and "damn" are changed to "homo" and "golly"

    they also introduced several modes:

    leet speak mode:
        so your p4r3nts can't read over your shoulder.

    The beevis and bottomhead flag:
          all accidental double entedres are bolded (heh heh).

    Ascii art mode

    speed reading mode: the words disappear from the page at defined rate.

    Controverial undocumented ebonics and hot coffee modes.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:memento flag by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speed Reading Mode could actually be kind of fun, assuming it could be toggled.

  22. Was Stallman Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Was Stallman Right? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 3, Informative

      I first read that shortly after it was first published. At that time I thought the dystopian future he described was far fetched. Twelve years later I think he had great foresight. All the elements are now in place. The relentless re-education campaign that inures people to the loss of "little" freedoms here and there are preparing a generation that don't know any better. A generation of sheeple who aren't even aware of the blood-paid freedoms and rights which they are trading away very, very cheaply.

      History will likely judge people like Orwell and Stallman as prophets of sorts.

    2. Re:Was Stallman Right? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

      History will likely judge people like Orwell and Stallman as prophets of sorts.

      Doesn't really seem possible. If they are wrong then that is the last thing that history will judge them as. If they are right then history won't remember them at all.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  23. Can we get a white flag? by Tsaot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we get a White Flag? One that just allows us to surrender? How about a bloody pirate flag? One that shoots cannons at the other flags. I would like at least one device not try to screw me over. (Full Disclosure, I own a Kindle 2.)

  24. You might as well buy it... by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Some clever little bastard will have hacked it by the time they process your order anyway.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  25. PDF as solution? by wandazulu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm interested in the DX because of its native PDF reader, and nothing else. I probably would never buy a book from Amazon to read on it, because everything I want I can get as a PDF, whether it be something technical or literature.

    Because of this, theoretically, I'd be immune to these issues, right? They're my own, drm-free PDFs which can't be remotely deleted or somehow blocked.

    I like the *idea* of the Kindle in that I can carry millions of pages of whatever on a very light device with a good screen. I was trying out my mom's Kindle and I was shocked at how much I *really* liked it; the screen was really great and, while I didn't care for the slow page redraws, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Thus I like the DX idea even more; bigger screen, and drm-free content.

  26. Amazon killed my book. Here's why... by flogger · · Score: 5, Informative
    The reason is straight forward: I asked for a refund. The book I ordered had no cover or table of contents/index. For a reference book, this is unacceptable. There was another version with chapters, etc. So I purchased the one I needed and then sent an email asking for a return.

    The following was from the first paragraph of the email:

    I've requested a refund for "NAME OF BOOK OMITTED". Issuing a refund also removes access to the file. If the item is still on your Kindle, please delete that copy. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access it.

    Well, I watched for it, and not only was access to the file removed, The file is no longer present.

    Amazon has the Kill-switch ability to delete content. I am going to assume they have the ability to delete my personal content I add to through the USB.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  27. This is why I won't get a Kindle by Zuato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or use most other e-readers. The local library is free and paper backs are cheap - I don't have to worry about someone messing with what I am reading...and if they do I can use the book to beat sense into them (please note hard covers are better for this option than paper backs).

  28. Old news by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is old news. The whole brouhaha over this happened months ago. The Kindle 2 came out, with text-to-speech. The Author's Guild whined like little babies claiming it would reduce audiobook sales (presumably they also want to charge you for reading to your kids.) They wanted the functionality removed completely. Amazon reached a compromise, that publishers could opt-out by requesting that it be disallowed on their books.

    There's no point getting your panties in a bunch *now*. The horse is out of the barn. Nor is Amazon the one to complain to. The publishers and the Author's Guild are the ones to complain to.

    If anything, Amazon deserves credit for putting the feature in in the first place without restrictions. Given their business model, you might have expected them to proactively design the feature to the publishers' requirements long before it was released. They might have been like Microsoft who preemptively crippled the Zune's sharing feature.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  29. And this a surprise? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I think I'll stick to paper, thank you very much.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  30. Everyone is upset about this, but not me. by maillemaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To me, this flagging ability should be viewed as a good thing.

    All books should be available from the library FOR FREE. You go to the library, you borrow the book, and you return it in two weeks. You can re-check it out again for another 2 weeks if you want.

    This flagging ability COULD allow this to be done without driving to the library. You COULD use this to NEVER buy a book. You simply "check it out" for 2 weeks and then it vanishes.

    Now I'm skeptical that it will ever be allowed to work this way, but this is the way such devices SHOULD work. If I can go check out a physical copy for 2 weeks, why not a digital copy? If it's free, I don't mind if it vanishes in 2 weeks, just like a library loan would.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  31. Customer is always right? by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. The customer is right unless them being right interferes with another, bigger customer being right. Or it interferes with a number of other customers being right. That's the way it really works.

