Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon To Allow Book Lending On the Kindle

Posted by timothy on from the glad-this-isn't-how-physical-books-act dept.

angry tapir writes "One of the oldest customs of book lovers and libraries — lending out favorite titles to friends and patrons — is finally getting recognized in the electronic age, at least in one electronic book reader: Amazon has announced that it plans to allow users of its Kindle book reader to 'lend' electronic books to other Kindle users, based on the publisher's discretion. A book can be lent only for up to 14 days. A single book can only be lent once, and the lender cannot read the book while it is loaned out." Kindle may be the best-known e-reader, but the similarly featured Barnes & Noble Nook has had this ability (complete with 14-day timeout) for several months, if not from its introduction.

56 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is technology really improving our lives?

    1. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Enry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In some ways, yes. I really like my Kindle. Mostly because it allows me to carry a good portion of my library in my bag. I have about 4 books on it that I'm currently reading along with one that I'm currently reading to my daughter.

      I've bought almost all the books (some were PD, so didn't cost anything) and are books I may not have bought otherwise since they were impulse buys from the store. I'm looking at you "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo".

      Do I still buy physical books? Sure. Do I miss lending? Sorta. Books I lend out rarely return. My copies of "Snow Crash" and "World War Z" are somewhere on the East Coast of the US, but I can't get much more specific than that.

      What I would love to see for the Kindle and iTMS is a family account, where my wife and I can each have a Kindle managed separately under our own accounts, yet share books between us without having to repurchase the book. She has her preferences, I have mine, and neither one of us wants our suggestion list 'spoiled' by the other, though there are times we like the same book and would each like to read it.

    2. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by migla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't you hear? Previously you couldn't lend a book to someone and now, with technology you can!

      Seriously, the restrictions of 14 days and lending only once is so ridiculous that it should push people over to the side of sharers.

      How many books could one roundtrip of the sneakernet fit?

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    3. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The kindle is a great piece of hardware, but why buy books from Amazon when you can instead buy DRM-free ebooks from more enlightened publishers like Baen? Then you can lend ebooks without worrying about any silly restrictions. (Really, two weeks? I'm a bit envious of those who have enough free time for reading to reliably finish books in only two weeks...)

      Of course, some day I may run out of science fiction/fantasy/space opera/etc. authors that I like on Baen; I guess then I may have to decide between the immoral option of actually buying DRMed ebooks from Amazon and the illegal option of buying paperback editions and then pirating the corresponding ebooks.

    4. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by brit74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > "Seriously, the restrictions of 14 days and lending only once is so ridiculous that it should push people over to the side of sharers."

      To be fair, virtually anything a company does (short of policies that would result in their own bankruptcy) are easy excuses for "sharers". Example: "they charge money for books - that should push people over to the side of sharers." Presumably, the "solution" for them is to stop charging money for their products.

    5. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad example. Copyright on Tolstoy expired long ago.

      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600

      Book 2600, even....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once someone figures out how to crack the ungodly DRM, sure. Then we can do it just like the old days.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure it does. I own a Kindle DX, and, insofar as reading convenience goes, it's awesome. But I don't use their store except for newspaper subscriptions. For books, I go to a book store which sells me legal books in Kindle-supported format (.mobi) with no DRM for 1.5-2x less than a paper book.

    8. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a little part of me that likes this. I can't tell you how many times I've lent stuff to people only to have it never come back - even after asking for it back.

      In this case, though, the restriction is too tight. There ought to be no specific time limit.

      The person who lent the book should have a 'return' button to push once they're done with it. They should be required to connect to the network every 7 days to verify the book is still lent out to them.

      When the person who lent the book selects the book they should have a 'request it back' button.

      Once it's requested back, the person who lent it out will get a text message sent by the person who lent it to them. They'll have 14 days to hit the 'return' button. 14 days after it's requested returned, the return is forced.

      The person who lent it should also have an ability to set a 'due back by date' when lending the title.

      Restriction against lending something again are absurd.

