Amazon Stymies Lendle E-book Lending Service

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Stymies Lendle E-book Lending Service

Posted by Soulskill on Monday March 21, 2011 @09:14PM from the pulling-the-rug dept.

CheerfulMacFanboy writes "CNET quotes Lendle co-founder Jeff Croft: 'They [Amazon] shut the API access off, and without it, our site is mostly useless. So, we went ahead and pulled it down. Could we build a lending site without their API? Yes. But it wouldn't be the quality of product we expect from ourselves.' Croft also said 'at least two other Kindle lending services got the same message' yesterday.'"

237 comments

Read... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Without the functionality being sanctioned by Amazon's own API, we aren't sure if there is a legal sinkhole waiting to ruin us.
10$ says Amazon has their own 'lending' service come online involving modest per-loan fees within 6 months.
1. Re:Read... by whrde · 2011-03-21 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  pffft. no way would a big company do that, why that would be anti-competitive.
2. Re:Read... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in this case it wouldn't be anti-competitive.
  Just shitty.
3. Re:Read... by JeffSpudrinski · 2011-03-21 23:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I know a perfect way to bypass Amazon's API to loan and borrow books.
  Let's consider having a building where we can store them paid for by our taxes. Then we can go and get free memberships and atually have a real book.
  Let's call it a "library".
  Then we can borrow and lend and no one can stop us.
  In all seriousness...this very thing (and similar cases of "big brother-ishness" from Amazon and others) is why I have been anti e-reader. You're granting power to a company to control what you read and how you read it...and you are paying them to do it to you.
  Don't give up freedom for convenience. Amazon has gotten too large in this market and wields too much influence.
  While I hate to see it happen, I foresee some sort of federal regulation of "e-reader's rights".
  Just my $0.02.
  -JJS
4. Re:Read... by rcharbon · 2011-03-22 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  If I could 'rent' a book from Amazon or my library or a publisher for a reasonable fee, maybe $1.15, I would. I might even pay a little more.
5. Re:Read... by erroneus · 2011-03-22 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Lending service? Not likely. They probably feel "lending" eats into the sales profits.
  That said, I think it was foolish to use Amazon's API for any length of time without a plan to build their own infrastructure and databases. To depend on a for-profit's web API was just asking for someone to pull the plug.
  They still need to build their own service, but now they are out of action until they do. Sad for them, but that's the way it goes. Depending on a commercial entity to "not change" is just a bad idea.
6. Re:Read... by jank1887 · 2011-03-22 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  But, libraries carry e-books. and you can borrow them to all you want. It's the one place where some DRM policy almost makes sense. (enforcing 'borrowing' over keeping). Almost. Of course, some people'd like to screw with that system, too:
  http://www.examiner.com/libraries-in-albany/the-upper-hudson-library-system-boycotts-harpercollins-new-ebook-policy
7. Re:Read... by tixxit · 2011-03-22 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon is a bookstore. If you want a book not available at one bookstore you can just go to the next... or go to the library, which conveniently also has e-books you can borrow. Considering that about 1.5h of my day is spent reading during my workday commute, e-Reader convenience (purchasing, size, and weight) will most always beat out the freedom that several hundred sheets of paper gives me.
  The caveat that you (currently) can't lend out e-books bought from Amazon is a small issue for me. I VERY rarely lend out books to people. I'm not an asshole, it just isn't something my friends often ask of me (or accept when I offer). If I saved $0.25 on every e-book I ever buy (vs. paper edition), then I'd save more than enough cash to simply buy my friends the books they wish to borrow from me.
8. Re:Read... by Builder · 2011-03-22 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Lucky you. You clearly live in a privileged part of the world (although, even your own libraries are struggling for funding). I've found every UK public library that I've visited to be worse than the one in Brakpan, South Africa and that wasn't exactly a big city or anything.
  Libraries are disappearing and unless we get a new set of political overlords, we need to find alternatives.
9. Re:Read... by jgostling · 2011-03-22 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to be anti e-reader. Just anti DRM. There's plenty of free material out there if you know where to look for it. I'm pretty sure there's others too.
  Cheers!
10. Re:Read... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  You can already loan books, although loaning has to be allowed by the publisher.
  To loan a book, go to your kindle account page, find the book, click the "Loan book" button and put in an email address. Your friend then gets an email with a link to accept the loan and download the book to their kindle, and then they have two weeks to read the book.
  That system works great for friends, but kind of awkward if you want to randomly send your books to strangers. Also, not 100% sure, but I think books can only be loaned once.
11. Re:Read... by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Free material is great, provided you're not interested in reading anything written in the last 75 years!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
12. Re:Read... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  I think it is so funny how people are all over some socialized aspects of our government but so badly against others...
13. Re:Read... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  In all seriousness...this very thing (and similar cases of "big brother-ishness" from Amazon and others) is why I have been anti e-reader. You're granting power to a company to control what you read and how you read it...and you are paying them to do it to you.
  You don't have to buy books from Amazon to read them on Kindle. Ditto for B&N and Nook, or Sony and PRS. Most of books of my Kindle aren't from Amazon, and have no DRM.
  So why do I pay them? For the convenience of having a device with a screen that doesn't strain the eye, that can live for over a week on a single battery charge, and that is convenient to hold and use.
Don't see the issue by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:24 · Score: 0

Isn't this just an online equivalent of Book Crossing?
http://www.bookcrossing.com/
From a publisher's perspective, at least Kindle ebooks are leant temporarily and to a fixed number of recipients.
Hay guyz by Alex+Belits · 2011-03-21 21:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's make a web site that completely and entirely depends on some interface provided by large perpetually hungry company!
And compete with that company!

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. Re:Hay guyz by somersault · 2011-03-21 21:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's interesting that the "quality they expect from themselves" depends entirely on them not actually doing any work themselves. I know I could build a quality [insert product here] if I were given enough time to research and develop. The fact that they say it just wouldn't be good enough, rather than it would take too long, is kind of sad.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
2. Re:Hay guyz by outsider007 · 2011-03-21 22:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think they mean that without the API, the most important features are missing. Unless your research and development includes hacking Amazon, I don't see what you could accomplish.
  
  --
  If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
3. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Interestingly, lots of companies have made their main communication line (E-mail) and quite a few documents run via Google. My own company will be doing this as well. This will not end well.
4. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why would you buy a book that can:
  a) be remotely disabled
  b) be remotely altered
  c) decide when/where/how you read it.
  All under the control of Amazon... a profit driven company.
  It's basically sleepwalking into 1984.
5. Re:Hay guyz by somersault · 2011-03-21 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think they'd have been better off just saying that it would be illegal to do it without the API, rather than saying "It's possible, but it would suck". I don't think they'd have to hack Amazon's servers directly, just break Kindle DRM, but that's still illegal.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
6. Re:Hay guyz by Amnenth · 2011-03-21 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Parent post gave me a laugh, since Nineteen Eighty-Four was in fact one of the first things to be remote-killed.
7. Re:Hay guyz by Lumpy · 2011-03-22 00:07 · Score: 2
  
  Because I can strip the DRM convert it to epub and remove their ability to steal the book back from me.
  Every ebook I purchase is cracked and striped of DRM to protect myself.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
8. Re:Hay guyz by Desler · 2011-03-22 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because it was being sold by a company who didn't have the publishing rights to do so. All users who had purchased the book also had their money refunded after Amazon responded to the issue. But hey, make it sound like it was completely baseless and arbitrary on Amazon's part rather include all the facts.
9. Re:Hay guyz by Seumas · 2011-03-22 00:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure what people are expecting, anyway. The eventual goal of every content producer (even those who create physical products like DVDs, CDs, books, etc) is to charge for every consumption of their product. That's why you have to register your videogames with EA to play them, now. It's not enough to spend $60 on a game or $20 on a book and then let someone else in the household enjoy it, lend it to a friend, or sell it to a used book store. You need to pay $60 for the game or $20 for the book and then everyone else in your household has to. And then your friend. And the used everything can go screw themselves.
  No rational person would agree that this is right, but it is the direction we are going and there's nothing we can do about it, as far as I can see.
10. Re:Hay guyz by Seumas · 2011-03-22 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Your post gave me a laugh, since the reason 1984 was disabled remotely was because of copyright issues in that the person who posted it to the store did not have the rights to it and therefore, neither did Amazon. Yes, it was a little hinky in that if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have come to your house to take it away, but if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have reached the point where it had a deal, had a plan for reprint, made it through publishing, was distributed to stores, then sold off the shelves before someone realized there were legal issues.
  Also, everything about getting your books electronically can also be applied to all content anywhere and especially over the internet, where every aspect of the interaction is driven by or on commercially motivated resources and systems.
11. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:27 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  You clearly don't yet understand.
  Amazon don't get to decide what I do with my physical book after I've bought it.
  They do get to decide on every aspect of it if I buy an electronic copy. Copyright governs "copying" . In the digital world absolutely any use of any kind INVOLVES COPYING.
  For digital material "copyright" becomes a pervasive access control mechanism - which it was never meant to be.
  It's not acceptable. But hey... you keep on kidding yourself that it's all ok.
12. Re:Hay guyz by hey! · 2011-03-22 00:38 · Score: 2
  
  Let's make a web site that completely and entirely depends on some interface provided by large perpetually hungry company!
  And compete with that company!
  That's a high risk, but not necessarily a stupid strategy. The key is your exit strategy. If your exit strategy is "I'll keep doing this forever, dogging Amazon's heels and making money off of *their* business," then the overall strategy is obviously stupid. That's why I'm supposing their exit strategy looks like this: grow fast enough and become popular enough with Amazon customers that Amazon would rather buy you and expand your service than pull the plug and piss people off.
  In this case Amazon pulled the plug before things got that far, but that's not game over. You take your know-how (and to some degree your customer base who being early adopters may have multiple eBook capable devices) and play footsie with Barnes and Noble, Google, and whomever else plays in this space. They don't have Amazon's clout, so they'll be delighted to offer something Amazon can't. Not only does that open up new exit routes with Amazon's competitors, you're *still* a thorn in Amazon's side.
  And the worst case failure isn't the albatross around your neck it used to be. You walk away having made a solid effort and customers satisfied with *your* part in the affair. That means you have experience and credibility to bring to your next effort.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
13. Re:Hay guyz by outsider007 · 2011-03-22 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  They're not talking about piracy. They're talking about the kind of legit site they could pull off without the API. And they're right, It would suck.
  
