Slashdot Mirror


DRM and the Destruction of the Book

Hugh Pickens writes "EFF reports that Cory Doctorow spoke to a crowd of about a hundred librarians, educators, publishers, authors, and students at the National Reading Summit on How to Destroy the Book and said that 'anyone who claims that readers can’t and won’t and shouldn’t own their books are bent on the destruction of the book, the destruction of publishing, and the destruction of authorship itself.' Doctorow says that for centuries, copyright has acknowledged that sacred connection between readers and their books and that when you own a book 'it’s yours to give away, yours to keep, yours to license or to borrow, to inherit or to be included in your safe for your children' and that 'the most important part of the experience of a book is knowing that it can be owned.'"

73 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Silly me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And here I was thinking the content of the book was the most important part.

    1. Re:Silly me by Kjellander · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you own a book, it's yours to read. Digital distribution is the future, and DRM implemented properly isn't a bad thing. I'll take a cheap digital copy over a bulky, inconvenient physical copy that I can sell or give away any day.

      And I won't! Part of the fun with owning books is the fact that you own them. I've bought childrens books that I'll never read myself, but they were some of my fav books when I was an infant, and if I ever get kids I will read them to them, and they will be theirs.

      On top of that one of my prize books in the shelf is a first edition of Feynman Lecture on Physics volume 2, originally owned by a student named Marcley. If you know him let me know. There is something special about old books. Sure, some of them are very dated, but some are as fresh as a daisy, like Tensings old books about getting to the top of Mount Everest.

      Fsck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!

    2. Re:Silly me by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And here I was thinking the content of the book was the most important part.

      To be frank, you've missed the point. The content is just something that you use to achieve something. To be happy, to be sad, to share something with your friends. To fix your car; any time you want. To know what is wrong with your pet hamster and how to heal it. To learn to ski better. Up till now it has also been used to achieve richer authors but with very specific limits.

      The aim here is to use control of the content to be able to tax your ability to do all those things I mentioned above and more. When you remember something from your hamster book about a strange rare disease, you'll have to buy the same book all over again because now Amazoid E-Reader IV doesn't support the books you bought for your now broken kindle. Even if your book reader is still working, your key to the content will have long ago expired. If you are really unlucky, they may force you to buy the upgraded new edition.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    3. Re:Silly me by Pieroxy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fsck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!

      You actually forget the one thing that makes a digital copy vs a physical book: It takes half a millisecond to duplicate it, and it is free to do so. This is of course scaring the publishers, distributors and authors out of their minds. So they "invent" stuff to make sure only the original owner can read the book. In the process, they make the whole experience nightmarish, but hey...

      This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.

      Trying to prevent someone to distribute a digital book (for non profit) is the equivalent of preventing him/her to have free speech. And this problem is new because only with a computer you can communicate data in such a bulky way with absolutely no loss.

      Mindsets will change, and I firmly believe that noone will be able to prevent the information flow. This is the very nature of the human mind. Look at MP3s, they are now wold with no DRM whatsoever. Because no other way will work better than that one.

    4. Re:Silly me by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like having my 'portable library' in the form of my reader. However until they make it bathtub proof, hardcopy will still have a place...

    5. Re:Silly me by natehoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be far more accepting of DRM if copyright law went back to being a reasonable period. It's very easy today to envision an eternal copyright starting the day Disney created anything they feel is of value, and continuing in perpetuity thereafter.

      If copyright was 10 or 15 years, I'd be OK with draconian DRM restrictions on the things that are under copyright, provided there was a way to break it when the items go into public domain. As it is, though, anything written after my father was born is unlikely to fall into public domain before I die.

      Apart from reading it, which is the best part of course, I prefer owning a book. I enjoy sharing them with friends. I appreciate the simple fact that every book I've ever purchased is mine forever (barring damage or theft, of course). No corporation or government has the right to remove my books from my control, and it's impossible to change them - you'd have to come to my house and get them.

      If I could buy an e-book knowing that in a few years the DRM would be lifted and I could freely share it, and knowing that my Doctrine of First Sale rights would be protected in the meantime, I'd seriously consider some form of e-book reader. But recent events and the history of copyright holders have demonstrated otherwise, and the length of copyright means that the money I'd spend on e-books is for a short-term rental on a book, and if I want to rent my books I'll donate more money and time to my library and get them that way.

      Heck, I'd be happy with an analog of the current "hardcover / paperback" model. For the first year or two of a book's existence, it could be available only in a high-priced, heavily DRMed version that is not allowed to be shared. After a year or two, anyone who spent the money on the hardcover then gets an unlock code that allows them to freely share and keep their copy without DRM, and an unlocked "mass market" version comes out at a discounted price that can be shared. I'd happily buy a deeply DRM-encrusted bookreader and buy new releases if I knew there was a sunset provision on the DRM that would allow me to keep and share them in a reasonable timeframe. I'd even pay the same I do now for a new release, as long as the contract clearly stated that the book could be unlocked in a relatively short period.

      Paper sucks. Paper is inconvenient, and clumsy, and expensive, and harder to read, and bulky, and subject to damage, loss, and theft.

      ** BUT IT'S MINE **

      And until e-readers can fulfill that desire, I have no desire to get one.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Silly me by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      DRM implemented properly

      Example, please.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Silly me by gbutler69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that, but, soon (very soon I would think) you'll be able to buy a physical book and scan the pages by taking photos of it with your smart-phone which will then OCR and digitize it with almost zero effort. What're they going to do then? Stop printing books at all?

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    8. Re:Silly me by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is of course scaring the publishers, distributors and authors out of their minds.

      You've got two out of three right.

      Unless you're a corporate creep like Vince Flynn, you're not writing books to get rich. You care a lot more about getting your words into peoples' hands than you do about socking away millions and paying off shareholders.

      There's a notion around now that a successful author, or musician, deserves more than just living a comfortable, even lavish lifestyle. They deserve to be a multi-billion dollar phenomenon. Not necessarily because that "content creator" wants this unspendable wealth, but because he is actually the tip of a corporate pyramid that needs to be fed. At the bottom of the pyramid are some shareholders that the "content-creator" will never know.

      Digital distribution of content should be about allowing creators to distribute their material more easily, more cheaply, more quickly and widely. Not about maximizing the profits for a phalanx of money-sucking barnacles. Those "scared" corporate-types you mention are all about the latter, and they'll hang on to their dysfunctional system as long as they can.