    9. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone already has. Google is your friend. I actually didn't buy more than 2 or 3 Kindle books until I figured that out. Now that I have, I buy a lot more. I also don't spread them all over the internet, I just know that I can always switch readers down the line. Kind of like what happened with iTunes/MP3s. Funny, eh? Meanwhile, the pirates continue to pirate, DRM or no.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    10. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I've got a lot of technology around my house. I like it. Very much. I abhor the practices of current industry to try and monetize every thing I do. I love books. Reading them, enjoying a fine binding and appreciating quality paper, lending them even if they don't come back (no dig towards you). So gracious of those companies to allow me to lend my book. Once. Fuckers.

      Besides, what the hell are all the censorship minded folk going to do, burn a pile of their Kindles :)

      Man, pretty soon I'm going to be to old to be on my own lawn.....

    11. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by jacquelinew · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree that copyright laws in the US are screwed up and need fix'n, but this is still a mis-aimed argument, Amazon offers War & Peace for free in their store - all nice and formatted for Kindle.

    12. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by forebees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Richard Glover (Sydney Morning Herald, Australia) wrote a great column about things being invented in reverse. The article was title "Sometimes it's the simple things in life that strike a cord" 22 May 2010.

      In the case of the Kindle (et al) which he didn't mention) he 'would' have written:

      Imagine if you had a Kindle/whatever and someone told you of this really interesting new device called 'a book'.

      1. You can buy them second hand
      2. You can loan them to anyone you like, as often as you like and they can lend them to someone else
      3. You can read them anywhere you like, though in the dark you need a torch :))
      4. If you drop it in the bath, you only have to let it dry out
      5. You can sell them once you've read them
      6. Sometimes you can get them for free because people give them away
      7. They don't have batteries so you can open and read them anytime
      8. You can copy pages from them to use in tutorials, lectures, give to others so they can read that small part, keep for notes in the future
      9. You can put very pretty bookmarks in them and ever WRITE on them

      Imagine! You can do all this and more with the new 'Book'. :)

    13. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technology made meaningless concepts like lending books, or selling electronic versions at the same price as paper ones (even if the costs associated with managing the electronic versions are orders lower than the ones with paper versions), even book scarcity or limited editions. But still bookstores don't like that people realize that the emperor is naked, so they are ruling that is fully dressed, and is your fault if you dont see that.

      The problem is not technology, are the companies that should had became obsolete with it.

    14. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, just to follow up on something a lot of people complained about when it happened, you're totally cool with Amazon having the ability to delete a book off your device without your explicit authorization?

    15. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative

      10. They're heavy.
      11. They take up a lot of space if you want more than two or three.

    16. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by HAKdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The kindle is a great piece of hardware, but why buy books from Amazon when you can instead buy DRM-free ebooks from more enlightened publishers like Baen?

      Because I might like something other than Fantasy and Sci-fi?

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    17. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, just to follow up on something a lot of people complained about when it happened, you're totally cool with Amazon having the ability to delete a book off your device without your explicit authorization?

      Service provider control of their device is a totally different matter.

      Just about any eBook maker that provides an online store would be capable of doing this -- providing a hook in their software to allow the store to perform a content delete. If not in the current version, they could easily roll the ability in a mandatory upgrade version if they wanted.

      Similarly, Microsoft could delete any program off your computer, or tamper with your Firefox config in a windows update, if they wanted.

      I am totally cool with them having the technical ability as long as they don't actually use the ability, except in a case where it can only benefit me.

      For example, I would be happy to have a feature to delete all my books remotely and move them to a new device, if, for example, someone stole my portable ebook reader.

    18. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read a lot of science fiction as well, and I'm very happy with what Baen makes available DRM-free. Yet, it is not quite enough. There are authors I read which are with other publishers.

      What do I do? I do the latter. I buy the paperbacks and "pirate" the ebooks. I feel morally justified in doing this. The only ethical dilemma I have is if this okay when *borrowing* physical books, such as from a library.