  --
  If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
14. Re:Hay guyz by morgauxo · 2011-03-22 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not all about work. Anything they built that would work without the api would likely require some sort of inelligant hack no matter how much work they put into it. Most likely it would stop working every time Amazon saw what they were doing and made a change. It would become a constant game where they would find a way to make it work. It would work for a few days and Amazon would break it again. Few people would use it because it would be so unreliable.
15. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm. In some English countries this would be considered an abuse of market powers.
  I hope our local libraries (and blind societies) - when there is no alternative - strips off and converts, then lends the books out.
  What you do is write to the author/publisher asking for right of transfer and WHAT this is valued at. If they come back and say 1 cent, then off you go, and transform the format. If they say 'no' - well the copyright convention is thrown out the window - all bets are off.
  Maybe this is why there are so many rips available.
16. Re:Hay guyz by Seumas · 2011-03-22 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody said that it's "okay", but it helps to put the situation in context rather than "OMG they deleted content from your kindle -- CENSORSHIPOMGBBQWTF!!!11!!"
17. Re:Hay guyz by LambdaWolf · 2011-03-22 02:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  the reason 1984 was disabled remotely was because of copyright issues in that the person who posted it to the store did not have the rights to it and therefore, neither did Amazon.
  And they should have eaten the liability for selling something they shouldn't have. They had no right to force their customers to share the burden of their error by screwing with something that was theirs, not even if they provided refunds.
  
  Yes, it was a little hinky in that if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have...
  The analogy is inapplicable. The point is they weren't selling a physical copy, they were selling a digital copy, and they dishonestly reneged on the transaction.
  
  Also, everything about getting your books electronically can also be applied to all content anywhere and especially over the internet, where every aspect of the interaction is driven by or on commercially motivated resources and systems.
  False. If I pay to download an MP3 or PDF over FTP, that file is mine and the seller is never going to be able to delete it (at least not without engaging in some black-hat stuff). Paying for ephemeral permission to access something within a walled garden is totally different.
  
  --
  "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
18. Re:Hay guyz by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  NOT necessarily illegal if they are breaking for interoperability, especially for functionality that has been removed. The conclusion of Sony v. George Hotz will shed more light on this subject.
  
  --
  Good-bye
19. Re:Hay guyz by plover · 2011-03-22 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly, lots of companies have made their main communication line (E-mail) and quite a few documents run via Google. My own company will be doing this as well. This will not end well.
  There is a significant difference between a company using Google mail and Google docs versus one basing their service on Amazon's API. With Google, you give them a bale of money ($50/user/year) and they are contractually obligated to provide you with service. If service breaks, Google engineers fix it in accordance with the contractually specified Service Level Agreements. With Amazon's API, access to customer lending information is a feature Amazon provided for free, and were equally free to revoke at their whim. (Nowhere in TFA or on Lendle's website does it say Amazon broke any contract.)
  Guess which one is riskier to base a business on?
  Welcome to the cloud. Hope you brought your rain gear. And a lawyer.
  
  --
  John
20. Re:Hay guyz by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  THEY COULDNT DO THE SAME SHIT IF IT WAS A PHYSICAL BOOK. Why should they be allowed to completely violate my rights as a consumer because THEY sold something they shouldnt have? THis is not a solution we should ever be sanctioning and Amazon SHOULD have been slapped really hard for it.
  
  --
  Good-bye
21. Re:Hay guyz by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Putting it in context does not change the situation at all. It does not change that what Amazon did should be both illegal and punishable. Its not MY fault amazon is so incompetent that they sell books they dont have rights to.
  
  --
  Good-bye
22. Re:Hay guyz by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  EA seems to be loosening up a bit. I jsut bought some cheap games on their EADM service. You can tell they want to be Steam v 2.0. I havent tried it yet, but supposedly you can DL and play your games on any PC. It remains to be seen how the DRM/activations of individual titles works out. IN steam i get the excuse that they cant control all 3rd party DRM and so activation limits etc are something they cant get around, but EA should have no problems like this because they are a publisher.
  
  --
  Good-bye
23. Re:Hay guyz by somersault · 2011-03-22 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would definitely be a breach of copyright though, as I can't see them being able to add/remove books from actual Amazon accounts at will. They'd only be able to change the contents of specific devices. In that case, it would be possible to re-download any currently "lended" book back onto your Kindle enabled devices without taking it back from the person you'd loaned it to, and so two people would be using the same "copy" of the book.
  This is making me realise that people could just register a friend's Kindle as one of their own for a while if they really want to "lend" a book..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
24. Re:Hay guyz by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, what they are probably saying is that the amount of money they would have to pay lawyers to defend their current business model in court would far exceed any profits they could make by continuing to use that business model... a situation which does really suck!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
25. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure how that comment merits a "-1".
  It rather neatly sums up the problem with copyright and the digital world.
26. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why even buy the book? Just pirate it and donate a few bucks to the author. Fuck Amazon.
27. Re:Hay guyz by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-22 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because it is convenient, and I don't lose anything of significant value in any of the scenarios that you have outlined?
  No, it's not 1984. 1984 is when there is a camera in your bedroom, and a van to take you away when you say something wrong. 1984 is about not having a choice. Having a choice of trading openness of a particular product for convenience of use has absolutely no relevance to 1984, and I wish that silly comparison had died already.
28. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  "No, it's not 1984. 1984 is when there is a camera in your bedroom, and a van to take you away when you say something wrong. 1984 is about not having a choice."
  1984 is about making history STOP EXISTING because what it says no longer fits with the current dogma.
  It's about not having any property - as everything you own belongs to someone in power. You don't own the stuff on your kindle - you have licensed it.
  It's about devices that you don't own. Their real owners decide what it does - you can't switch them off, for example, in 1984. You can't keep your books if Amazon says no.
  It's about devices that monitor what you do - and feeds it back to the real owners... cough... Kindle.
  It's about making words/actions means the exact opposite of what they should - freedom is slavery. DRM is freedom.
  You were saying?
29. Re:Hay guyz by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-22 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, Amazon only controls Kindle (and even then only for books you buy through their store). The book doesn't "stop existing" - it's still freely available through other channels. 1984 is when the government censors all channels, by law. There's no other place you can go to in a 1984 world, nor can you publish yourself.
30. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  We aren't there yet, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what 1984 was about... hence comment "sleepwalking into 1984".
  Try to keep up dear.
31. Re:Hay guyz by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-22 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  We aren't there yet, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what 1984 was about
  No, it wasn't. There is a very huge leap between a commercial entity controlling services it provides (which you are free to use or ignore), and government enforcing control on everyone and everything. You cannot "sleepwalk" from the former to the latter, unless you sleep in the voting booth.
32. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  * No, it wasn't.
  Yes... it was. As I listed above - and which you ignore - all the steps are there. You start with the devices you use.
  * There is a very huge leap between a commercial entity controlling services it provides (which you are free to use or ignore), and government enforcing control on everyone and everything. You cannot "sleepwalk" from the former to the latter, unless you sleep in the voting booth.
  Now I know for sure that you are an idiot. You've never voted for the use of petrol - but you are still completely dependent upon it. If you can't see the steps from DRMed devices (and which are now in the process of being mandated by law - see TPMs) - to devices that control YOU rather than the other way around... then you truly are a fool who will sleep walk into 1984.
33. Re:Hay guyz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Go slit your fucking wrists fucktard.
  -shutdown -p now
the Right to Read by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 21:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Human are naturally unwilling to express their creativity which is why we need to restrict the right to read so they have financial incentive to do stuff, right?
You have no right to be lazy, educating yourself and being productive out of enjoyment. To aim for an Ancient Greek society with technology as a replacement for slavery is insane. Your only right is the right to be worked^W^Wwork. Everyone who doesn't enjoy this right is just lazy - remember to be divided and conquered and engage your bitterness to turn against your fellow man even while he wants a better life for you. Then turn your brain into a tradable commodity. Hemos pasado!
1. Re:the Right to Read by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:59 · Score: 0
  
  Quite why people have to rely on other people's imagination for entertainment is a mystery.
  Can't they create stories themselves? For the past 20 years I have imagined the emergence and development of an entire African country. I have no need to share this with anyone else, it entertains me.
2. Re:the Right to Read by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer imaging sci-fi, It requires less suspension of disbelief.
3. Re:the Right to Read by Warwick+Allison · 2011-03-21 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Shut up Qaddafi, you anonymous senile coward.
4. Re:the Right to Read by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  OK, I invade your country and seize the tantalum mines. Your move, El Presidente.
  Signed,
  Col. Steve Jobs
Re:'will of the people' blockdead, stymage continu by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:39 · Score: 0

because they teach (make us do) real sex during their religious/family/business 'trainings',
Seriously, what in the hell are you going on about. And where do i get in on training programs where they make us do real sex.
catholicism still has sex-ed programs available by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:54 · Score: 0

there are many otheres. it's all hush hush since the shysters took over, butt we've heard that some extreme unction recipients are still giving 'trainings', & many of their former 'trainees' are still, on the hole, active. the minimum age is 6-7 if you're still interestdead?
it's not like they are not ruling us though. so the training, must be required?
1. Re:catholicism still has sex-ed programs available by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the trainings are pretty exclusive. They are only taught by Catholic priests, and the recipients of the training are required to be altar boys.
  