      If you approach digital media to benefit creators, you'll get more good stuff to enjoy. If you approach digital media to maximize profits, you get a lot of expensive dross and grandmothers getting hauled into court by the RIAA.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Silly me by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When my granny died, her grandchildren were asked what knick-knacks of hers they wanted as keepsakes... I asked for a very old, red leather bound Robinson Crusoë that I remembered reading reverently with her as a kid, awed both by the story and the object, which was so much more impressive than my usual paperbacks or modern kid's books.

      So, to me, the object counts, too. Some are signed gifts, also.

      And, the idea is that I can give (very unlikely) or loan that book. I couldn't with an ebook.

      And I'm safe in the idea that it's forever mine, I'll hopefully read it with my nephew some day.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    10. Re:Silly me by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd add a couple of extra concerns:

      - it makes it very easy for repressive regimes to track who bought what: a handful of authentification servers have that info. granted, we may not feel concerned by that right now, but a good part of the world is, and you never know what will happen to us later on. Recent events show that corporations are all too happy to oblige any request from any "big market" government.

      - it even makes possible to recall a book, possibly to change it, which conjures uneasy visions of the Ministry of Truth.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    11. Re:Silly me by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.

      The thing is, in the United States, we regularly limit free speech rights. For example, speech that incites criminal acts (for example, a riot) is regulated. Commercial speech is regulated. Copyright limits freedom of speech. Society would not function otherwise. If we define the sharing of information as freedom of speech, then any company with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your credit card company or bank could share your history of purchases with your insurance company so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own. All of this is information, yet we see fit to regulate the ways in which it is shared.

      I agree with you that DRM is bad and it is an abuse of copyright and the right of first sale. Trotting out the old hacker belief that "information wants to and ought to be free" and "freedom of speech trumps all" does not reflect the mindset of the framers of the United States Constitution nor does it reflect the mindset of society today, regardless of how simple, romantic, and seductive the argument seems.

    12. Re:Silly me by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says authors have to make money by selling books? Here's how I see the future for authors:

      1) Up and coming author puts his first books on the net for free, hoping to gain readership.
      2) Author requests donations from those who like his book (yes, we're at "Profit!" at step 2, but it's small so stay with me here)
      3) Author gains a good sized fan base and a reputation (think Dean Koontz)
      4) Author announces a future book, and sells "access" to parts of the writing process to his fans ("Profit!" again)
      5) Author now has a run-away hit series ala Harry Potter or Twilight (or, god forbid, another Dan Brown book)
      6) Repeat step 4, only with more Profit!
      7) Author sells movie and merchandising rights for big Profit! (this is where authors get rich nowadays anyway, not from book sales)

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    13. Re:Silly me by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You nearly eliminate the analog hole by building a display encoder chip that uses DSA to exchange an AES session key with the decryption/decompression chip.

      Camcorders defeat that. You can't fully eliminate the analog hole except for a video game.

    14. Re:Silly me by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you're a corporate creep like Vince Flynn, you're not writing books to get rich. You care a lot more about getting your words into peoples' hands than you do about socking away millions and paying off shareholders.

      I think this is important to note: people wrote books long before copyright. They wrote because they thought what they were writing was important, or they wrote because they wanted to be famous and admired. Guys wrote to get chicks, because some chicks dig smart creative types. People wrote for all sorts of reasons even when it made them no money whatsoever.

      Same with music, really. I frequently try to make this point when people talk about, "If we don't have strict copyrights and DRM, no one will make music anymore!!!" No, people wrote music and performed music before the invention of the copyright. People are musical creatures. They love singing and dancing and performing for each other. It's fun and helps you get laid. The fact is that you could outlaw all musical performances, and what would happen is people would run underground musical speakeasies. People might even protest by singing songs in the street for free, even knowing they'd go to jail. Some people love music that much.

      Likewise, if you outlawed writing books, people would still write them and distribute them, and there'd be people who would go to jail for smuggling illegal books. You can't stop people from writing books. I've probably written a books-worth of posts on this site for free, and I'd be pretty annoyed if you tried to stop me.

    15. Re:Silly me by Kjellander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is something special about old books...Fsck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!

      The passage of time censors old books more more than DRM. How many physical originals of your prized first edition of Feynman Lecture on Physics volume 2 still exist? Yet, within a matter of seconds, I was able to find a digital copy.

      Digital allows the written word to live forever.

      Tons. Paper doesn't degrade that quickly you know. Some may be thrown away, sure, but a lot of them are just lost by being in someone's bookshelf, or some random box of old books somewhere.

      The whole concept of buying a book is totally different from renting a DRM digital copy. I love the fact that ,my oldest book is from 1954 and I was born in 1976. That is a lot older than the first bits I own. I do have a copy of 2.11 BSD, which I have simulated, a copy of Unix version 7, which I haven't simulated and an old ½" tape of some unix, probably System III for 32 bit VAX which I don't have any hardware to read. SHIT I have immense problems justtrying to use my old C64 and Amiga programs I did as a kid.......... but it is no surprise I can easily read all my letters from classmates from the same time.

      Don't get me wrong, I love Project Gutenberg. But to this date, it hasn't given me the same preservation factor as in owning old books and keeping my old letters and drawings and notebooks. And I really, really, really try to save my old digital bits, but it's really fuucking hard. My old 5½" floppies probably aren't readable anymore.

      So, to sum it up. I have digital bits from the late 70s, and printed stuff from the 50's, and my aunt has my granddad's diaries and he was born in 1896 so that kinda kicks the buttt out of your DRM:ed works.

    16. Re:Silly me by Kjellander · · Score: 2

      Fuck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!

      For God's sake, fixed that for you. In this of all statements.

      In my sincerest depths, thank you sir! I though, in my silly mind that slashdot would censor me, even though I am writing this form Sweden, a supposedly free country. The Chilling Effect of your american new speak forced me to change my original FUCK to a lame fsck in order to evade the imaginary digital censors. For this enlightenment, I thank thee.

      I do not however need to get your god into this. I'm not a slave to a god who doesn't fucking exist.