      Perhaps, then begins the very slippery slope of, "well, if the local library has it, and if I *was* to borrow it, it would be fine to download it, but that would be *silly*, so its just as good to *only* download it". Perhaps I can call the library and have them *reserve* the book for me while I read the digital copy.

    19. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Do you think one can do this?

      Legally? Who knows. Why don't you go and hire a $200/hr lawyer to do some research about it. BTW, even if he says "yes", that doesn't mean that Amazon's lawyers won't someday decide "no". In fact, my guess is that it's probably unlikely that the Kindle book distribution service will outlive a healthy teenager of today. The most likely scenario is that suddenly one day those books will just disappear.

      OTOH, you probably could probably just as easily put your Kindle on/under your scanner/camera and just scan your books, page by page. Or even, *gasp*, download the books illegally from a public WiFi connection (they're *books*, no one is going to notice the bandwidth if you download them one at a time), or if you're uncomfortable with that, ask a friend who knows how to do this to do it for you and send you the books by email.

      Don't you feel any indignation at all that copyright has been twisted so much you have to go into intellectual contortions to think about how you might be able to pass on your books to your children after you die? And some of the best methods to do this are illegal?

    20. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the solution is to find another business model. Stop expecting that there is a future in charging repeatedly for mere copies of collections of info, which with current technology anyone is quite capable of reproducing at extremely low cost.

      The reality is that information is not a scarce resource. These dinosaurs are clinging hard to the recent past when information was tied to media that is a scarce resource and wasn't so easily copied. That has changed, big time. They hold back all kinds of progress, to the detriment of us all. Copying is not a sin, and no excuse need be made for it. The sins being committed and garbage excuses being made are the ones the content industries do to justify themselves. There is no justification for the arrogant idiocy known as DRM, particularly that sort which not only tries to exert more control than they have a right to, but which recklessly endangers others' information, as the Sony root kit did. Nor is there justification for their purchase of ever more ridiculous and unenforceable laws such as the various "3 strikes" provisions, their pursuit of ordinary citizens for "piracy" for purposes of terrorizing the public and not just recovering compensation for alleged harms suffered, and their furious attempts to contain DRM breakage by resorting to extremes such as overzealous arrests and jail time for people such as DVD Jon and Dmitry Sklyarov, who are not criminals. And they do all this no matter what that costs in damage to reputations including those beyond their own, in the chilling of scientific and technological advance, and in the showcasing of tools, techniques, and arguments other reactionary forces are only too eager to use for their own nefarious agendas, as seen in things such as those ACTA drafts that they tried to keep secret, and the routine abuse of the DMCA to keep information from the public.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    21. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by tirefire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt it would be on interest to the vast majority of /. audience, given that the books are not in English.

      So while we're not interested in knowing the store's name, you think we're interested in knowing that you think we're not interested in knowing the store's name?

      *Scratches head*

    22. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      gay site isn't even in english MOD PARENT DOWN

    23. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that business models should fit the times and technologies and of course if technology takes as backwards (i.e. we can't lend digital books like we did with physical books) then it's not good. However, I don't think DRM is fundamentally bad. Its implementations up till now were something between not good to real bad (i.e. Sony rootkit), but the logic behind DRM is, frankly, sound.
      If we have a theoretical DRM that makes sure that you pay for the book, but after that allows you to:
      1) Read the book on any device.
      2) Lend it to your friends without restriction, except that only one copy is active at any moment.
      3) Doesn't give the publisher the right to take the book back at anytime.
      (Forgive me if I forgot any other requirement, but I believe these are the basics)
      then there is no problem. You get the benefit of technology (one small device, e.g. Kindle, that has all your books), with all the advantages of physical books (Except the experience of reading a physical book, but...).

      After all, even if publishing costs are far less for digital media, there are still many people that need to get paid, especially the author, but also the editor, proofreader, graphics people, advertisement folks, etc. Maybe digital books should be cheaper than physical ones, but we should still pay for them.
      So no, I don't think the current model is fine, but I don't think that taking books without paying for them (AKA stealing) is acceptable. Don't like the current model? Buy a goddamn physical book.