  "Mommy, I just had sex ed class... when will my ass stop hurting?"
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:01 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Yep, this is yet another fine example of Capitalism the free market cheerleaders don't want you to know about. They want you to think that Capitalismis about choice, Well that is true if you are rich. The poor well according to the rich and free market drones fuck them as they are nothing more than "scum of the earth." The solution is simple, communism. That's right boys and girls, communism. No more greedy rich to have power over someone else. Everyone will have the same rights and power. There will no longer be haves and have nots. Of course the fucktarded uneducated USians will fight tooth and claw over this like neanderthals going after their meat. Meat consumption should also be banned worldwide, why treat sentient/semi-sentient life forms like scum? With communism there will no longer be the Amazon's of the world and people will be free to create and share all arts with no barriers.
Sincerly,
Signed: The Rest of the World
1. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, under communism everyone can be poor.
2. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Eivind · 2011-03-21 23:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Nah. Somewhere in between is better.
  We do need some system of rewarding people who work hard, or else, evidence shows, people will just slack, and you end up not with everyone equally rich, but instead with everyone equally poor, so to say.
  On the flipside, we do also need mechanisms for ensuring that capitalism is a servant of the people - and not it's master.
  I tend to think the scandinavian countries hit the balance close to optimal, but offcourse I'm biased, being Norwegian myself. Some people would say we're -too- socialist, while others would say we're not -enough- socialist, to a certain degree it's a matter of personal taste, I guess.
  But I think it's fairly clear-cut that capitalism in the USA, needs *more* moderating influence, and that it has gone too far in the direction of giving power to the wealthy.
3. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by WorBlux · 2011-03-21 23:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The DMCA is not a result of trade in the marketplace. It is the result of trade in the political economy, that is to say of state power and privilege.
4. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by C_amiga_fan · 2011-03-21 23:46 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  >>>They want you to think that Capitalismis about choice, Well that is true if you are rich.
  That is so easily falsifiable:
  I am not rich. I am one of the poor working class, and yet I have freedom of choice. I CHOOSE not to buy comcast (getting my TV for free). I CHOOSE not to buy circuit city (which eventually went bankrupt). I CHOOSE not to buy sony or verizon or toyota or..... I also choose not to buy software, instead preferring to use free options (OpenOffice, VLC player, Winamp, etc).
  Now contrast that with the monopoly of Government, which forces me to use the shitty post office, forces me to fund Amtrak even though I haven't ridden a train in 30 years, forces me to buy Hospital insurance even though I don't want any (I'd sooner leave my fate to god), and so on.
  Give me capitalism (choice/free market) versus monopoly any day.
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
5. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Lumpy · 2011-03-21 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Choice is available for the rich or the educated. I can easily crack the DRM on their books so their lockdown does not stop me and I am not rich (By USA standards, I'm filthy rich by world standards). Problem is the rich are scared that you can be poor and educated.
  Because eventually the poor that get educated will learn they are getting the poop end of the stick.
  This is barring systems set in place to distract the poor and make them complacent.
  Television, the lottery and welfare are designed to protect the rich from getting killed in their mansions (Yes your 3800sq foot home in an exclusive neighborhood IS a Mansion) by the poor.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, spoken like a true USian capitalistic pig. In communism there is no rich or poor. Everyone is taken care of and no one has more or less power than the other. You USians prefer to look down on others and keep them in the fucking dirt. The first step would be to just simply change the trade from the USian dollar to the Euro and then *poof* no more US. After that there will be a huge push for communism as Capitalism has failed the poor and minorities just like it has in the past.
  Sincerly,
  Signed: The Rest of the World
7. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by LordNacho · 2011-03-21 23:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Being from another Scandinavian country myself, I have to disagree. The nanny state is huge, and people are no longer able to be responsible for themselves. Everyone thinks about their rights, not their obligations to society. Also, there's a great deal of Jantelov thinking, which is basically an institutional form of jealousy. The scandies need to consider that they're no longer in an isolated, homogeneous part of the world, where everyone agrees about what the public pot should be spent on.
  But anyway, that's not the main point I wanted to make. It's not that giving power to the wealthy is the main problem. (Sure, it can be a problem, no doubt.) The problem is giving power to large institutions. Microsoft, AT&T, Shell, etc... government is yet another example. If you ever work with or for one of these behemoths, it's understandable why you're frustrated. Large organisations lack common sense in their decision making, and they lack common empathy in their dealings with ordinary individuals. Due to their size (and influence) they're also able to live beyond their useful age, holding up resources (people, mainly) from more productive uses. Unfortunately, the west has institutionalized a system where the big firms work with the big governments to make sure neither of them is ever renewed. If organisations were smaller, we'd have a much more healthy society, where useful firms live, and old, unproductive ones die.
8. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Lumpy · 2011-03-21 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Lenin was not poor. Everyone in the cabinet in the USSR were not poor.
  In fact the poor to rich ratio in the Former U.S.S.R. was pretty darn close to what it is in the United States right now. From where I am standing, Both Communism and what we call Capitalism are 100% identical in screwing the public to favor the top elite.
  In fact show me ONE form of government that is fair. Because I cant find one that exists ANYWHERE on this planet.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  "I am not rich. I am one of the poor working class,"
  Really? so what is your yearly income, because I am betting you are actually in the top 35% income bracket in the USA based on current numbers and noth the old out of date pre 2007 numbers. IF you are making $50,000 a year you are in the top 35% and not "working poor" in fact I will not call you working "poor" if you make over $35,000 a year.
  Before you tell me you are "working poor" you had damn well be working at mcDonalds for minimum wage and living in a slum renting a shithole.
10. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by kj_kabaje · 2011-03-22 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Anarchy (as in Barcelona region of early 20th century Spain)?
11. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  This. Dear God, this! Currently, the two sides of the political spectrum are big government and big business. What we need is for both to be small.
12. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  So when you get sick you aren't going to go to the ER that you didn't pay for right? No medical insurance types in my experience for 90% of cases it is don't pay and pray. When the crap hits the fan then it is well just help me out this once. Or I'll pay (which many do), or "I would pay but I can't pay 10k that is a ridiculous amount" (which many do as well).
  Second: this article shows that our free loving capitalism can be equivalent to monopoly control by the government. There are a lot of industries where a large company has defacto monopoly power at least until the slow process of replacing them gathers steam eg. MS Windows/Office in the enterprise, Kindle for eBooks, the handful of large phone APIs (Apple, Android). These companies have the power to tell independent developers that their software isn't wanted on their app store/using their API. My theory is if you want the benefits of an open system (independent vendors building stuff for your device) than you should have to live with the consequences (Playboy might want to make a app for your device Jobs, change your shirt and suck it up).
13. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by TheLink · 2011-03-22 00:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  forces me to buy Hospital insurance
  
  So many stupid US people grumble about being forced to pay for other people's healthcare, blahblahblah.
  They don't seem to realize that they're ALREADY paying when some uninsured person queues up at ER and either eventually gets treatment and/or dies there (that still costs money). Even just turning them away costs money and time (won't be surprised it lowers the effectiveness of the ER in treating actual emergencies).
  Guess where the money comes from?
  Guess how efficient the "long queues at ER" method is at providing healthcare?
  Just look at how much healthcare costs per capita in the USA and what the US citizens get for it, and then compare with other countries.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
14. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by a2wflc · 2011-03-22 00:56 · Score: 2
  
  Under communism, who would have invented and marketed the kindle (or iphone or other devices), and why?
15. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bhcompy · 2011-03-22 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Conversely, instead of this stupidass rant, you could just get a Nook and not have these ridiculous restrictions that Amazon has for book lending. Because, you know, choice.
16. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bhcompy · 2011-03-22 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, but your socialistic policies and programs work much more smoothly and efficiently because you also have severely restricted immigration, a 90+% homogeneous population, and less people in your country than the Los Angeles metro area. Kinda easy to make blanket statements when your total immigrant population is half a million people across the entire country.
17. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Albanach · 2011-03-22 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As for me I plan to get insurance when I'm old (i.e. my body starts breaking down), but certainly not when I'm young and never get sick. That makes no sense. When I'm young paying ~$200 in cash for annual visits makes more sense then paying ~$5000 to the insurance megacorp.
  What you really mean is if you get really sick - and young people can and do get really sick - you'll be uninsured and expect me, through my taxes and my insurance contributions to pick up your tab? Or do you have a six figure sum tucked away for medical emergencies?
  The largest hospital near me is state owned. When an uninsured person turns up there, it is my taxes that help pay for it. At the other, private hospitals you are right, they have to eat that cost and consequently increase their charges resulting in higher insurance premiums, so I pay for those folk too.
18. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Coeurderoy · 2011-03-22 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  It's because people like you do not know how to count that insurence finally has to be mandatory...
  Corporation do not magically have "money" to spend, ALL their money at the end comes from YOUR pocket, the only difference between :
  Taxes, mandatory insurance where the money is collected by the state, mandatory insurance where the money is collected by recognized insurance, volontarely insurace is the billing system, and the potential spending oversight, not the "cost" in itself.
  And not having an insurance when you are young is stupid because the insurances ajust for risk, so it is cheaper to get insurance when you are young and still a decent deal if you happen to be unlucky and either break a leg or get some nasty stuff you where not planning for...
  So it is more efficient to lobby for a decent affordable well run insurance, than sticking your head in the sand...
19. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by AstroMatt · 2011-03-22 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  In fact show me ONE form of government that is fair. Because I cant find one that exists ANYWHERE on this planet.
  Bhutan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Government_and_politics
20. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bberens · 2011-03-22 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  If I didn't make an income and had a reasonable lifestyle provided for me I would still be writing code. And the quality would probably be better because the people around me who only do it to make a buck would get weeded out faster.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
21. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bberens · 2011-03-22 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Define fair. Please try to briefly discuss Darwinism in your response. kthxbye.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
22. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by lgw · 2011-03-22 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Under actual communism you would not have had a (pleasant) lifestyle provided for you - you would have been told "if you don't come to the government farm and work every day, you will starve to death. You will not be paid for work on the government farm, you greedy capitalist, but maybe you won't starve" while of course tens of millions would be starved to death by Stalin asserting his power.
  Under fantasy communism, skittle-shitting unicorns flying overhead would provide for your every need through the rainbows coming out of thier asses, and you'd have no need to write code because the unicrons would do that for you!
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by SaroDarksbane · 2011-03-22 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, this is yet another fine example of Capitalism the free market cheerleaders don't want you to know about.
  Actually, the entire ridiculous concept of "lending" an electronic copy of an infinitely copyable good wouldn't exist except for the monopolies currently granted by the government (copyright law). In an actual free market, you wouldn't need to worry about Amazon pulling their lending API, because you could just grab an actual copy from anywhere you wanted to.
24. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bberens · 2011-03-22 02:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I would suggest getting catastrophic coverage. The cost is unbelievably cheap and you will be protected in the event of some major health event: cancer, severe accident, etc.
  
  Cool story bro time...
  I'm in my 20s and healthy. I would be like you (except with catastrophic coverage mentioned before) if my employer didn't provide insurance, but they do. Last year I was in an accident and broke my arm. The total costs (to my insurance company) for the ride to the ER, surgery to screw my bones back together, a couple days in the hospital, and some physical therapy afterwards was over $50k. A couple things to note here. That $50k would have bankrupted my family if we had to pay that out of pocket. More importantly though... while I was in the ER I got to hear the initial patient questions they asked everyone in the room... Name, what happened, do you have insurance, etc. I can tell you based on the responses to those questions that my $50k of health care probably only cost about half that, because several people didn't have any form of insurance... But the hospital had to pay for doctors, nurses, beds, food, etc. for every one of them. The hospital I went to is non-profit. And sure, the President makes a big paycheck as do the doctors, but there's not massive corporate profits going into the pockets of some benefactor. In fact, the big local for-profit hospital will just do enough to keep you alive and then offer you a free ride to the non-profit hospital I was at.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
25. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bberens · 2011-03-22 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I was more responding to the false premise that without requiring an income people would become unproductive and would not desire to innovate than implementation issues resulting from the corrupt elite. That's a different and arguably impossible to overcome issue. I am one of those kooky people that believes we'll eventually innovate our way to a point in which we really don't have anything for most people to do. But we're at least a few lifetimes away from that point.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
26. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  Who do you think ultimately absorbs the hospital's loss? WE DO. When the hospital writes it off, they get a tax break which in turn is less money coming from the hospital which means WE have to make up for the difference. Your sig is a joke and shows a lack of critical thinking. You would do well to remove it.
  