    17. Re:Silly me by webdog314 · · Score: 2

      While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works. 99.9% of all authors do NOT live lavish lifestyles. It's a living, but usually, not a very good one. I would love to be able to distribute my works digitally, but I know that for every 1 copy I actually sell, 10 people will download it for free off a USENET group or website. Sure, people could do the same thing with a paper book and a copy machine, but it took time and effort, and the end result was usually something that was less than the original. Today, I can make a perfect copy nearly instantly and put it up on the net so that it is forever available to anyone with a net connection for free, irrevocably. Once it's out there, it's out there, and anyone with half a brain can find it. I think I may be in the growing minority of people that still prefer to read books without batteries, so my chances of ever making more than a ghost of a profit off a publication is next to nil once a work has gone DRM'less on the net. And you wonder why authors are scared? And no, most authors don't spends years of their time and an amazing amount of frustration publishing a work simply for the joy of seeing it in print. Sure, that's wonderful, but I'd like to be able to eat now and again as well, so yeah, I'm in it for the money.

      If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).

    18. Re:Silly me by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but if an author can't get an advance from a publishing company, fewer authors will be able to afford to take the time away from their "real jobs" to write a book. Yes, you can build an audience using unpolished, unedited work, and yes, you can take many years to write a book, but the first route leaves you looking like an amateur and the second route means you are more likely to get frustrated and give up halfway through.

      The vast majority of books aren't a hit on the level of Harry Potter or Twilight. Most barely break even. The way that an author can afford to write them is by taking an advance and writing the book. It's the advances that keep the author fed, clothed, and sheltered between books if it's budgeted properly. I'm sure book signings and other "feelies" can help, but for every New York Times bestseller, there are hundreds of decent books that barely break even.

    19. Re:Silly me by gun26 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So only "rich people" can afford hobbies? Only "rich people" are motivated to do something for any reason beyond financial gain? What a dreadfully perverted view of human nature you have. The existence of legions of unpublished or published-but-financially-unsuccessful authors out there is proof of how wrong you are. People have been motivated to create things for far longer than the relatively recent existence of mass media.

      Creators who are prospering in a the internet and digital economy are learning ways of making a living that do not depend on charging a fee for every digital copy of their work that exists. Cory Doctorow himself is a success story in the digital economy. The geek-chic musician Jonathan Coulton is another. Neither man will ever have the riches of a Stephen King, say, or a Paul McCartney. But do we really want to cripple the distribution of digital copies of all their work with DRM, solely to create the artificial scarcity to give them a chance - and only a chance, mind - at King-like riches?

      Today the music industry is dying, mostly because they add little to the success of a musician in a digital world. The physical product the have traditionally depended on for their income - a circular disc of plastic housed inside an annoying plastic case that is too easily broken - holds little intrinsic appeal for most people. Hence the success of downloadable distribution for music - including both legal distribution through iTunes and friends and illicit distribution through bittorrent and peer-to-peer networks.

      The book publishing industry is in a lot better shape, solely because the physical product they depend on has a lot more intrinsic appeal for their customers. I, with lots of bookshelves throughout my house, can testify to that myself. As long as people find books pleasing to hold, browse through, or cuddle up with, book publishers will be all right despite the existence of the Kindle and its competitors.

    20. Re:Silly me by aurispector · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make an interesting point because it's clear that publisher's problems are only going to increase as technology advances. Hard copies have the advantage of being durable but not easily copied. Individual electronic copies are exactly the opposite. One big problem is that the politics perverting copyright law have changed it from the original intent of eventually bringing IP into the public domain for the benefit of society at large. This concept is being transitioned into a system that allows rights-holders to profit from it in perpetuity.

      Contrast this with the patent system where the time limits are still more strictly enforced. Any real debate over copyright should include the potential benefits to society at large, but in reality this won't happen because society at large doesn't have an army of high priced lawyers bringing suits and lobbying congress.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    21. Re:Silly me by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I got a nook for my brother for Christmas because he can't physically hold a book. I buy audio books and ebooks both. If the book is something worth reading again I buy the hard copy. ebooks are much less expensive than the regular format. I think this is an important feature that most of the discussion has overlooked. With all of the crap being written these days I don't want to keep a copy lying around. Audiobooks are great because they let me do something while I'm listening to a book. Another feature of audiobooks often overlooked is that the narrator is what makes a so so book worth having. The best narrators make reading a book a performance. I find that they are almost as important as the author. Jim Dale with Rowling; Stephen Briggs and Pratchett; Patrick Tull and Obrien are all outstanding pairings. When the author is able to do both (Neil Gaiman) you get not only the authors words but you get the meaning he put into them. Another unrealized potential of ebooks is for user manuals text books and other transient content. They would be a great tool for field personnel to carry for reference. This is the type of information you don't want to keep because it changes with time. Of course, it would help if the vendors of these technologies would open them up so that more people could write applications for them.

    22. Re:Silly me by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where I work we recently switched office buildings. And before we knew we had a dedicated room for a library of old product manuals, we were lamenting the fact that management didn't want us taking books and manuals 15 years old to the new building. Our customers still use these products, and online help files of this era do not exist.

      My solution was to slice the binding off books and run them through the Ricoh scanner/copiers and turn them all into PDFs at 20 pages per minute.

      Luckily we have yet to need to do that, but even at my home office I can do the same thing for less than $200.

    23. Re:Silly me by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guess what, most artists of any kind don't get to take time off from their "real jobs" until they become well known.

      If it makes you feel better, we can modify my list to include writing a short story, then raising funds to write a full-length novel based on that.

      The point I was making is that instead of getting an advance from a publisher who wants a return on investment, authors would get an advance from their audience who want the finished work itself.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    24. Re:Silly me by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Steven King tried this with a book back in Y2K or thereabouts - and based on *HIS* criteria, it was an absolute flop.

      But that sort of brings a good point into play. With digital books, I could conceivably print them to paper in any fashion I want (for personal use). For instance, I want a nice leather-bound set of King's Dark Tower series - I'd love to get a digital version to get one of the print-on-demand companies to make a copy for me. Or Harry Potter, or Dune, or any number of a classics that I can't get in a particular form.

    25. Re:Silly me by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not saying that they should be guaranteed an income or a living. What I am saying is that it's hard to be an artist. Those that are truly motivated because art is a calling will be fine no matter what happens. Those who have talent but would like to make a living are either going to have to produce what society wants (as society's judgment of the market value of their work is what feeds, clothes, and shelters them) or do something else for a living, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.