      P.S.
      Next time please try to divide your post into paragraphs, it's very hard to read as it is. Reminds me of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    24. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      my guess is that it's probably unlikely that the Kindle book distribution service will outlive a healthy teenager of today. The most likely scenario is that suddenly one day those books will just disappear.

      Amazon are one of the leaders in online shopping and now cloud services. While I suppose it's possible that they could just disappear overnight in some freak scenario, I doubt it's any more likely than MS going bust overnight. You wouldn't lose any books that were currently on your Kindle even if they did go bust - once you have downloaded a book you don't need a net connection to further authorise it.

      Even if they did go offline, you'd be able to un-DRM all your stuff with some "third party" tool, if you can't already do that.

      But really, Amazon are one of the biggest companies around when it comes to online and offline distribution/services, and they seem to have their shit together better than most. They've been around a long time as far as the tech world is concerned. They have shown that they know what they're doing. They must be the current safest bet when it comes to legal eBooks, apart from going with Public Domain stuff or scanning your own books of course.

      I still haven't bought an eBook reader, my pile of unread books is far too large to justify it yet.. but any future books I buy will probably be eBooks.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really, two weeks? I'm a bit envious of those who have enough free time for reading to reliably finish books in only two weeks...

      You're envious of my 3 hours/day round trip for work? Really?

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    26. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazon doesn't have to go out of business.

      They could simply decide, "We're not selling Kindles anymorem because the iPhone now has 99% of the market, so like Betamax... we flopped," and end the service. This is what Walmart did when they suddenly decided to stop selling MP3 songs, closed down the server, and made everyone's songs unusable.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by lilo_booter · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a european user, War and Peace for the Kindle is listed at $3.44, $10.45 and $13.79. No, I have no idea what the difference between those 3 versions is. Yes, we're forced to pay in $'s, yes, we're forced to use .com (apparently .co.uk isn't part of Europe or something), and, yes, we probably have different content and pricing to what stateside users see.

    28. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

      What Amazon is doing here is not true lending. Unless of course, they figure out how to make the ebook come back to you a year later, dogeared, with the spine broken, and coffee rings on the cover.

    29. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens if the "you" is a corporation or other legal entity that is not a real person with a real lifespan? What if the owner of the Kindle and the Amazon account is "The Ira Howard Foundation" for example?

    30. Re:sometimes, you have to ask yourself... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      the logic behind DRM is, frankly, sound.
      No, it's not. I'll quote Doctorow:

      Cryptography -- secret writing -- is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker (actually, there can be more attackers, senders and recipients, but let's keep this simple). We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol.

      Let's say we're in the days of the Caesar, the Gallic War. You need to send messages back and forth to your generals, and you'd prefer that the enemy doesn't get hold of them. You can rely on the idea that anyone who intercepts your message is probably illiterate, but that's a tough bet to stake your empire on. You can put your messages into the hands of reliable messengers who'll chew them up and swallow them if captured -- but that doesn't help you if Brad Pitt and his men in skirts skewer him with an arrow before he knows what's hit him.

      So you encipher your message with something like ROT-13, where every character is rotated halfway through the alphabet. They used to do this with non-worksafe material on Usenet, back when anyone on Usenet cared about work-safe-ness -- A would become N, B is O, C is P, and so forth. To decipher, you just add 13 more, so N goes to A, O to B yadda yadda.

      Well, this is pretty lame: as soon as anyone figures out your algorithm, your secret is g0nez0red.