  --
  Good-bye
27. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do you REALLY think setting a bone and putting some screws in should cost $50k? That is a simple and extremely ordinary procedure. There is no reason it should cost more the $10k at the VERY EXTREME.
  
  --
  Good-bye
28. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is a joke comment. I kind of hope it is, because it would disappoint me that there are still humans around who can think this way.
29. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by lgw · 2011-03-22 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be OK with mandatory health insurance if it worked just like mandatory car insurance: get my employer and the government the fuck out of my individual insurance purchasing decision (unless I'm in the "must insure at a loss" pool, in which case beggars can't be choosers).
  The mandatory insuance model for cars works fine (as government programs go) in many states, but somehow when people start talking about mandatory health insurance the conversation veers off to all the doctors working for the government. We can have the one without the other, dammit.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
30. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bws111 · 2011-03-22 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Writing code on/for what? Where did the devices come from? Do you actually think the state would create consumer electronic devices? Or were these devices designed and manufactured by other people doing it 'for fun'? And where did all the raw materials and equipment used to make the devices come from? Miners mining for fun?
31. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Coeurderoy · 2011-03-22 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  The idea that "all the doctors would be working for the government" is a red flag waved by people who like the system as it is : way overpriced...
  France has had mandatory insurance for probably over 20 years, and generalized insurance since the end of ww2.
  And most of the doctors are independent professionals, and although you are supposed to identify a "generalist" as your "family doctor" and use him or her as an "entry door" before visiting a specialist (expect special cases like eye doctors, gyncologist, ... and urgent cases...), you can change it very easily and the choice is free..
  There is no reason to have a "UK" style health system, reglementation and competition can work together, you just have to try to get the best out of both...
32. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I am not rich.
  Since when is almost $150,000 a year not rich?
33. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by a2wflc · 2011-03-22 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not talking about the individuals working on it. I'm talking about the $millions it takes to develop and market the product - the devices themselves plus the infrastructure around it. If nobody can get rich, who is going to invest that money? You may say "the state", but they will invest in 1 device at most, not a lot of competitors who will push the top devices to get even better.
  I've worked in a few companies who create physical devices and it isn't cheap to develop them, much less market them. And I don't think any one of them would have been developed if not for the owners wanting to make money.
34. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You've previously stated that you make close to $150k, why not just say that instead of skirting around the question?
  Oh, I know, it's because you know no one will take your claim of being "poor" seriously. Well, fortunately for us, this isn't 4chan and your posts never get erased.
  Have a nice day. :)
35. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by shurikt · 2011-03-22 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Please explain what race/immigration has to do with it. I'm not sure I follow...
36. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by TheLink · 2011-03-22 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  It makes the hospital more. They pass the costs to the insurance companies who then pass it to the companies or individuals.
  
  FWIW it also helps pay for the uninsured queuing up at the ER.
  
  Whereas in some other countries you have:
  1) private hospitals which charge a lot.
  2) government/state hospitals which are tax subsidized/funded, but often (not always!) have longer queues - so if your condition is not serious you have to wait longer than someone who needs the stuff "right now".
  
  The latter is not always inferior to the former. The government doctors often have more experience :).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
37. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I believe what GP was saying is that it doesn't actually cost that much, but because of all the other patients that end up unable to pay, their costs are made up for by the ones who can. Not in a "oh, we'll bill you for the procedures done to these 3 other people" sort of thing. But rather in a "all procedures are billed at multiple times their actual cost because otherwise we're royally fucked when people are unable to pay" sense.
  BTW, I'm curious why you think it should only cost $10k.
38. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Stormthirst · 2011-03-22 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What makes me really laugh about the Americans whinging about people spending their taxes on healthcare, is that despite spending nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare than Canada, they still have a lower life expectancy for reference and their infant mortality is significantly higher. And even funnier, their % of government revenue spent on health, is higher than Canada too.
  Surely a solution to this is for the government to regulate the healthcare and medical insurance industries to ensure the cost isn't completely ridiculous so EVERYONE can afford healthcare.
  Oh - and before anyone bleats on about not being able to see a doctor when you like - Canada has a very similar number of physicians per capita to America. There is no need for rationing.
  Also - for the parent posting - when will you decide your body is failing enough for you to get insurance? When you're 30? When you're 40? When you're 50? Sickness can strike at any time - it's not just limited to the old.
39. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism is a system of man's exploitation my man, whereas in Communism it's the other way around!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
40. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  The point he was making is that hospitals charge at least twice their actual costs for any procedure in order to cover the half of their patients who have no insurance and no means to pay. Insurance companies have some leverage to drive these costs down, but cash customers really get screwed.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
41. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  Ah yes, Nook... the device the Microsoft is currently suing for patent infringement? I'm sure it's got a bright future ahead, cause obviously our current system encourages choice.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
42. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bhcompy · 2011-03-22 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Heres a few:
  1) People are more apt to support their own than others. This extends to cultural and socio-economic groups. A homogeneous culture benefits from this aspect of basic human behavior. With the small size of the population of Norway, the community aspect becomes more pronounced.
  2) A much smaller problem, but still a problem, comes from supporting people of many different ethnicities on a large scale. Medically(as Norway is used as a prime example for social medicine done right), the lack of diversity will assist in keeping costs down as there are a number of medical issues that have prevalence based on ancestry(like sickle-cell anemia). Not a major issue, but one that costs money regardless.
43. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Skapare · 2011-03-22 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  This action has nothing to do with capitalism. This is just greed.
  Capitalism is a method of allowing private or public investment in business, for the investor to gain returns if the company is successful.
  An ethical business will create value and keep as a profit some portion of the value, with its customers acquiring the remaining value in the form of that product or service.
  An unethical business with divert value instead of creating it, so they profit from something that harms everyone else.
  Communism is nothing more than government substituted for the company in these roles. A government can be just as ethical or unethical (the latter usually in the form of corruption by leaders).
  What is needed is a means to ensure ethical behavior, regardless of whether capitalism or communism is involved. Since governments tend to be inefficient, poorly organized, and heavily burdened by bureaucracy, and corporations tend to lie, steal, and cheat everywhere they can get away with, the ideal solution is for a well regulated form of capitalism.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
44. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by spire3661 · 2011-03-22 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Im curious why you think a relatively simple procedure like setting a bone should cost as much AS A CAR.
  
  --
  Good-bye
45. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by lgw · 2011-03-22 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  My point was they are completly unrelated issues. Providing health insurance for the poor can and should be done in isolation from any idealistic crusade to "reform the health care system".
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
46. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I never said I thought I knew what an individual procedure should cost, I was simply explaining why I thought GP thinks it ends up costing that much. You, on the other hand, seem fairly certain about what it should cost, so I was simply curious how you came to the conclusion that if you strip out all the fluff, you end up with a procedure that costs just $10k.
47. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Compare and contrast with fantasy capitalism where everyone who works hard gets to become the president, and actual capitalism where millions of hard-working americans are on or below the poverty line while their fat cat employers get rich for being in the old boys club.
48. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bhcompy · 2011-03-22 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually only the Nook Color, and Microsoft is suing because of Android, not because of anything B&N did in particular. The Nook E-Ink, which is a superior eReader than the Color(much like the Sony and Kindle E-Ink varieties), are not in this lawsuit because they do not run Android.
49. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by countertrolling · 2011-03-22 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  "actual" communism was the fantasy. It never existed...
  And yes, skittle-shitting unicorns are on their way. Once they start reproducing on their own, look out!
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
50. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by C_amiga_fan · 2011-03-22 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  150,000 is pretty standard for the readers of Slashdot (programmers or engineers), and it's miniscule compared to the persons earning $5 million a year off Stock options and other shit. (i.e. the Ruling class of this country, like CEOs and congressmen)
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
51. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bberens · 2011-03-22 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, technological progress would slow down without a profit motive. It's important to also recognize the probably change in the psychology of the "purchasers." If everyone is allocated the same amount of resources/money then there's less impetus to try to impress people with the latest shiny crap which was engineered to break just in time for the next release cycle. All of the less desirable work to be done would be handled on an individual level or automated entirely. For example, robots don't make and serve our meals right now because it's not profitable compared to hiring college students. The market would change dramatically on both sides. Of course it's all a fantasy anyways. I generally support capitalism.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
52. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by cdrguru · 2011-03-22 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  A huge problem in the US (which is getting worse) is the "culture islands" of people that have no interest in assimilating. During previous immigration waves the people that were coming to the US wanted to be "Americans" (whatever that means) but recently the trend has been "diversity" where they want to keep their culture, language and customs - just live in the US, make lots of money and send a good bit of it home to the family.
  What this does is you get attitudes that are very, very counterproductive if you are trying to assemble the people behind a common goal. Let's say that it would make sense to raise taxes in order to pay for a really spiffy Medicare benefit such as assisted living. So instead of putting Grandma in the cheapest warehouse so she can wait to die she could get some kind of home assistance. Well, the folks that are here to make money and send it home (and probably return there after working for 10-15 years) have no interest in such things. Trying to build a demographic of middle-aged people working gets all skewed because maybe 10% of the working adults in may be transients that have very little interest in anything except fatter paychecks right now.
  There is certainly another factor at work as well, Fundamentalist religious beliefs, whether they are Christian or Muslim, tend to push people to focus on the afterlife rather than material things in this life. So good health care is relatively meaningless and care for Grandma is not a priority at all. Such people are going to vote for things that mystify people interested in the here and now. It isn't Sharia law that we need to worry about as much as voting for the afterlife. If you want benefits and support from your government, you are looking for things that are meaningless to someone focused on the afterlife.
  It doesn't matter if these people are white, brown or green. If they are in the US (or UK) to grab some easy cash and send it back to the wife and kids somewhere else, they aren't going to have the same priorities as someone in the country for the long haul. And I'd say getting too many people not in it for the long haul is hazardous to any country.
53. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-03-22 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  150,000 is pretty standard for the readers of Slashdot (programmers or engineers), and it's miniscule compared to the persons earning $5 million a year off Stock options and other shit. (i.e. the Ruling class of this country, like CEOs and congressmen)
  But it certainly isn't anywhere near "working poor".
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
54. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by StikyPad · 2011-03-22 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  High deductible (aka catastrophic coverage) insurance is a crock of shit. The savings in premiums may exist, but often its insubstantial -- possibly as little as 5 or 10% -- unless other provisions exist, such as low lifetime caps on treatment, which completely defeats the purpose of having insurance in the first place. Worse, the lack of any co-pay before meeting the deductible discourages people from seeking treatment *before* something minor turns into something big. That's the point when a true savings can be realized, not to mention treatability and life expectancy for many ailments that get worse, sometimes irreversibly, over time.
  The NYT had a great article on high deductible policies...
  