      However, without incentives, only those that are truly devoted to their calling or who have a knack for producing what society wants will be able to create. Some of the most radical, thought-provoking, and critically acclaimed art is not popular or profitable, much like basic science research is rarely profitable, but they both advance mankind.

      What I see on Slashdot is hypocrisy. On one hand, people complain that science, basic, fundamental science, is not being funded enough, and that governments or large organizations should be giving more grants to researchers to keep science from being a strictly commercial venture, as commercial ventures, as a rule, focus on what brings in more profit in the near and medium terms. Some organizations (for example, back when Bell Labs was active) focus on the long term, but most focus on the short term.

      On the other hand, people are complaining that artists shouldn't expect funding in the form of grants (advances, for example) from governments or large organizations even though artistic contributions can have similar effects on society. They feel that artists should produce what is profitable. Ideas are powerful and insight into how we perceive this world, either scientific or artistic, has real meaning, regardless of if they bring in the most profit.

  2. Prior Art by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

    God spoke. He wants His commandments back. It might get very wet for a long time.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  3. Give Away a PHYSICAL Copy, Sure by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing) didn't have a clue about what effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry.

    1. Re:Give Away a PHYSICAL Copy, Sure by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing)

      He was referencing the founders of the United States who write its constitution. And your "effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry" is entirely bogus. It is a positive effect, not a negative one. Doctorow gives his books away for free on his website, yet is on the New Your Times bestseller list. Care to explain that one, Einstein?

      He explains why in the forward to his book Little Brother. There's no way you're going to buy a book by an author you've never heard of, but there's no risk in checking one out from the library (there are way more than 100K libraries, each with a copy for everyone to check out and read), and if you like the author's work, THEN you're likely to buy.

      Nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many, many artists and authors have gone hungry from obscurity. Your argument is as bogus as Jack Valenti's "the VCR tape is to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper is to women". You see how that one worked out.

      Valenti's and your statements are entirely false, have been proven false, and there is not one shred of evidence that there is any truth whatever to them. Logic alone should tell you they're bullshit.

    2. Re:Give Away a PHYSICAL Copy, Sure by webdog314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing)

      He was referencing the founders of the United States who write its constitution. And your "effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry" is entirely bogus. It is a positive effect, not a negative one. Doctorow gives his books away for free on his website, yet is on the New Your Times bestseller list. Care to explain that one, Einstein?

      Sure, he's on the bestseller list because A: he's a very good writer, B: he has a crackerjack publisher who is willing to take risks, and C: he knows that the majority of those who read books are still mostly clueless when it comes to pirating digital books on the net. His books work this way because he is one of the only people doing it. If his idea caught on and everyone started giving away free digital copies of their books, I highly doubt most people would bother to buy them anymore. The concept works as an marketing tool the same way that any marketing concept works. As soon as it's stale, it's stops being effective. More so, the market is changing radically. Digital readers are coming out in droves, and people are very much more receptive to viewing books digitally than they were even two years ago. Sure, I may still want a physical copy of a good book for my library, but even that is becoming less appealing as the publishing industry "compensates" for the supposed lost revenue from piracy by raising yet again the price of paper books.

      Logic alone is often completely trumped by pop market culture...

  4. Doctrine of First Sale by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being able to give away, bogart, lend or to borrow, pass as inheritance, or roll up and smoke a book is possible because the book is yours because you own it and the Doctrine of First Sale formalizes these possibilities.

    One of the many things wrong with digital restrictions management (drm) technologies is that it tries to do an end run around the democratic process and eliminate these rights, some of which are codified in the Constitution. Some would assert that not only is the constitution the foundation upon which the country has been built, but also that it represents freedom and democracy itself. So these affronts by Bill Gatesists and the other 'freedom-hating' (tm) digital taliban, can be considered as affronts to the US itself if not also to higher ideals.

    It may sound harsh to some fanbois, but step back and take off that 'with a computer' clause and see if what they are doing is acceptable. If not, then you know what to do.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You conveniently forget that without these necessary DRM restrictions, nobody will be bothered to actually write articles and books in the first place. The same points you make were also claimed when DRM was applied to music - thankfully the technology has succeeded in this industry and put a stop to the years of silence and dull parties that previous generations had to endure.

    2. Re:Doctrine of First Sale by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      What Doctorow says about books applies to music and movies as well. For decades, records and tapes were yours to loan, share, give away... you OWNED them.

      The constitution says that Congress can give a "limited time" monopoly on publishing to "authors and inventors". Period. It was included to protect authors and inventors from publishers. It gives Congress no power to protect publishers from anyone.

      Yet, somehow in the 1950s the record companies got copyright law to let them screw over the artists, making phonorecordings automatically "works for hire".

      If you want to pirate a Cory Doctorow book, just go to his website. They're available there for free download in many formats. The same goes for Lawrence Lessig's books, on his website. I urge everyone to read Lessig's book Free Culture. His and Doctorow's books are available under a Creative Commons license.

      The Constituton is, in fact, the cornerstone of all US law. However, Congress ignores it and the Supreme Court lets them. Of the four boxes, we'd better start being more effective with the first three before we're forced to use the forth.

    3. Re:Doctrine of First Sale by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ya, I know. Projects like Wikipedia or Creative Commons just wouldn't work if the contributers weren't getting paid.

      Likewise, until the invention of intellectual property rights and copyright, no art was ever created. It's fortunate that we discovered these laws, or the world would have remained indefinitely with any music, art or literature.

      And the quality is really the difference. Trash created pre-DRM like Mozart or Wagner just can't compare to the majesty modern DRM'ed works like Justin Timberlake or Britney spears.

      These laws and systems are not only the sole protection of artistic creation, but they ensure a much higher standard to every art form.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    4. Re:Doctrine of First Sale by schon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I love you, and I want to have your baby.

    5. Re:Doctrine of First Sale by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      We have the best government money can buy!

  5. hyperbolic nonsense by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The most important part of the experience of a book is knowing that it can be owned"
    Huh?

    I thought that perhaps the story told within said book is slightly more important than the media.

    Then again, having bothered to (try to) read some of Doctorow's mystifyingly much-lauded short stories, perhaps I can understand his point of view would be different.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by burne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last time I checked the message was firmly attached to the medium. I have 250 year old books who still confirm to that basic principle.