      So if you're Caesar, you spend a lot of time worrying about keeping the existence of your messengers and their payloads secret. Get that? You're Augustus and you need to send a message to Brad without Caceous (a word I'm reliably informed means "cheese-like, or pertaining to cheese") getting his hands on it. You give the message to Diatomaceous, the fleetest runner in the empire, and you encipher it with ROT-13 and send him out of the garrison in the pitchest hour of the night, making sure no one knows that you've sent it out. Caceous has spies everywhere, in the garrison and staked out on the road, and if one of them puts an arrow through Diatomaceous, they'll have their hands on the message, and then if they figure out the cipher, you're b0rked. So the existence of the message is a secret. The cipher is a secret. The ciphertext is a secret. That's a lot of secrets, and the more secrets you've got, the less secure you are, especially if any of those secrets are shared. Shared secrets aren't really all that secret any longer.

      Time passes, stuff happens, and then Tesla invents the radio and Marconi takes credit for it. This is both good news and bad news for crypto: on the one hand, your messages can get to anywhere with a receiver and an antenna, which is great for the brave fifth columnists working behind the enemy lines. On the other hand, anyone with an antenna can listen in on the message, which means that it's no longer practical to keep the existence of the message a secret. Any time Adolf sends a message to Berlin, he can assume Churchill overhears it.

      Which is OK, because now we have computers -- big, bulky primitive mechanical computers, but computers still. Computers are machines for rearranging numbers, and so scientists on both sides engage in a fiendish competition to invent the most cleverest method they can for rearranging numerically represented text so that the other side can't unscramble it. The existence of the message isn't a secret anymore, but the cipher is.

      But this is still too many secrets. If Bobby intercepts one of Adolf's Enigma machines, he can give Churchill all kinds of intelligence. I mean, this was good news for Churchill and us, but bad news for Adolf. And at the end of the day, it's bad news for anyone who wants to keep a secret.

      Enter keys: a cipher that uses a key is still more secure. Even if the cipher is disclosed, even if the ciphertext is intercepted, without the key (or a break), the message is secret. Post-war, this is doubly important as we begin to realize what I think of as Schneier's La

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Lent once at a time, or once ever? by Ndkchk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By 'lent once', does Amazon mean that you can lend a book to one other person at a time, or that you can lend it to one other person, once, for each purchase? If the latter, it's not exactly that useful; if the former, I look forward to the websites letting people legally trade ebooks with one another.

    1. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I look forward to the websites letting people legally trade ebooks with one another

      This is what will kill this plan; or rather, what will convince publishers to never, ever, ever allow ebook lending. It would be possible to set up a site, or a protocol for lending books, where you share the unused books you have licensed in a big pool with a bunch of other people; members who share will simply check out books from the pool. Then, it's fishes and loaves: if you have 2 copies of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", and 100 people who want to read it, they can all read from those two copies, 2 at a time. That would call for a queue, but a less popular book might not. And even if you don't want to wait in queue, if you purchase a copy, then there will be 3 books in the total pool....and eventually there will be more copies than there are interested readers at any given time, and no one will have to buy the book.

      People complain about first-sale doctrine with digital goods, and I understand, but the fact of the matter is that the potential for a streamlined secondary market for digital content is a much larger liability than it is for physical goods. Even having to make the trip to GameStop to sell your copy of Prince of Persia is prohibitive compared to being able to purchase a game, immediately license it out to people on the cloud, and then license a different copy whenever you feel like playing it.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    2. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by alannon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only there was some sort of brick & mortar equivalent of such a scheme to use as a point of comparison, but then, surely our society would never allow some sort of public book repository where a member of the public could borrow the book for a limited amount of time, as that would have destroyed the book publishing industry! Who would ever want to own their own copy of a book if they could just borrow it for free?!

    3. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His point was that the effort needed to walk/bike/drive to the library might be what prevented the book publishing industry from being destroyed. With organized electronic lending, the balance could shift.

    4. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by drew30319 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were Amazon I would be doing more than this because the first-sale doctrine will eventually be held to include digital goods. The more that Amazon does now to treat ebooks like physical goods the longer that they'll be able to continue before they are explicitly required to do so. The fact that their current licensing scheme has lasted as long as it has surprises me; this has to be at the back of their minds.