  âoeFor most people, a high-deductible plan is basically a bet against yourself,â said Ms. Stoll. âoeYouâ(TM)re betting that you wonâ(TM)t get sick and you wonâ(TM)t have an accident. But isnâ(TM)t that exactly what insurance is supposed to be? A bet that something might happen, and if it does youâ(TM)ll be protected?â
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/health/30patient.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
  Basically, unless you get very sick within a very short window after starting high deductible coverage, you're probably better off putting your money into an HSA. Still, saving money specifically for potential healthcare expenses only really benefits a very narrow window of people: those who can save enough money to cover potential expenses AND never need to use that money. For everyone else, standard insurance is the far better option, which is why we carry it on almost everything else of value that we insure in life.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
55. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bluefoxlucid · 2011-03-22 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  The US is not capitalism though, it's Free Enterprise Market.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
56. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by StikyPad · 2011-03-22 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  You're just setting yourself up for higher premiums later in life. A system where people don't buy insurance until they need it can't work any other way.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
57. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Kagato · 2011-03-22 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Lifetime caps are removed under Obamacare.
  You cannot contribute to a HSA without a having the prerequisite insurance product. In most cases a form of high deductible plan.
58. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bluefoxlucid · 2011-03-22 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  You should play Go. You'll find that all crude, low-level games end vastly imbalanced-- B+30 points, W+178 points, an "even" handicap cannot be won and it's W+60 points, etc. Higher level games, however, tend to fall within 2-4 points; occasionally a mistake is made, and a large loss is sustained, B+186 after White plays the tiger's mouth instead of the solid connection and loses a vital point in his wall.
  What is interesting about Go, however, is that the manner of play must be flexible. The openings are vast and provide an open, but not really solid, foundation. Attacks here lead to defenses here, or maybe passive responses here; you can protect, or you can concede 30 points here but take 30 points over there in exchange. So while every high-level game comes within 2 points because of near-perfect play on the part of both parties, no two games are even vaguely similar.
  Economics works the same way. Capitalism won't work, just like playing all your stones along one side and trying viciously to collect territory won't work. Communism won't work either, just like scattering your stones all over the board as thin as possible right in the opening won't work. Aggressively attacking won't work, neither will aggressively defending; individual moves have to both defend and expand, or defend and attack something else.
  A working economic system must be extremely flexible, and it must be a blend between communism and capitalism. Communism and capitalism are simply endpoints on a continuum; the Free Enterprise Market system is near-capitalism, but shifted a little to communism. Sometimes the government has to tell you, hey, you can't use your monopolistic position abusively to stifle competition or strangle other markets you want a foothold in. Patent protection is good, but endless patents and copyrights are not; in a fast-changing technological climate, you want shorter IP terms to avoid outright stifling innovation by making it dependent on the patent chain.
  Maybe we should provide healthcare, but it's expensive. Maybe we should provide free clinics (check-ups, lab test, prescription writing, everything but OR and ER) to reduce the healthcare burden, sort of pay 10% to get 90% of the benefit. If you have insurance, it pays just like it pays in-network and out-of-network doctors; but the free clinic healthcare system pays the difference, instead of out-of-pocket payments. That's a good attempt between "Pay everything" and "Pay nothing." So was medicare and medicaid (socialized medicine for old people, not workforce).
  As the economic climate changes, the optimal balance shifts. If you're greedy and want everything, you will fuck it up. Things need constant adjustment, attention, evaluation. You must know when to concede to gain more, or more often to lose less.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
59. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Cyberax · 2011-03-22 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Under actual communism you would not have had a (pleasant) lifestyle provided for you - you would have been told "if you don't come to the government farm and work every day, you will starve to death. Under actual communism you would not have had a (pleasant) lifestyle provided for you - you would have been told "if you don't come to the government farm and work every day, you will starve to death."
  Uhm. That's a pretty good description for a ruthless Ayan-Randian-capitalism.
  The ideal communism would allow you to do your favorite job and get everything you want in return. That's exactly what makes it impossible in our current society.
60. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Cyberax · 2011-03-22 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  I can't find the Jini index for the USSR, and from my personal point of view USSR was quite egalitarian. For example, the difference in salary of CEO and an average worker on a factory was about 3-10 times. And an average worker often earned more than their immediate managers. Even the top members of the Communist Party lived quite modestly by today's standards for rich people.
61. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Go slit your fucking wrists communist loving fucktard.
  -C_amiga_fan
62. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  pfft, you don't even know the meaning of the term poor. I live on approx $9000 a year and I don't consider myself poor. I get the impression you've never experienced poverty somehow, how lucky for you.
63. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by TheLink · 2011-03-22 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  They still need to reform it. Currently the market/system is broken because there is little incentive to lower costs AND actually more incentive to increase costs (since it makes some companies more money and also covers butts).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
64. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Eivind · 2011-03-22 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and that's essentially what I said. Going to either extreme, is almost certainly a bad thing. And while we can debate endlessly about where exactly the optimal balance between capitalism and socialism is, it seems inituitively obvious to me that USA currently errs on the side of capitalism.
  I don't actually think that large fractions of the American population *agrees* with the development we've seen the last 30 years where the share of income enjoyed by the top-1% has risen by 120% (i.e. more than doubled) whereas it's risen by 30% for the top-20% and fallen for everyone else.
  In short, this: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png is a bad development, and I do *not* think it reflects voter-will, so when it happens anyway, I'm inclined to believe the main reason is capital has gained influence whereas the voting public has lost influence.
65. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Eivind · 2011-03-22 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  That fails to work. Because absent government intervention, there's many mechanisms in the market that will lead to monopolies. All else being equal, often the bigger company will be able to beat and/or buy the smaller company. Unless you do -something- to limit the power of corporations, the end-result is mega-corps.
66. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by Eivind · 2011-03-22 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  True. We've got some natural advantages. But this does not change the overall point -- USA has by far the highest GINI-index of *any* other rich western country (gini measures inequality), and the gap is growing rapidly.
  So you can choose to compare with a larger country, if you find that comparison better (and maybe it is!). My point is, in USA a *huge* part of the total resources go to the upper few percent, while everyone elses share has been dropping steadily for decades.
  And that's not a good trend.
67. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by LordNacho · 2011-03-22 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't mean you need government on the scale it is now. Most of what government does these days is NOT the competition regulation that you're talking about.
68. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by bluefoxlucid · 2011-03-23 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  And while we can debate endlessly about where exactly the optimal balance between capitalism and socialism is
  This is where my point landed. It is subtle, like the playing of Go Seigen: there is no exactly optimal balance, and the system must continuously adjust for the economic climate. An error is an error; we must be willing to sacrifice one thing to gain another. Protectionism hinders prosperity, and greed destroys all; the fine line between is hard to find.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
69. Re:Capitalism At Its Finest by steveg · 2011-03-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Mmm? Are you sure about that last? I'm pretty sure the standard e-Ink Nook also runs Android.
  
  --
  Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
alter(ed) boys co. too big to fail also by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:10 · Score: 0

main businesses; birth, death, marriage, tithing, divine interventions etc... spin-offs; easter bunny, santa claus, revirginations, holycosts, crusades (real estate) etc...
so what you're really trying to say is by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:12 · Score: 0

you've read some old books?
Re:'will of the people' blockdead, stymage continu by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:20 · Score: 0

I think he is having a Jared moment.
is that why monkeys don't have a hymen? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:30 · Score: 0

no, the (irish)catholics do old school (get drunk, beat 'em to death) jesus et al (not experimental mutation). all their names start with o, so it would have been; do monkeys have an O'hymen? make sense now? there may be a fouled strain (not irish) of pseudo-catholics involved with the nazi mutants & the eugenatics in other ongoing life0cidal skulduggery.
in (a) real life, only babys rule.
1. Re:is that why monkeys don't have a hymen? by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Worst. Chatbot. Ever!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
eBook Fling not using API by cerberusss · 2011-03-21 22:36 · Score: 4, Informative

I've used the eBook Fling site, and they don't seem to use an API. Their site is built around their users following a number of steps to lend eBooks to each other, each step described in an iFrame below which the Amazon site is displayed.
They're probably still good to go, although the site has a number of deficiencies. For example, Amazon only allows US-based Kindle owners to lend books. They're not clear about this (you can't find it on the site) and eBook Fling doesn't tell you either. So I've wasted an hour or so finding out what was wrong with either eBook Fling or my Amazon account, until an Amazon rep finally figured out that I wasn't US-based.

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
1. Re:eBook Fling not using API by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Google search "lend kindle", first hit, bottom of the page in the FAQ.
No problem... by curious.corn · 2011-03-21 22:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

... on TPB business goes on as usual.

Har, har, har

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
1. Re:No problem... by Kazymyr · 2011-03-21 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Avast, you scurvy scallawag!
  
  --
  I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Dear Amazon by argStyopa · 2011-03-21 22:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I understand that the Kindle is sold somewhat as a loss-leader and a mechanism to try to sell ebooks for absurd prices (it's bad enough that paperbacks are $9; to charge that same price that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...hard to swallow), at some point even your lawyer-swaddled management must recognize that if one too blatantly attacks all *reasonable* means of use of that hardware, the only things left are going to be people who are willing and able to use your hardware WITHOUT your consent/cooperation, ie pirates.
Cutting off Lendle (and with a classy c&d sent from a 'do not reply' email address and no recourse to appeal or discuss), secretly editing books, purging books that people have purchased - all of these things simply indicate that you as a vendor are untrustworthy. Therefore the trusting will go elsewhere, the unscrupulous will continue to use Kindles and here's the kick: you're not going to see a DIME of their activities.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Dear Amazon by h4rm0ny · 2011-03-21 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...
  And quite a lot of time and effort to produce.
  