    The way it should work is, the customer is only right if they are not wrong. In most of Europe, if you go into an establishment looking to have your butt smooched and every single one of your sniffy little needs met, you will be shown the door rather than letting you waste the employee's and other customer's time.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Customer is always right? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Has no one hacked the Kindle yet?!?!

      I'm surprised this 'feature' wasn't already known about and defeated by now....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Customer is always right? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. The customer is right unless them being right interferes with another, bigger customer being right. Or it interferes with a number of other customers being right. That's the way it really works.

      A smart business should be careful with that logic. Customer Y might be bigger than customer X, but if Y buys 2 $100 items, and X buys 10 $25 items in the same period, they'd better think twice about pissing off X.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Customer is always right? by Nikker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's probably better no one touches it. The kindle is a cool concept but it is being sold into the hands of avid (book) readers, who on average open up to a much wider audience that are likely on average more intelligent then bloggers ;)

      Let them get burned they are smart enough to take care of these things on their own. Sometimes I think these companies sell all this DRM crap because they know it will be cracked. This way a large portion of the suckers will get caught on the treadmill and the ones who other wise would have asked for the companies head on a steak, will default to cracking their device to get it to work and keep quiet.

      I personally hope all of the tech savvy back away from this and for once let a company release something and let their customers suffer for a bit. When Jane Doe pays for something and finds out the company doesn't want her to have certain options available to her that's when you will have a good reason to fight back. It's not so easy to do that when you've already hacked the crap out of it and its downloading torrents while calculating your BMI after your breakfast reading.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  32. We're getting away from the point. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the article (someone has to read it, but what the hell, this is /.), the subject of piracy is not an issue.

    The point you're all missing is that any legally downloaded copy of a book can be prevented from being accessed via TTS by a customer with some form of reading disability.

    I have no axe to grind regarding the merits (or otherwise) of the technology, but the point is that if you have paid for the content, you should be allowed to access it however you want. Deliberately locking out legitimate users with disabilities is seriously bad medicine, and anyone who does so deserves all the bad karma he'll get.

  33. We teach dyslexic kids by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The entire reason we bought Kindles was the text to speech function. Our school teaches dyslexic kids and any technology that allows these kids to read ANY book, whether or not an audio book version is available, is extremely useful.

    Without unlimited text to speech kindles are reduced, from a useful teaching tool, to simply a nifty gadget. Without TTS, there is very little to justify the cost of these over other e-book readers.

    Good job Amazon! You've just allowed your book publishers to kill a potentially HUGE market for these things - schools.

    -ted

  34. Annoying? Yes. Disturbing? Not entirely. by Lord+Jester · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a Kindle (2), purchased just under a month ago.

    While it is annoying that these flags exist, it is part of the TOS that you have to agree to.

    Personally, the TTS feature is not of great value to me. If I'd been concerned with audio books, I would not have purchased a device to read them. Besides, it is clearly stated on the product page that the TTS is experimental and available where allowed by the publisher.

    However, I fairly certain that the flag exists in the book itself and not in the Kindle. If a publisher decides to withdraw TTS rights, Amazon only needs to update the book in you server side library and upon next sync, you receive the updated book that blocks TTS. Otherwise, the Kindle's minimal storage would need to be used to maintain a database of disallowed content for the TTS tools. From a developer standpoint, that is poor implementation.

    Any large scale functionality changes require a firmware upgrade. Currently my Kindle is unable to receive these as I have a hack to use custom idle screens. I have to remove the hack in order to update.

  35. Kindle Content Return Policy by schmiddy · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the Kindle Content Return Policy:

    Any content you purchase for Kindle from the Amazon Kindle store is eligible for return and refund if we receive your request within 7 days of the date of purchase. Once a refund is issued, the item will be removed from Your Media Library and will no longer be readable on your Kindle.

    --
    http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    1. Re:Kindle Content Return Policy by JPLemme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what happens if you buy a book and they disable the TTS capability 10 days later? You're SOL?

    2. Re:Kindle Content Return Policy by Brandee07 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Out of the 63 Kindle books I've purchased since Feb 08, only one has had TTS Disabled (Cesar Milan's "A Member of the Family," purchased Nov 2008)

      The return policy states quite clearly seven days, not seven months, but I've submitted a return request on the basis of TTS anyway.

      I'll let you know what happens.

    3. Re:Kindle Content Return Policy by Brandee07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From Amazon Customer Support:

      If you check your records under the View Your Digital Orders link at www.amazon.com/your-account you'll see that you purchased this book in November of 2008. At that time, there was no text-to-speech function available for the Kindle (Original), and we had not yet made any announcements about Kindle 2 or its text-to-speech option, so there is no less functionality for that book now compared to when it was first purchased.

      Additionally, we cannot refund Kindle purchases that are more than 7 days old. You can read the Kindle Content Return Policy and contact us via phone or e-mail from our Kindle Support pages here:

      http://www.amazon.com/kindlesupport

      They do have a good point. When I bought it, there was no TTS anywhere, as the K2 hadn't been announced.

      I wonder if they'll consider differently for books purchased more recently?