      In your eagerness to outsmugg Doctorow you missed his message completely, focussing on the medium itself. I 'own' a couple of e-books from the palmpilot-era which, thanks to DRM, are unreadable now. I can remedy that with an emulator, but the current generation of DRM 'promises' online checks which will fail when technologies change or companies fail.

      I get to keep the medium, a bunch of scrambled bits, but somebody will steal the content of DRM-ed books, one day.

      DRM will destroy books. Individual ones, and 'book' as generic term. Knowledge will no longer be transfered, it will be rented out for a limited time only.

    2. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I thought that perhaps the story told within said book is slightly more important than the media."

      Of course. But you only get to find that out if you can read it.

      Worst case, if publishers had their way it might someday be possible for them to withdraw a book from publication (like Amazon and '1984'), and all the existing copies would go "poof". It's the digital equivalent of a good old fashioned book burning. And while the story may be more important, it's kind of a moot point if the nature of the media prevents its enjoyment and prevents the story from being passed on to the next generation to enjoy.

      Publishers are trying to license e-books in such a way that they have vastly more power over the media. The allowed uses of it are *very* restricted. In the past, with a physical copy on the shelf, a great deal of the licensing was implicit (there was only one copy and more weren't allowed) or could be safely ignored if the terms were unreasonable (go ahead and try to prevent me from reading it to my kids, even though it could be regarded as a 'performance'). Look at the nonsense about digital readers not being able to read certain books aloud. It's a constraint that some publishers apparently want, but what a ridiculous limitation. There are plenty of other examples.

      Buying a book is a bargain of some kind between the publisher and the purchaser (and ultimately the creator of the work). People buy e-books with the expectation they can them much like traditional books. Why should we have to give up so much of the traditional expectations for a book simply because the medium is digital? Publishers are using the opportunity to eliminate or clamp down on traditional uses of books, and I think that effort should be strongly opposed. Alternatively, they should stop calling their digital product a "book", because the terms of license are so different.

      Yeah, Cory is a bit over the top, but the issue he's talking about is important. Should we accept the greater limitations of e-books or should we insist that publishers retain the same flexibility as traditional books? I think the answer is obvious.

    3. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have obviously never read "1984". Either that or you don't quite understand its implications.
      If there are no permanent records that are immune to alteration (hint: no electronic record is immune to alteration), those who can alter the records determine what is history and what is fantasy.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      DRM will destroy books.

      Until the Tycho Uprising, at least. (Can't believe no one has linked to "The Right to Read" yet. RMS, ahead of the curve as always.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      with a digital distribution system it makes "1984" a little harder

      Not in the presence of DRM. Access to all unauthorized or inconvenient data can be revoked by the central authority.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:hyperbolic nonsense by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The truth can be buried in a big pile of disinformation. Goebbels proved that and Orwell observd it. Nothing really new there.

      If you want to believe that history is "determined" by people who "alter the records," more power to you. I'd rather believe that history is intelligently designed by 45 people who work at the Wal-Mart in Branson, Missouri.

  6. theres nothing "sacred" by Tei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everything is consensual. Whe share ideas and needs, and make deals.
    No, I don't want to buy the idea of books as licenses, I like the idea of ownership of the phisical book, with the strings attached to give it to other people, even make a copy. The idea that I don't like, is to elevate a inventation to the sacred level. We born in a blank slate, almost everything is learned, and everything that we learn was invented or created. Theres nothing superior to us, sacred, where we ower fidelity.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  7. Re:too much knowledge out there v2 by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yea but with ebooks technically letting your wife read the book is illegal and wrong and she has to buy her own copy.

    40 years from now your kids are all grown up, and you pass away in your sleep. As they go through your stuff, they pick up the tom clancy paper backs and think about how you used to read them. Or they find a non working ebook reader and the DRM prevents them from knowing what kind of books you liked to read.

    Pick one. It will happen. no one lives for ever. Memories must be preserved some how. DRM laden technology will prevent it.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  8. Zhnore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, that's what the church thought too when the bible was translated and the pressess started running. It'd surely destroy them.

    Same as records destroyed the music industry, and home recording, and VHS, and CD-burning, and DVD copying, and Bluray copying, and.. There's an oddly long history of continuous destruction of the publishing business, yet somehow they're still around to pester us with DRM!

    What pray tell ARE the effects?

    1. Re:Zhnore... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that's what the church thought too when the bible was translated and the pressess started running. It'd surely destroy them.

      It might have if theology were all that they offered, but they also offer community.

      Same as records destroyed the music industry,

      Records severely deprecated the sheet music industry, which would probably have been eliminated altogether by the internet and free music [score, tab &c] sharing sites if they had not somehow managed to convince the legal system that every instantiation of a collection of notes are the property of the sheet music publisher.

      and home recording, and VHS, and CD-burning, and DVD copying, and Bluray copying,

      All of these have a certain built-in hassle factor. You actually had a better chance of a properly viewable copy of a rental VHS (given macrovision removal, anyway) than a rental DVD has turned out to provide, because of the inherent behavior of analog media under degradation. You might have a blip on the tape, but it wouldn't choke unless you had a problem with your deck and it ate the damned thing. Also, a lot of people see the value inherent to purchasing things they enjoy, under a system of capitalism anyway. In a more socialist society, it might make more sense to mail payment to the artist to show your appreciation.

      What pray tell ARE the effects?

      First Sale and Fair Use are under attack from multiple quarters. DRM-"protected" media is just one more example; you have to go back through the original seller to facilitate transfer, which is precisely what First Sale law was intended to prevent, especially as relates to books!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. I'm not a fan of DRM but... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A physical book has a sort of built-in DRM! If you give it away, you can't read it anymore. It can't easily be copied (it requires a lot of scanning and printing to do that). Isn't that kind of thing also part of the intention of DRM?

    IMHO though, the world has changed, we now live in a world where information can be copied without any physical restrictions. So I hope that one day humanity will be able to live in that world, instead of trying to enforce old ways onto us with DRM. I'm sure that in a world where information can be copied freely, there can also be culture, people who make money, artists, and so on.