  There is a difference in price between hardcopy and digital versions.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
2. Re:Dear Amazon by PhilHibbs · 2011-03-21 23:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  (it's bad enough that paperbacks are $9; to charge that same price that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...hard to swallow),
  Advertisement is still a cost, and they have to make back their up-front costs such as advances, layout, editing, and proofreading. If that cost them $50,000 and they expect to sell 10,000 copies, then that sets the price at $5 minimum just to recoup their costs. I have no idea about costs or sales numbers but I expect a big selling author will sell a lot more than that, but again they have to offset that against authors that don't pan out.
  I agree about your other points, though, Amazon have never behaved in an ethical manner, which is why I've never bought anything from them. Well, I think I might have bought one book back in the early days. Not sure.
3. Re:Dear Amazon by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-03-21 23:34 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Therefore the trusting will go elsewhere...
  Such as the Public Library...soon to be closed by budget-slashing consevatives to fund the Defense of the Wealthy Act of 2011.
4. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Am I the only one who gets fed up of the complaints about the prices of E-books and Downloaded computer software, where the argument is based solely on the fact there is no physical medium, and therefore it should cost less than it's physical counter part. There are a lot more factor's which go into determining the value of a product than the cost of materials alone. Convenience and Novelty spring to mind as things which people are happy to pay for in a wide range of products.
  How much these are worth to you is a personal thing, but I'm more than happy to pay a full paperback price when i buy my e-book in exchange for the convenience on not actually having to go to a shop. then there are the additional features you get from an E-book, such as searching and note taking, the fact that all my books are backed up on servers etc. All of these things are added value.
  Let's be clear. I'm not necessarily saying that the price of e-books isn't to expensive, but simply that there is a lot more to the value of a product than the cost of its materials (you just need to look at 'Designer products' to see that). So fine, if e-books are too expensive, vote with your feet and don't buy one, but the evidence seems to be that people are willing to pay the current prices, and in the end that's what really determines the value of a product.
5. Re:Dear Amazon by Tim+C · 2011-03-21 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  Two points:
  1) Printing, binding and shipping are a relatively small part of the cost of producing a hard-copy book, at least when producing them in bulk
  2) Publishers can and do specify minimum prices that Amazon cannot go below (in order to make a profit, even if there's nothing contractual in place)
  On the prices at least, you are directing your ire at entirely the wrong target.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
6. Re:Dear Amazon by gl4ss · 2011-03-21 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  have you ever held a kindle? thought about the hw inside? it's not that expensive to produce..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
7. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  There is a huge difference. Buy any book published pre-2005 and find they did a bad OCR job that they didn't even spell check. Then pay the same price as the well formatted and edited paperback.
  I mean really a spell check and find-replace on the same errors made by the OCR job they did would lower the mistakes from 2 per paragraph to 1 a page.
  I could cut the spine, scan/OCR these books and have a better quality ebook version myself in an afternoon. /endrage
  I wish so many of my favorite books were not mangled junk at the same price.
8. Re:Dear Amazon by Lumpy · 2011-03-22 00:09 · Score: 2
  
  I do know what the costs are and printing and logistics are 50% of the cost of the book.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:Dear Amazon by Lumpy · 2011-03-22 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect unless you are talking a 1,000,000 book printing order for a best seller. MOST books published are short runs that are only 10,000 -50,000 printed and can run up to 50% of the cost if there is ANY color pages inside. small cheap paperback with color cover are cheapest and if under 500 pages can be as cheap as 25% of the book cost in shorter runs. This is for crappy Perfectbound and in the typical paperback size called "royal".
  I know because I have published 2 books. unless you are a NYT best seller your book printing and shipping charges from publisher and logistics in the warehouse are high.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:Dear Amazon by teh+kurisu · 2011-03-22 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise
  
  It doesn't cost nothing. It costs less, much less, but not nothing. Servers and bandwidth aren't free.
  Advertising... from whose perspective? Amazon advertises the Kindle on TV, and that certainly isn't free. For individual books, having your book appear in a store alongside 600,000 other books isn't advertising. You need to do much more than that in order to promote your book.
11. Re:Dear Amazon by Darth_brooks · 2011-03-22 00:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "to charge that same price that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...hard to swallow"
  Especially if you don't grasp the concept that bandwidth, server storage space, and advertising (with the same requisite bandwidth and storage costs) AREN'T FREE EITHER. But hey, keep thinking that the latest churning of Harry Potter or the Twilight series are hosted off some 20gig harddrive hooked up to a old PII in some guy's basement.
  Amazon gets their cut *after the publishers*, the same scrupulous people that were at the root of the 1984 / book deletion mess in the first place (but who am I to get in the way of some perfectly good nerd rage?).
  
  --
  There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
12. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  A 300k book is effectively zero cost in bandwidth terms today. Amazon's home page, less linked files like css, javascript, and images is over 100k. Storage is likewise. 1m 300kb books is a tiny 286GB. Yes, GB, that's well within the smallest harddrive you get in bargain bucket computers. Don't forget you only need a single copy of a digital file. Sending an ebook is smaller than going to an amazon product page, something they do 10s of million times a day.
  The only costs are Amazon's infrastructure, but ebooks don't even show up as a statistical anomaly compared to their core business of being a store. They're merely leveraging their more than ample resources for alternate usage.
  Advertising is a different matter. Eyeballs cost. Any author can easily get off their lazy butts and engage reader to build their own fan base. If authors fail, maybe what they write is simply crap. Presumably you've read some of the free/low-cost books? Joe Unemployed writes drivel, gets it into a store, and wonders why they're only getting single star reviews.
13. Re:Dear Amazon by argStyopa · 2011-03-22 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  "There is a difference in price between hardcopy and digital versions."
  orly?
  http://www.amazon.com/Absolution-Gap-ebook/dp/B001ODO61G/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1300800486&sr=8-1
  Absolution Gap, by Alastair Reynolds 2008
  Paperback: $8.99
  Kindle Edition: $8.99
  Those prices look pretty damn identical to me.
  
  --
  -Styopa
14. Re:Dear Amazon by NewsWatcher · 2011-03-22 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Advertisement is still a cost, and they have to make back their up-front costs such as advances, layout, editing, and proofreading. If that cost them $50,000 and they expect to sell 10,000 copies, then that sets the price at $5 minimum just to recoup their costs..
  Um right, so grabbing a softcopy of a book from a publisher, converting it into a different format, and cleaning up the layout costs $50,000.
  I would guess the real cost is under $100.
  You don't really need proofreading for most ebooks, as the publishers give them the softcopies. The book publishers are working with Amazon.
  For some older books you may have to scan them manually and then check to make sure the spelling all comes up OK, but there is no way it will cost $50,000.
  I think the model is probably more like: Amazon tells publishers 'cooperate and give us softcopy of a book. Amazon then gets the copy, hits Control-V and converts it into their own format.
  Amazon then pays someone to make sure the links to chapters work fine and that the cover art illustrates fine.
  Amazon then advertises the book somewhere on their own site (not a cost to the company).
  Amazon then waits for people to order the book, getting $10 for essentially doing nothing.
  They are like Google News, using the endeavours of others to profit. Now don't get me wrong, I love Google News. I also love my Kindle, but I am not so naive as to not realise how the system works.
  
  --
  If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
15. Re:Dear Amazon by argStyopa · 2011-03-22 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, you go all pedantic over the cost of bandwidth and server storage space and claim my point is nerd rage? LOL. Really - what's the cost of storage and bandwidth for a 500k ebook? I bet it's a lot closer to nothing than $1.
  Absolutes like "nothing" or "always" seem to trigger some latent nerd-Asperger's specificity gland, even when used rhetorically and as a generalization, not as some sort of scientific assertion. Does the fact that (calculating generously) bandwidth and storage cost perhaps $0.05 materially affect my point? Perhaps it's not me that's failing to grasp the essential point?
  Yes, I understand that the prices paid for every Neil Gaiman or JK Rowling to some degree subsidizes all the Joanne Undiscovereds hidden amongst the Tom Pieceofcraps. Your point about the publishers is well taken.
  However, to claim that somehow an ebook (for whatever reason) should be comparably priced to a physical book that has to be printed on paper, stored, shipped, sold, etc. is simply absurd. I'm not saying it should be free, that would be equally absurd.
  
  --
  -Styopa
16. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Starting June 30, 2010, authors and publishers who choose the new 70 percent royalty option will receive 70 percent of the list price, net of delivery costs for each Kindle ebook sold.
  The delivery costs relate to file size, where $0.15 is charged per megabyte. Given the median DTP file size of 368KB per Kindle ebook, delivery costs will generally be less than $0.06 per unit sold.
  http://www.kikabink.com/news/amazon-to-pay-70-percent-royalties-to-kindle-ebook-authors-and-publishers/
17. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  That's just a totally asinine thing to say. Grow up.
18. Re:Dear Amazon by eric2hill · 2011-03-22 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Just to be clear, the Harry Potter series isn't available in eBook format. JK won't allow it for some reason.
  
  --
  LOAD "SIG",8,1
  LOADING...
  READY.
  RUN
19. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...hard to swallow.
  I work for a company that sells eBooks and you are simply wrong. I once thought as you did, but it turns out that when we called Dell for a bunch of "free eBook servers" they said "no", so we had to buy storage. Sadly the surprises didn't stop there; when we went to ship our eBooks to customers we called our local provider for a few of those "free T3 lines" and they also said "no", so we now have to pay for our internets too!
  Don't even get me started on the "free advertising"... it turns out that even though the product is digital, our Marketing team still expect to be paid for their work! Selfish bastards....
  There's no doubt that the pricing model isn't even close to where it should be and publishers are grasping for way too much control of what they provide, but your suggestion that once a book is digitized that there is zero (or practically zero) overhead and it's all profit with no outlay is ridiculous. It's talk like that that has the publishers believing that everyone just wants their content for free in the first place. A little common sense from the publishers AND from people like you would bring this debate to a more sensible resolution a lot quicker.
20. Re:Dear Amazon by index0 · 2011-03-22 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Every time digital information comes up, people talk about costs for storage and distribution. You seem to imply it costs big money for these things. If so, how are companies that provide newsgroup access able to do it for so cheap? Less than $10 a month and you have access to many TB of data with many weeks of retention.
21. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Let's see... so that 3 MB ebook takes up 0.0000015 of the storage on a $1000 2TB server (a tenth of a penny), and transferring that 3 MB ebook over bandwidth that is $2000/mo for 1 Gbps sustained bandwidth in a datacenter, which is .0002 cents.
  Now let's quadruple my numbers in case I'm low and to account for staffing. .1002 * 4 = .4008 cents
  Yep, that's not free. Tell ya what, I'll throw in the whole penny. Keep the change.
22. Re:Dear Amazon by PhilHibbs · 2011-03-22 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  OK I was thinking about the costs of e-publishing, rather than a digital version of an already-published book. But in any case it's unreasonable to place all of the cost-recovery on physical books and expect no cost-recovery from e-book sales, and $100 as the cost of releasing a digital version is... a little optimistic.
23. Re:Dear Amazon by h4rm0ny · 2011-03-22 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  There is a huge difference. Buy any book published pre-2005 and find they did a bad OCR job that they didn't even spell check. Then pay the same price as the well formatted and edited paperback.
  I mean really a spell check and find-replace on the same errors made by the OCR job they did would lower the mistakes from 2 per paragraph to 1 a page.
  I could cut the spine, scan/OCR these books and have a better quality ebook version myself in an afternoon. /endrage
  I wish so many of my favorite books were not mangled junk at the same price.
  I was talking about the time and effort in writing the book, not the conversion of existing ones to digital format.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
24. Re:Dear Amazon by h4rm0ny · 2011-03-22 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the paperback is cheaper, you've misquoted the prices. Though I suspect you're just setting things up for a chance to point out that the difference isn't enough. Anyway, I'm going to retract my earlier point about the prices being different. The Kindle ones I've bought have always been cheaper than the hardcopy, but in fact this is irrelevant. They are different formats with different advantages and disadvantages. For example I bought the D Programming Language book on Kindle because I preferred it that way. It's a big fat book and it's easier to have it on a lightweight device I can slip in a pocket or lie in bed reading, holding it with one hand. Buy whichever format is better for you. The point is that the cost of a book doesn't drop to nothing because it is easier to distribute. The book has an inherent cost because it took a lot of time and effort to write.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
25. Re:Dear Amazon by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  The marginal cost for each book is close to zero. The fixed costs are not, and must be amortized over each book sold. Theoretically, if Amazon could count on selling more books by restricting loaning of books, it could lower the price charged to customers for each book.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
26. Re:Dear Amazon by brkello · 2011-03-22 04:43 · Score: 2
  