      And FYI, libraries around the world (in countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Mexico) are already offering ebooks online. Check out http://search.overdrive.com/ListLibraries.aspx

      --
      JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
    5. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by ironjaw33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My library HAS eBooks....

      My library has eBooks as well and the availability and checkout policies are the same. The library can lend out as many "copies" as it purchased from the publisher for the usual checkout time limit. I do have to say that the current licensing scheme for eBooks comes off as ridiculous. A subscription based model, where you pay a monthly fee to read as many eBooks as you wish would be a better idea than trying to make intellectual property function like physical property.

    6. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The publishers don't have to give us ebooks. They can refuse to put out anything but paper books.

      Even if most won't, some will, and they'll make a killing - even if the margins are low, the company with the monopoly always makes a good buck. Then it'll eat the others' market, which will have to follow suit if they want even a small piece of the pie. It's simple market based economy.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:Lent once at a time, or once ever? by drew30319 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Our corporate overlords will never allow it. Even judges are only as good as the corporations pay for.

      Fortunately the Constitution has something to say about copyrights. Check out this Congressionally-mandated report about the feared impact of DMCA on the first sale doctrine.

      DMCA Section 104 Report

      A plausible argument can be made that section 1201 may have a negative effect on the operation of the first sale doctrine in the context of works tethered to a particular device. In the case of tethered works, even if the work is on removable media, the content cannot be accessed on any device other than the one on which it was originally made. This process effectively prevents disposition of the work. However, the practice of tethering a copy of a work to a particular hardware device does not appear to be widespread at this time, at least outside the context of electronic books. Should this practice become widespread, it could have serious consequences for the operation of the first sale doctrine, although the ultimate effect on consumers is unclear. (emphasis mine)

      And here's an interesting law review article about the most significant obstacle to applying first sale to digital rights "digital exhaustion." Digital Exhaustion: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 58

      Amazon (and publishers) are much better off if they can keep Congress from either creating legislation or the Courts from creating precedent about the first sale doctrine as it applies to digital media; one or the other is going to happen if they don't treat digital media more like traditional media.
      And that's why Amazon is begrudgingly offering this "lending" feature.

      --
      JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
  3. Even real books do not have such restrictions by line-bundle · · Score: 4, Funny

    The lend once only is very onerous and I have never seen a good reason why. Can anyone tell me?

    I lend my book(s) more than once, even to the same person.

    I hate it when they try to force non-physical objects to behave like physical objects.

    I guess next they will implement missing pages....

    1. Re:Even real books do not have such restrictions by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Funny

      I won't accept ebooks until I can get a digital DRM enforced coffee stain on it.

  4. Still not good enough. by ChrisKnight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what Amazon needs to do to make the Kindle a worthy replacement for physical books:

    http://www.ghostwheel.com/merlin/Personal/notes/2009/03/05/open-letter-how-amazon-can-fix-kindle-drm/

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    1. Re:Still not good enough. by socsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a pretty great idea. I usually don't read books again after my initial read, so the ability to gift, trade or sell them appeals to me.

    2. Re:Still not good enough. by ickleberry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They need to get rid of DRM altogether. It worked for iTunes and many others

      DRM is stupid - i would not buy a closed device that implements such restrictions against me. When you buy a piece of hardware it should do what *you* want, not what the company that made it (and still controls it) wants it to do.

    3. Re:Still not good enough. by BlitzTech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm assuming that's your blog, and your point there is ridiculous. Stop trying to map physical objects to digital versions. That's what the RIAA is trying to do and most /.ers (as well as most people informed on the subject) think it's unreasonable to expect a digital medium to have the same restrictions the physical medium does. Treat each medium separately, and instead of pointing out advantages one has over the other and pushing for those to be mapped into each domain, KEEP THEM SEPARATE. It's an e-book. It's digital, can be copied for zero cost, etc. etc. Don't whine about not being able to share it with a friend. Yes, that's an advantage of the physical book. But it isn't a physical book, it's an e-book. So why try to create a system to match physical books?