    1. Re:I'm not a fan of DRM but... by natehoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, sorta. Of course, "DRM" (Digital Rights Management) isn't really a relevant term, but there are certainly reality-based restrictions on copying a paper book. In most cases, it's cheaper to buy another copy than it is to make your own copy.

      But your point is well-taken. A physical book allows you unfettered access to one and only one copy of itself. If you give it away or if it's stolen or destroyed, you've lost it.

      And, yes, that thinking is very much part of the intention of DRM. If you buy one copy of an e-book, you really have the rights to only that copy. Same with a paper book. But when you buy a copy of a paper book, your personal rights to that book are also irrevocable and eternal. Someone would have to come to your house and take it away from you. With e-book DRM, you read your books only at the suffrage of the company that controls the DRM on your e-book reader. They can revoke your right to read it at any time, and have done.

      Of course, it's tough to come up with a perfect analog to the rights we enjoy in a paper book while taking advantage of the new capabilities of an e-book, and maybe they will just always remain two separate and incompatible entities.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  10. hyperbolic nonsense is what Cory does by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doctorow is a pundit first, and a story-writer, oh, somewhere around seventh or eighth. Bill O'Reilly writes novels, too. But nobody reads them because they want to sit down with a good mystery, they read them because they are a fan of the pundit's punditry and buy up everything associated with his "brand."

  11. Re:too much knowledge out there by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

    As Ben Franklin said, those who give up their rights for convenience deserve neither, or something...

    The exact saying is:
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Ben Franklin loved convenience. Hell, the lazy bastard used a kite to get his key up in the air rather than climbing up himself.

  12. What happens when the reader breaks ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have many books that I got as a child, and several that my parents had as kids. I read them to my own kids. I will give some of them to my kids where they may be read to my (future) grand kids.
    1. Will e-books allow this ?
    2. What happens when the reader breaks or is replaced by a new model, will the e-book work ?
    3. What happens when the e-book manufacturer goes out of business or simply decides that it is not worth while to support the reader or the books that I have paid for, will I be able to read them ? (This happened in August 2008 when MS stopped support of MSN Music, so you lost the ability to recover your keys if they became corrupt through no fault of your own).
    4. What happens when the e-book gets old and runs out of copyright, will you be able to give a copy to anyone who asks ?

    I suspect that the answer to all of the above questions is: no.

    1. Re:What happens when the reader breaks ? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me start out by saying that I agree with you. And it's a good argument - it gets the emotional parts of the issue right out in the open. However, I see some things here that are going to be used, effectively, as a counter argument:

      1. How many books do you own that you can pass on to your children? How old are those books?
      2. Have you ever had a book destroyed through wearing out, getting destroyed by dog, fire, water, etc.?
      3. Have you ever lost a book, had it borrowed or stolen?

      I'm sure you can all see how these questions erode the argument. And the counter argument, pushing the statistical likelihood of a book being lost or destroyed before passing it on, versus the DRM getting screwed up - it's not very powerful. No one knows the real answer to that question - but people think they do - and so the argument loses those who already have an opinion.

      Just some thoughts.

  13. Re:too much knowledge out there by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tend to agree with him some, but there is simply too much music, art and knowledge out there to take in the old fashioned way. and if you do own the physical media it becomes a clutter and storage nightmare

    i don't buy too much ebooks but in the last few weeks i bought a MS SQL T-SQL ebook app on my iphone to read on the train to work and some pdf's from mannning books. and the convenience factor is very nice in not carrying around the extra weight

    That's true, PDF's and electronic books in general spare you the storage nightmare. On the other hand I hate reading PDFs off a computer screen and I have yet to find an electronic device that didn't suck as a ebook reader and that statement covers purpose designed ones like the Kindle as well. Perhaps if that rumored Apple tablet turns out to be more than just vaporware I'll have cause to reconsider... although... now that I think about it I rather doubt it simply because with these eBook readers they can apparently remotely delete and silently 'revise' books in your electronic library after you bought them. Nobody can delete or 'revise' a good old-fashioned hardcopy of some book I have bought and that is sitting in my good old-fashioned wooden bookshelf.

    I can well understand the why the move to electronic readers like the Kindle would worry authors and book publishers. It has hitherto been considerably more work to pirate a book than to do so with movies, software and music and if that changes, all the 'goodwill' authors and publishers get from people downloading their stuff for free using BitTorrent & co. still won't pay their bills. Those bills have to be paid in real world money, not pirate consumer's goodwill. I buy lots of books on subjects such as the history of automotive, aviation and electronic technology. These books sometimes get printed in runs of no more than a few thousand copies by small time speciality publishers. The move to "full digital" inevitably means an exponential increase in book piracy (YAY! we're getting even more stuff for free now) but it's also going to kill off that kind of small scale publishing which I don't see as a good thing. It would mean the death of all but the biggest publishing houses, the ones that are rich enough to be able to survive the piracy. That in turn would mean a considerable reduction in the variety of what is being published.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  14. Re:too much knowledge out there by mrsurb · · Score: 2, Informative

    To paraphrase: what? -- Not everyone has sigs turned on

  15. Re:too much knowledge out there v2 by CaptainJeff · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't do that with a digital copy.

    Actually, yes you can. Annotation is a key feature on the Kindle and it works pretty well, actually.

  16. Can someone explain to me... by nenya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...why anyone takes Cory Doctorow seriously?

    He's a political activist and passable young-adult sci-fi author who contributes to a geek blog. He's an expert on nothing. He has not formally studied anything. He mouths off about copyright all the time, but his grasp of law and legal history is laughable. Yet he consistently makes headlines for saying asinine things about subjects about which he has no expertise.

    How do I get people to pay me for saying stupid things about fashionable subjects? What he does is way more glamorous and takes way less actual, you know, effort than what I do.

    1. Re:Can someone explain to me... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He mouths off about copyright all the time, but his grasp of law and legal history is laughable. Yet he consistently makes headlines for saying asinine things about subjects about which he has no expertise.

      How do I get people to pay me for saying stupid things about fashionable subjects?

      Hilarious irony. You claim he has no expertise on the subject of copyright and then asks how you can get paid for stating your opinion. Doctorow's expertise on the subject is precisely that he manages to get paid while giving his books away, which is something authors in favor of DRM books claim they couldn't possibly do.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:Can someone explain to me... by cornicefire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is anyone buying any longer? The last time I checked, his book _Makers_ wasn't selling very many copies at Amazon despite the endless ads on BoingBoing. I think everyone is used to getting him for free.