  It should be hard for you to swallow it because you are completely wrong. There is a cost associated with storing the data, there is a cost for backing up the data, there is a cost for customer service, there is a cost for transmitting the data, there is a cost for maintaining the infrastructure, there is a cost to upgrade the infrastructure, etc. etc etc. There are different costs associated with an e-book than there are with normal books that should be flat out obvious to anyone on Slashdot.
  
  I recently got a Kindle for myself and my girl friend and we both enjoy using it immensely. If I get bitten by some of the issues you are talking about, I may reconsider but I haven't and most likely won't. This is just another example of the circle-jerk sky is falling mentality here that I just don't get. You exaggerate and freak out about the smallest things. I am surprised people make it out their front door.
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
27. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Amazon charges about $0.15 per gigabyte for transfer or one months storage of data through their web services. Surely they get better rates for Kindle sales but it's OK for this analysis. 500k is 1/2000 of one gigabyte. Therefore it costs Amazon approximately $0.000075 to transfer a purchased ebook to a customer and about $0.0009 to store it annually. I suspect the cost of processing the transaction is on the same order. Therefore, the total overhead for an ebook purchase is about $0.001.
28. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Do you mean: soon to be closed because the Democrats transferred all the wealth to their union cronies and now there is no money for library budgets or ?
  Of course you do.
29. Re:Dear Amazon by Crispy+Critters · 2011-03-22 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  "While I understand that the Kindle is sold somewhat as a loss-leader and a mechanism to try to sell ebooks for absurd prices (it's bad enough that paperbacks are $9; to charge that same price that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship, NOTHING to advertise is...hard to swallow)"
  It's not clear that you do understand. To a reasonable first approximation, the cost of printing and binding a book, hardback or paperback, is zero. Most of the cost goes to paying people, like authors, agents, editors, proofreaders, artists, buyers, marketers, and so on, who do the same work whether a book is a hardback, an ebook, or etched onto gnat's wings. The only reason that hardbacks cost so much more is because people are willing to pay it the get the book when it is first published. That's where most of the money is made. If people switch from $30 hardbacks to $10 ebooks, there will be no more money to pay the people who produce books the way we know them today. A massive switch to $10 ebooks will kill the creation of new book.
  Once you pay the fixed costs, like writing and editing, from the revenues from the hardbacks, any sale that makes any money is worthwhile, so we have paperbacks. If the ebook were to be released with the paperback, it could be sold for $1-2 less than the paperback and everyone would be happy. If it is released concurrently with the $30 hardback, they have to sell it for hardback prices. You could argue that all ebook sales are in addition to hardback sales, not replacing hardback sales, but that isn't very plausible.
30. Re:Dear Amazon by cdrguru · 2011-03-22 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know who you have been using as a publisher but 50% of the cost is absurd.
  My book (CD and DVD Forensics is published by Syngress, now Elsivere) would have cost me around $2 to have printed myself, if I had gone a self-publishing route. That would have been for 100 copies minimum. Yes, it is perfect-bound. It costs around $0.50 to ship if you order a box of them, as any reasonable bookseller would. When I order a box I think I pay something like $10 for shipping on a case of 22. Wholesale cost on the book is around $20, with the retail being $50.
  I got an advance, I got a real publishing contract and if there were 4-5,000 books sold I would get royalties.
  If they are making you pay for warehousing your own book, you are self-publishing. No publisher goes that far that I have ever heard of. I think you got a vanity press contract that was disguised as a publishing deal. Yes, they are going to make you pay to store your book. They are likely to make you pay for proofreading and editing as separate items as well, and make them optional, value-added services.
  You don't need to print 1,000,000 copies for cheap printing, but you do have to deal with the right people. The publishers with physical books on Amazon aren't paying 50% of the wholesale cost for printing. It is a lot closer to 10%. Maybe on cheap paperbacks it is as high as 20% - that is $1.40 on a $7 book. Even an "expensive" hardcover book is going to be $5-$6 to print and bind if is being done right.
31. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  There are two expensive parts in a Kindle: the cell modem and the eInk display. Period. I think a cell modem is around $20 and the eInk display is close to $100. Maybe $80 these days.
  The $139 price for the one with WiFi only (no cell modem) isn't that bad a retail price overall. The $189 for the one with the cell modem is more of an uptick than the cell modem alone justifies but there are also some support costs in there as well.
  The truely amazing thing about the Kindle is how incredible fragile it is. The eInk display is a sandwich of stuff between two pieces of glass. Thin glass which breaks very, very easily. The second incredible thing about the Kindle is how easy Amazon is about returns of broken ones. I haven't paid for a replacement since I started buying them. I have three in the family, all Kindle 2 with two International and one original US only/Sprint model. I think there have been at least five broken ones returned all without any problems or questions from Amazon.
  With the customer service/exchange policy there is on them, the price is incredibly reasonable.
32. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  S3 costs $0.14/GB/month. Say average book is 0.001 GB (~1MB). Storage for the next 83 years ~= $0.14
  Sell book to me. Costs $0.15/GB to transfer so that costs $0.15*0.001 = $0.00015
  If a server has 1000 of these books and is online selling each of them 100/month then the EC2 cost would be
  $0.085/hour (for linux) * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month = $61.20/month + 10GB worth of storage for OS and other things($1.40/month) = $62.60/month
  So we have 1000 books hosted * 100 sales / book / month = 100,000 sales/month
  So the server final cost is $62.60 / month * (1 month / 100,000 sales) = $0.000626 / sale
  So the absolute final cost is $0.000776 for one copy downloaded actually tell you what I will just round up to penny so you can redownload the same book ~12 times.
  All above costs are based on Amazon services at worst case pricing which I will guess at least cover cost and most likely include profit.
  So it looks like we are talking about a penny a book download and server cost and $0.14 on the life of the book. You are absolutely right that the costs of the ebooks are much higher than effectively 0.
33. Re:Dear Amazon by argStyopa · 2011-03-22 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  "There is a difference in price between hardcopy and digital versions."
  orly?
  http://www.amazon.com/Absolution-Gap-ebook/dp/B001ODO61G/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1300800486&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]
  Absolution Gap, by Alastair Reynolds 2008
  Paperback Amazon Price: $8.99
  Kindle Edition: $8.99
  Those prices look pretty damn identical to me. Please show me where I'm wrong?
  
  --
  -Styopa
34. Re:Dear Amazon by rmm4pi8 · 2011-03-22 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm on the publisher side and I think there are some bits you're missing about this. First of all, I work in the poetry and academic spaces, where a print run of a thousand is a solid seller. We see 40% of retail cost in the actual printing, and easily another 10% for shipping. Now, you can easily object that we do much higher quality paper (acid free, thick) than the average paperback, and also have a lot of diagrams and photo inserts and crap that drive up cost. Fair enough. But your experience is also pretty atypical--paperbacks don't wholesale for $20 or retail for $50, so printing and shipping costs are a much larger relative share.
  The other side of it though is that publishers frequently eat an enormous number of bookstore returns, frequently eat the interest between when they pay to print it and the bookstore gets around to selling it to someone else and actually paying the publisher for it, and often pay bookstores for prominent shelf placement. Those things can easily amount to 20-40% of the retail of a book and obviously aren't relevant for ebooks. So 20% for printing and 20% for logistics should equal a solid 40% off.
  The reason it doesn't is that goods are, as a general rule, sold on a market basis rather than a cost basis. People who read ebooks are already shelling out for a Kindle, so they're probably a market segment which is getting more consumer surplus to begin with, and should be segmented by the pricing model in a more expensive slot. Last minute airline tickets don't cost more because the user is a bigger chunk of the fuel price, after all...
  
  --
  U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
35. Re:Dear Amazon by brkello · 2011-03-22 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  You are ignoring the IT staff, the customer service, the fact that Amazon takes cut to provide the service, the cost Amazon pays to have unlimited 3G service on their product, and so many other costs that I am sure I am missing. Your half-assed attempt at assigning a cost makes me believe you don't know the cost of running a business.
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
36. Re:Dear Amazon by h4rm0ny · 2011-03-22 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Check your link. The prices are different. But as I said in my post, it's not relevant to the point I'm making. You've skipped over the whole thing in favour of just repeating your earlier post in its entirety which I've already answered.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
37. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  I fully agree that the costs to run those other portions are non-zero and in fact are most likely worth a big chuck of the money that Amazon and others take as their cut. You listed 6 costs in the post I responded to. My above example covers 4 directly and with a touch more money($1 at most for the backup as long as the original storage) deal with the 5th. Bear in mind that the 3G service may not be the most common usage and may eventually be non free to the consumer. I am dealing with the original poster to you who stated "that costs you NOTHING to duplicate, NOTHING to store, NOTHING to ship" of which I believe I am covering fairly well in my above breakdown.
38. Re:Dear Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Strange, didn't take me five minutes to find ebooks of the Harry Potter series. Didn't have to pay to download them either. Maybe she just doesn't want people paying for the ebook versions. >;)
So pick different authors, like C.J. Cherryh by Warwick+Allison · 2011-03-21 22:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

CJ Cherryh sells her books cheap and DRM free, see http://www.cherryh.com/, at least those for which she can wrest the rights back from publishers. Such direct book sales from authors, cuttong out publishers AND bookstores (brick like Borders or vaporous like Amazon) will get progressively easier. Just like the music industry will eventually learn, gouging your customers always loses in the long run.
1. Re:So pick different authors, like C.J. Cherryh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Just like the music industry will eventually learn, gouging your customers always loses in the long run.
  The music industry has been 'learning' for 10+ years now and is still gouging. You must mean galactic long run?
2. Re:So pick different authors, like C.J. Cherryh by cerberusss · 2011-03-22 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  On the same level, actor/writer Wil Wheaton self-publishes via his own site http://www.wilwheatonbooks.com/. Short stories have a price which you can pick yourself, books are published via Lulu.
  
