Slashdot Mirror
Analyzing Amazon's E-Book Loan Agreement
conel writes "The Economist has a knowledgeable mainstream take on the restrictions publishers are forcing on e-books. From the article: 'They wish you to engage in two separate hallucinations. First, that their limited license to read a work on a device or within software of their choosing is equivalent to the purchase of a physical item. Second, that the vast majority of e-books are persistent objects rather than disposable culture. ... Just as with music, DRM will be cracked. As more people possess portable reading devices, the demand and availability for pirated content will also rise. (Many popular e-books can now be found easily on file-sharing sites, something that was not the case even a few months ago, as Adrian Hon recently pointed out.)"
I find your argument strange and confusing. You claim an expert opinion on this "as a writer", although one without credentials and publications.
You attack people for stating that a creative investment that can be copied infinitely creates the problem that no one will be getting paid, and for stating the pirates just take but don't provide a solution.
So you attack people who don't conveniently supply the solution for you, like they are you enemy, yet you don't explore any solution yourself, like the same people you attack, and the pirates. This is not their problem. It is yours.
Mr. Writer, let me ask you specifically, if I sit behind a desk for a year and write a novel, or in fact if I do anything that can be digitally copied, how do I make a living out of sharing that work with the world? They won't buy my t-shirts. And why are you ignoring what should be the most important question for a writer? Good thing you attacked those outdated, insane visions though. Me as a self-declared yet momentarily inactive writer, painter, musician and uber creator in general, think your view is suspiciously simplistic and of one shade in a two-colored world.