  17. Re:The Right To Read by Richard Stallman by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  18. You misunderstand something... by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If copyright was 10 or 15 years, I'd be OK with draconian DRM restrictions on the things that are under copyright, provided there was a way to break it when the items go into public domain.

    Then you misunderstand the purpose of DRM. The main purpose of DRM is to do an end-run around copyright expiration - so works "protected" by it *never* go into the public domain.

    Imagine you're a publisher, and you want perpetual copyright, even though you know the highest law in the land says you'll never get it. What's the next best thing? Complete control over the books you sell - so you can prevent anyone from copying them ever again, and can even "recall" them if you want to. And you lobby for a law that makes it illegal for anyone to talk about how to circumvent that control.

    At it's core, copyright is the ability to say "you're not allowed to say that, because I said it first." It is (supposedly) a compromise between the public and authors. In order to improve our culture, authors are given a limited right to exclude others from exercising their right of free expression.

    DRM is a betrayal of this compromise - the public fulfills their part, but the authors never have to fulfill theirs. DRM is the antithesis of copyright, and rather than making laws to protect DRM, any work that is "protected" should be immediately be stripped of its copyright status.

    After all, if DRM really worked, they wouldn't *need* copyright law, would they?

  19. DRM + e-books = 1984 & Fahrenheit 451 by KwKSilver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This kind of stuff would have made Winston Smith's day job so much easier. Rewrite history then push it out so as to override previous copies. And the rulers of the Fahrenheit 451 world could simply revoke the digital certificate of ... every book or every book with ideas they want suppressed. Sound like the media cartels' wet dream? It is, it is. And that of would-be tyrants? Even more so.

    I was getting halfway interested in the Kindle until the 1984 debacle. That shows that DRM has a much darker potential than its proponents will ever acknowledge. Fuck all that shit. (Not picking on Amazon; I like it and have had an account there for years.) Corporations cannot be trusted to have any interest in freedom of any kind for the public. No doubt their accountants would show it as a negative (if intangible) item on their balance sheets.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  20. Re: Paper by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it IS the paper, or at least the medium. (Marshall McLuhan?)

    Since it's hard to toss a professor into your car without felony charges, the bound book is the delivery medium of the content, and the part I believe has "hardware value" much like Apple is up to. Rather than some behemoth press in NYC, I do believe the future is the DIY kiosk that takes content of your choosing and cranks it into the presentation medium. Once that process gets down under a minute I think we'll hit a plateau.

    When studying moderately difficult factual material, self pacing is important for me, which is the chief flaw of audio editions. Digital only copies tie up the visual space on the computer. I'd accept a cheap disposable reader with stylus/type annotation ability that can then wirelessly email your custom copy to your standard email.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  21. Re:It Ain't the Paper by xystren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that people who fetishize physical books are expressing a reactionary fear of losing control, of losing something familiar to them that they regard as an eternal constant. The problem with that attitude is, physical books are just another form for holding content. Before books, it was the storyteller in the square, before them it was paintings on cave walls. I'm sure there were people who said, "I don't hold with these here books, they destroy the whole storytelling experience."

    The problem is, technology changes. We've seen it, we've experienced it, and we will run into it with digital readers.

    This is my biggest problem. Being forced to buy into a device. Right now, there are so many different version of readers and the DRM protected content only works of a select few. This is my problem. Look the way that the floppy drive has gone. What will happen in 5 or 10 years? Is you reader still going to exist, let alone be in serviceable (usable) condition? Will Amazon/B&N/Sony/etc. continue to support all those "old" devices? Will you be able to take your content from old device and put it into a new differing device? READ: I like Sony's digital reader better than my Kindle, can I put my Kindle content on my Sony reader? Or am I at the mercy of what Amazon/Sony/other choose to support?

    Look how difficult now it is to find a computer with a 3.5" floppy drive? How about a 5.25" floppy (SD, DD, HD). I can pretty much promise you that your electronic reader is going to go the same way. Just like your computer of 5 years ago. Just like the Nintendo 8-bit, or Intellivision. Heck, are there any CDs or DVD that you've burnt 5 years ago that are still readable?

    At a Thanksgiving dinner this year, I held a first printing of Bram Stokers Dracula. It was really quite something. Over 100+ years old, it was in just as readable condition as it was when it was printed. Will your e-book reader be able to do the same?

    This is more than just a reactionary response to change. Electronic != Better tends to be the slogan, but it isn't always the case. E-readers/DRM Content/etc fall into this category. All my college textbooks have gone to electronic format (not by choice either, I have to pay for the e-texts regardless and can only be DLed to 2 single computers. No Kindel, Sony Reader, etc.) and it drives me nuts. Four hours of reading content on screen gets tiresome really fast. Since this switch, I have purchased a print copy over every text that I've needed. Its quite sad, since most of the time I can get the used copy for less than the electronic.

    As you argue, content is the most important. But an Audio CD (content holder) is completely useless without a CD player. A locked safe (content holder) is completely useless if you don't have the combination. An MP3 (content) is useless without a MP3 player. A physical book will always be accessible. Content that is not accessible is not content at all; let alone useful content.

    "There are two kinds of fools. One kind says, 'This is new and therefore good.' The other kind says, 'This is old and therefore better.'"

    So which do you fall under? Your missing the third option that looks at the appropriateness of the development and considers *IF* it is good and should be used. I personally fall into that third category

    Cheers,
    Xyst

  22. Selection bias in old works? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trash created pre-DRM like Mozart or Wagner just can't compare to the majesty modern DRM'ed works like Justin Timberlake or Britney spears.

    Might there be a selection bias going on? We don't preserve everything from "back then"; we sure don't listen to all of it. I predict that in the future, people will still listen to, say, The Beatles. Or Elvis. Or rock out to that riff from Smoke on the Water. Maybe some Michael Jackson song will be preserved.

    Not all old music was great. Not all new music is crap. Not even all good new music is worth preserving for ever. But some is.

    The real problem is that record companies have shifted their function. It used to be that they discovered and selected talent; now they "produce" talent.

    South Park tells a story about this too; see the Guitar Queer-o episode: "The next time you bring me some talent, make sure they're talented". And then in Fingerbang: "These are The New Boys from the Back Alley Zone. They're the new hit." (I'm paraphrasing the name.)