      You can't have it both ways. Cheap, DRM-free music and e-books, or RIAA versions of both. All the arguments being made for physical media -> digital media are the same the RIAA uses. Pick one.

      Not posting as AC because I stand by what I believe. DRM sucks and needs to be removed, but publishers/artists/companies AND CONSUMERS need to understand that the two media are not the same and stop trying to make them such. In case someone gets the wrong idea from this post, I want the DRM-free versions and can't wait for companies like the RIAA to stop existing. I just think wanting to have it both ways makes you a hypocrite.

    4. Re:Still not good enough. by MHolmesIV · · Score: 5, Informative

      This would be reasonable if the digital versions cost less than the paper. This is often not the case. (Dammit Slashdot, fix your comment system, I had to type the entire URL because for some reason I'm not allowed to paste...)

      Let's look at a $7.99 paperback: (like this one)
      Components making up the selling of this book are:
      Retail Markup: (30-45% for B&N) (We'll go with 30 for simplicity) :$2.40
      Wholesale Markup: 10%: $0.79
      Author Royalties: 8-15% (Lets be generous, publishers rarely are): $1.20 (I normally hear around $0.70 per paperback, but we're being generous)
      Printing: 10%: $0.79
      Pre-production (editing etc): 10-15%: $1.20
      Other (Marketing, lunches, power ties...): The rest.: $1.60

      With an Ebook, you can cut out the wholesaler and the printing cost. Marketing is probably a lot cheaper too, since it's taken care of for you by the digital seller (amazon, itunes). No big cardboard cutouts, no phoning stores asking them to stock the book etc. Pre-production is slightly cheaper, since you don't have to worry nearly as much about absolutely perfect layout, since the ebook formats don't support it anyway. (As far as I've noticed, they don't even bother proofreading the ebook versions...)

      We've cut out at least $1.50 from the costs, and probably closer to $2-3.
      Unfortunately, if we just reduced the selling price by that much, the author would get screwed (they get a percentage), so authors need to think about that when negotiating. I would say reasonable royalties on ebooks are 25%. So for the author to get the same $1.20, the selling price of the ebook should be around $4.80. With the agency model, that would be $1.44 for the retailer, $1.20 for the author, and $2.16 for the publisher, which would easily take care of their associated costs.

      Of course, that's not what happens. As we see, the books sell for about the same (maybe $1 less), and the publisher skims twice their normal share.

      Baen, the only enlightened ebook publisher, has a guideline that they sell their e-books for around 75% of the lowest cost paper edition, capped at about $6. It's done very well for them, but it's going to take years for the dinosaurs in the rest of the publishing business to die out and be replaced by people that actually know what's going on.

  5. sounds like an opening for my new startup by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's well-known that venture capitalists are increasingly interested in diversifying beyond the web into "atom-based" startups, i.e. companies working on manufacturing physical items. This is a perfect opening. While the traditional e-book has served us well for years, some of its limitations become apparent when one wants to run a lending system. It can be implemented, but clearly in an onerous manner. That's why my new startup will propose to make physical e-books. They'll be just as readable and affordable as the traditional e-books you know and love, but with our new permaprint technology, the text will actually be physically imprinted onto thin surfaces; a stack of such surfaces will contain the contents of a book. Since each permaprint e-book will be imprinted on a separate stack of surfaces, which can be moved separately, lending will be as simple as lending the appropriate stack. As an added bonus, battery life is much improved.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:sounds like an opening for my new startup by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      We will make e-book readers so cheap that only the rich will burn paper books.

  6. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pathetic artificial restrictions in a feature only needed because it is on a platform with pathetic artificial restrictions itself. Go fuck yourselves.

  7. Not exactly the first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Barnes and Noble's Nook e-reader has been able to do this since it was released last year.

  8. Hmmm... by mordejai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've lent several books to friends and relatives.

    Most of them had the books for months or years, returned something that didn't look at all like the book I gave them, or didn't return them at all.

