Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Bezos Offers Apology For Erasing 1984
levicivita writes "From the down-but-not-out NYT comes an article (warning: login may be required) about user backlash against Kindle's embedded DRM: 'Last week, Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon, offered an apparently heartfelt and anguished mea culpa to customers whose digital editions of George Orwell's "1984" were remotely deleted from their Kindle reading devices. Though copies of the books were sold by a bookseller that did not have legal rights to the novel, Mr. Bezos wrote on a company forum that Amazon's "'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles."' Bezos's post is here."
what the fuck? seriously?
How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT.
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
The fact that steam does allow you to redownload your purchased digital goods is not because of DRM, but it is simply a service they offer. They could just as well offer it without DRM.
I know you will be modded insightful soon, but oh my god what a ignorant stance on DRM to have.
Wow, I know this is /. and unbridled hatred is required for certain topics (one of which being DRM), but yikes!
DRM (digital rights management) is just a tool, and isn't inherently bad (or good). Like all tools, it can be (and obviously almost always is, currently) abused. Just because most companies are using DRM to offer what essentially amounts to no rights doesn't mean the DRM itself is bad (though I will give you the DRM software that entrenches in your system is pretty bad), though it does mean the companies involved are.
While you scoff (to put it lightly) at redownload ability being given to you by DRM, that actually is the case: Valve (and others) have given you the right to redownload the software at any time, because they can verify that you have purchased it through your account, and you have the right to what you purchased.
DRM manages your digital rights with respect to a work, which can range from a practically free range (doubtful anyone does this) to what practically amounts to putting you in an iron maiden (the common case, which yes is absolutely disgusting). DRM should be used to uphold the rights we've currently got with non-digital media, but instead companies are deeming that we don't have any rights at all, which is reflected by what the DRM is set for. But again, it's not the DRM concept itself that's the evil part, but the companies that are taking our rights away.
I see DRM as potentially being able to make for a very comfortable digital age (guaranteeing the rights we should have, while helping the companies out by restricting rights we shouldn't have), though until such time as rightsholders come out of the dark ages, it will indeed be a tool to beat the consumers to a bloody pulp. :(
I'll honestly admit, though, that it'll take one hell of an effort to get us to the "good DRM" place from the "bad DRM" place, though. Here's to hoping, though.