  23. Maybe if enough people are bitten...? by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a good place to point out that Amazon unilaterally had all copies of 1984 deleted from all customer's devices, totally screwing many people up in the process. Sure the refunded the purchase cost. Big deal. They also apologized later for doing it. But this sent a very clear message that they cannot take back: They can trash your 'property' on a whim, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it as long as you abide by their DRM restrictions.

    They say they won't do it again. Sorry, but once trust is lost, is VERY difficult to regain.

    At least, it is for people who actually pay attention and think. What upsets me the most is that most consumers don't care enough to change their purchasing habits even after they've been bitten.

    Except in very rare circumstances I avoid audio CDs, after what Sony did. I also don't buy Sony products anymore. Sony should have But when I see how many people still purchase Sony products, how PS3s are flying off the shelves, it makes it really hard to care. When the forementioned incident happened with Amazon, schadenfreude is the best description of how I felt. There have been SO many well reported incidents across SO many industries, that people have effectively waived their right to be outraged when such things happen to them.

    Society at large flat out doesn't care. Those that know what's going on and care enough to do so will ALWAYS find a way to crack things like DRM so that they can at least protect themselves. Those that choose to ignore the damage that DRM causes, can go cry in their rooms because they should flat out have known better.

    I can only hope that if enough people get hurt by DRM they will eventually complain loudly enough to stop this nonsense.

  24. Re:It Ain't the Paper by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's all well and good until dead tree publishers go out of business and books are no longer (or at least not as often) printed at all.

    Then you don't get the second option.

    What we need is a digital format we can be reasonably sure will stick around for the long haul, and if it doesn't stick around we need to know that it can be converted to new formats. If we have that, then we have something close to the security of a dead tree book.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  25. Quirks and eBooks by kagaku · · Score: 4, Informative

    My first run in with eBook "quirks" didn't take long to happen. I received a Kindle for Christmas, and having already scouted out some prospective books to purchase I had some novels in mind. The first book I read was Flood by Stephen Baxter - I just finished that last night. Flood is followed by its sequel - Ark (by the same author). However, upon trying to buy Ark I couldn't find it anywhere on the Amazon kindle store. I recalled seeing it when browsing before (that's why I bought this series first, because I noticed both books were available in kindle editions) - however now it was missing. Trying a few different things, I logged out of my Amazon account. Low and behold, the ebook appears for sale! Kindle edition and all - however I noticed a very small notice (almost fine print) below the "Buy with 1-Click" button that read: "Due to copyright restrictions, this title not available in the United States". WTF! It took changing my address to that of a Canadian friend of mine in order to be allowed to purchase this book - thankfully they still accepted by US-addressed credit card.

    Copyright restrictions and such on sale of books/music/movies is extremely stupid in my opinion. In the end all it took was changing my address twice - once to Canada and then back - but it's the principle of it all. I'm happily reading my book now; a book that just to purchase I had to be dishonest about where I lived simply so I'd be allowed to purchase it.

    DRM is another issue I'm worried about, however with the advent of tools to strip the Kindle and nook DRM, I'm not to worried about moving my books to a new platform once a better read becomes available.

    --
    everyday is another shooter.
  26. Think of the archeologists! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When ever I think of the book being replaced by its digital equivalent, I think of a scenario 200 years from now after a war destroys a whole nation. The people coming in to see what they can find a library with eBook readers and paper books. The paper books are still a little dusty, but everything on that civilisation up to the first decade of the 21st century is documented and available. The eBook readers on the other hand are another story, with publisher no longer in existence and DRM still in place, the content simply complains that the book can't be read dues to "text license expiry". 200 years of information on this society has now been lost to the sands of time.

    Certainly this scenario is a little negative and could occur for other reasons, but the point I am trying to make is that convenience makes for a shitty legacy, especially with DRM in place.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  27. The most important part of a digital book by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is not having to pay for it. Once someone has it in digital form, without some restrictive DRM, it can be shared freely with the planet. That means I can get it for free, without paying. No money.

    If Cory sees his financial future in people having his written works without paying for them, good luck. Freedom is nice, but eating is nicer. Freedom can be enjoyed a lot better with a full belly.

    Now there is no reason a copy-limited work cannot be resold. There are ways to manage this that do not prevent resale or other transfers. The problem is that if you allow "loaning", "backing up", "format shifting" or anything else that allows multiple copies to exist at the same time you will also have "sharing". And once you have sharing, you will have redistribution. And redistribution means nobody has to pay.

    Right now, any ebook that is pretty popular can be found on various sharing web sites. And do not for a moment think that my Kindle is somehow immune to displaying these "shared" ebooks because of something Amazon did. Nope, I can read these shared books on my Kindle.

    Hope you like working for free Cory.

  28. Re:It Ain't the Paper by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You don't need "publishers" to print books.

    If this were otherwise, you would not exist as all of modern society and
    our current lifestyle is dependent on a few pirates that copied any book
    they could find BY HAND.

    The only digital format that makes any sense is one that can be easily pirated.

    Conflating the creation of books with megacorp publishing houses is a grand fallacy.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  29. Wrong path! by davecb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually I and O'Reilly profited from the physical-book sales of "Using Samba", which was shipped in electronic form with every copy of Samba.

    Nerds, you see, buy physical books. They lose on searchability (unless the indexer actually does his job) but gain on size, weight, cost and readability-in-the-bathtub (;-))

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  30. My $0.02 worth by dwiget001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read fifty (50) plus books a year, and have since about 1987.

    I keep some, re-read some of my faves three or four times.

    When I am "done" with a book, it gets donated to a local library or given to a friend with an interest in such books.

    IMHO, DRM in combination with the stupid copyright extension act passed some years ago, to me means that more and more books (whether they are entertainment only, or text books or whatever) that should make it into the public domain may never be seen again in any form, of then than already existing books, which will deteriorate over time.

    There should be a law requiring that any book published (real book, publication, etc. whether "real" or electronic), non-DRM protected electronic copies should be forwarded for safeguarding by the Library of Congress and at least 8 (if not more) of the major libraries in the country. That way, once the stupid extended copyright expiration happens, these can then be released to the public domain properly. In other words, make it possible for the books to made public domain, as opposed to being obliterated entirely from human knowledge.