    So, this new "feature" is not at all like lending books!

    1. Re:Hmmm... by nfk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, there was an old saying about books, something like: "Never lend books. Give them instead. The effect is the same and you'll look nicer".

  9. too little, too late by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I own the book I should be able to lend it for as long as I like, or lend it several times, or even give my copy away. They have the DRM technology in place to prevent theft of multiple copies, but they refuse to let the user do as he wishes with his own property (In spite of Amazon's own insistence of the rights of first ownership when they were aggressively into selling used books before the days of the Kindel and its DRM). As far as I'm concerned, if there is abusive DRM like this that diminishes the rights of the owner then I don't really own it, so I'll refuse to buy into the technology until they clean up their act.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  10. this-isn't-how-paper-books-act by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    True. Paper books don't provide convenient means and permission to make temporary partial copies. You have to loan out the whole book. Just as you have always been able to loan out your Kindle.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  11. Asimov did this long ago by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Asimov did this long ago, while panning "The Double Helix" at the same time. And now for some meta-humor, I post a link to a DRMed eBook edition of that short story.

    http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook3062.htm.

    (Hint: don't buy it in that format. Find a used copy of "Opus 100" instead. After that you might feel morally justified in downloading it. Or not --- a chacun son gout.)

  12. Re:In Response to 'digital media should be free'.. by tirefire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the solution? One possibility would be if society - as a whole (not just small segments of the population) - was very generous about donating to authors. This way, authors wouldn't be forced between: (1) having copy restrictions on their work and getting paid vs (2) having no restrictions on copying their work, but not getting adequately paid for their work / going bankrupt.

    I don't think it's necessary for society as a whole to be very generous to authors. I've been thinking about this for a little while and I think I have a system that might work, especially for authors of fiction. Set up a combination author's website and online store and stock the store with products that appeal to each type of customer:

    1. Leechers. They aren't going to pay you anyway, so at least let them get a free eBook directly from your site (or from an author-endorsed torrent). That way they'll think you're cool for it and be more likely to tell others about your book, even if only because your distribution model is neat. With this group, you are selling your eBook for the price of publicity. If the going gets rough, put banner ads up on your site.
    2. Cheapskates. These people are willing to pay, but they don't want to spend $35 for a hardcover. Let them download the eBook for free, just like the first group. Unlike the first group, this group will open their hearts/wallets when they see your "Paypal - Donate" ad on your site and in the foreword to your book. Little donations add up, and donating a portion of income to charity helps loosen wallets.
    3. People who prefer dead trees. Many people like to have a paper book in their hands, and since a paper book is a physical object, only thieves and library patrons (the latter being a surprisingly uncommon species these days!) will expect to get one for free. Use on-demand publishing and an online store to sell cheap paperbacks and expensive hardcovers.
    4. Die-hard fans and/or people with fat wallets. If your book is really worthwhile, a few people will go totally ape for it. Provide a special, lucrative way for your hardcore fans to connect with you. Look at what video game and DVD publishers do with their "limited edition" releases and adapt it to books. Sell pricey limited-edition hardcovers with gold-leaf binding, sell the original manuscripts w/ editing marks (if you wrote them up by hand), sell an expanded version with material you originally left out (see Stephen King's The Stand), or sell some autographed copies of the book. Even if you've never written a book before in your life, act like you're a writing demigod worth a $100 signed copy and see if you can't fool a few people. Be sure to sell recognition to the big boys - continually revise the foreword to include their names if they like (hey, it works for PBS).

    My plan does not rely so much on people's altruism as it does on their tendency to pay what they think something will cost . How many people do you know who buy Tylenol for quadruple the price of generic acetaminophen? How many people do you know who pay $3.00 for black coffee? How many people do you know who pay thousands for diamond jewelry? I know loads of people who do all three. They're not necessarily stupid or bad with money, they just don't like to concern themselves with what they see as negligible amounts of cash. I think this plan could provide an author with a tidy profit without resorting to holding a work of art for ransom.