  --
  8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
3. Re:So pick different authors, like C.J. Cherryh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Not all publishers obsess over DRM. Baen (Webscription) is very much anti-DRM. They also give away vast quantities of books in their free library and on their CDs. The CDs also being DRM-free, as well as free to distribute and thus hosted on random sites on the internet.
4. Re:So pick different authors, like C.J. Cherryh by Crispy+Critters · 2011-03-22 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is not quite correct. The publishers did get paid for editing, proofreading, marketing, etc., when the books were first published, as was Cherryh's agent. No one thinks that those books will sell enough to pay printing, shipping, and so on today, so they are out of print. The only reason she can sell them for a couple bucks on a web site is because they already made money, or at least enough money was made from her other books to support the writing and publishing of her subsequent books. (Regenesis was excellent.)
Trust by sakdoctor · 2011-03-21 23:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

I trust warez release groups more than Amazon. That's so wrong.
Horrible font rendering on that web page by PhilHibbs · 2011-03-21 23:08 · Score: 0

What's up with the font on Lendle's web page? It's awful! I'm using Firefox 3.6.10 on XP.
Pardon my ignorance by grizdog · 2011-03-21 23:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does this sort of thing happen often? If Oracle decides I have too many weeds in my yard, will my Java programs stop working?
Seriously, is the wave of the present/future APIs with all sorts of tests in them so they do different things for different users? Sounds both intriguing and insidious.
1. Re:Pardon my ignorance by gl4ss · 2011-03-21 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  no. it only happens when you build your service over an existing web/server service. if it was just sw running on their own servers, they couldn't be cut off.
  it's like if you build a service called semirandomsearch, and the service was just fetching google searchs and then rearranging them in blocks of 10, so every page would have the same results as a regular google search but the results were in random order on that page. and then google would block you off from their "api"(doesn't matter if you use the googleapi or just the web google search directly, they could/would still do it) and then you would be in the same position.
  "Seriously, is the wave of the present/future APIs with all sorts of tests in them so they do different things for different users?" well, doh a lot of internet services do that already and have always done, it's so that you can read your mail but your friend will read his mail and not yours. it's just extrapolated from there.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Pardon my ignorance by grizdog · 2011-03-22 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the reply. I guess I was thinking of API at a lower level than is the general use - showing my age.
  I understand and appreciate your answer, but the question still lingers - I'll use Java as an example - it is a bad one since the source is available, but assume for a moment it were not - what if swing (showing my age again) had tests throughout it saying that if the panel/frame/container/whatever was going to appear on wikileaks.org, then abort the program? I mean no one would ever do that, but what if they did? Could they? Has it already happened?
  I'm not really feeling paranoid (yet), I'm wondering more about technical feasibility.
3. Re:Pardon my ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  An API that contains no "if/then" code and presents identical information to each user isn't much of an API, it's more of a text document.
  This isn't so much a wave of the present/future as it is the status quo, and it's been around since the first username. Heck, a physical lock and key performs a bunch of tests to do different things for different users.
4. Re:Pardon my ignorance by airfoobar · 2011-03-22 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to "the cloud". If they don't like you they refuse service, and it's totally within their rights, even if it destroys your business or stifles your ideas. Kind of like what they did to Wikileaks. Same Amazon, same story.
And this is why piracy becomes so common by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 23:24 · Score: 0

You have a legal, reasonable way to borrow a book that you only read once. It is then taken away, now your option is buy the book or copy if from someone else.
When will big business get it into their heads that "borrow" is not a dirty word and that "final sale" isn't the be all and end all?
1. Re:And this is why piracy becomes so common by h4rm0ny · 2011-03-21 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that piracy would be less common if people could share their files with people they didn't know on the Internet?
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
2. Re:And this is why piracy becomes so common by zippthorne · 2011-03-22 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  When the barriers to entry lower enough that new players have a shot at getting in. I mean, you might as well ask why Uncle Curmudgeon wants you damn kids off his lawn: it doesn't matter, it's not like the whole neighborhood is composed of grumpy hermits.
  The free market sees stuff like this as damage and routes around it. It just takes time for viable competitors to step up, especially when there are significant financial and legislative burdens to entry.
  At the moment, you really can't have a successful ebook business without an ebook reader, i think was the lesson of Borders. That may change if someone decides to develop an agnostic reader, but until such a time, the barrier to entry from the ebook side is quite high, because you need the hardware. And the content isn't exactly cheap to develop either, if you want to do a good job. And the advertising is especially important for a new business.
  So the answer is.. lower the barrier to entry. And I think that'll happen. I'd lay even odds that in the next decade or so a coalition of public libraries will put out their own eBook reader. And unfortunately it will be inferior in almost every way to the hardware offered by for-profit companies (being designed by the same committee that got a camel from a horse), except one: it'll have access to these libraries' library of ebooks.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Dangers of platform exposed by wamatt · 2011-03-21 23:39 · Score: 1

This highlights the issue of building a business around open API's.
Techie's naively celebrate openness and API's and a lets "build together" attitude, but when a corporate entity ultimately controls the whole ecosystem, your neat business idea is vulnerable to failure as it's built on a stack of cards.
API's are techie solutions. The real world continues to use commercial contracts to enforce partners to behave. The Web 2.0 movement would be wise to address the thinking around this going forward.
So crack the DRM.... by Lumpy · 2011-03-21 23:52 · Score: 1

Honestly, if Amazon wants to be hostile, out a link on the websites to point users how to crack the DRM and continue lending their books.
Screw amazon if they want to be jerks.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
book lending in internet times? by chorch · 2011-03-21 23:54 · Score: 1

These old "physical" business models dont apply to this era. They are condemned to fail. Copyright owners will have to find clever ways to get money from their creations.
Capture by Tokolosh · 2011-03-21 23:58 · Score: 1

...While I hate to see it happen, I foresee some sort of federal regulation of "e-reader's rights".
-JJS
This is the usual starting point for capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_%28politics%29).

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I do too! by rcharbon · 2011-03-22 00:04 · Score: 1

My book is $2.99, DRM-free, and comes in multiple formats. But it's about running, so there's limited interest on Slashdot :-)
USians? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:07 · Score: 0

I prefer Utards.
1. Re:USians? by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I ahm proud to be a merkin!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
A spotify for books by martijnd · 2011-03-22 00:23 · Score: 1

.. and tv series, and movies , and everything else digital .... unlimited subscription based access for a low monthly fee.
THATS where it is going.
Not independent author websites (too many too cluttered), or even pirated content (still too much hassle) , or itunes (why pay for a track?)
Simple, uncluttered access to everything you (n)ever wanted.
It will take a few years, it took the music industry 10+ years, so expect this to happen around 2020 or something.
Funny thing, the Nook... by fallen1 · 2011-03-22 00:52 · Score: 1

can still lend books and do it natively. Yes, I know, you cannot lend all the books you buy but at least you can lend some of them and the list is expanding. SOME is better than NONE, and here's to hoping Barnes & Noble can keep pushing for publishers to allow more books to be loaned out.
If the publishers are smart, they will realize that allowing eBooks to be loaned out greatly increases their chances for more sales. If not, I hope more authors will self-publish and creative groups will make apps to facilitate loaning.

--
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
But by fireylord · 2011-03-22 00:59 · Score: 0

It was, in that they removed the book silently and arbitrarily, which they had no moral or legal right to do this, and hid behind their corporate facelessness until the press eventually outed them.
eBooks are not books by dpbsmith · 2011-03-22 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Calling these things eBooks ought to be considered deceptive labeling.
It's not a book if you can't lend it.
It's not a book if you can't resell it.
It's not a book if it won't last thirty years under ordinary casual home storage conditions.
It's not a book when a public library can't buy one copy and lend it out as often as they wish.
It's not about feel of the cloth covers or the smell of the dust or the silverfish living in real books, it's about replicating the functionality all books have had for five hundred years.

--
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
1. Re:eBooks are not books by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Call them E-Temps
2. Re:eBooks are not books by Richard_at_work · 2011-03-22 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  When did you become ruler of the world and get to determine the meaning of words?
3. Re:eBooks are not books by praxis · 2011-03-22 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  When he joined society's discourse on what e-readers mean to the concept of a book, he also joined societies redefinition of concepts that change over time. Society defines words, not rulers of the world.
Cloud computing at it's best... by Coeurderoy · 2011-03-22 02:06 · Score: 1

Any corporation who would give it's customer list and profile to another company who own a significant part of the infrastructure you need to provide your service, and therefore would easely compete with you, would be deemed stupid.
Well no because it's "ta dam..." in the cloud "...."
Cloud computing has sense in two cases: you own your own cloud, or it's some amateur experiment, and you signed before a garanty (at least with yourself) that you would never ever want to make any money out of this, and would be very very happy if somebody else would become filthy rich out of your own work.
Or you confuse managerial competence and praying to marketing dribble..
1. Re:Cloud computing at it's best... by PTBarnum · 2011-03-22 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Which category do you put Netflix in? Incompetent or just not interested in money?
2. Re:Cloud computing at it's best... by Coeurderoy · 2011-03-22 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Moderately crazy, and you'll notice that they moved under the Amazon infrastructure when they where allready quite powerfull and successfull...
  They did not start with somebody elses cloud, they moved when they had enough cash to hire an army of lawyers in case of need...
  Actually you could call it that : cloud == IT - programmers + lawyers....
3. Re:Cloud computing at it's best... by PTBarnum · 2011-03-22 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  A small business may not be able to afford a bunch of lawyers or be able to salvage their business, but they could do a lot of damage to Amazon if word got out that Amazon had appropriated their data. That's exactly the effect this publicity will have, although denying access to an API is not nearly as damaging as stealing data would be.
4. Re:Cloud computing at it's best... by Coeurderoy · 2011-03-23 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  People will ignore the "bad publicity" because Amazon has near monopoly power, look at all the "bad publicity" Microsoft got over the years, and people are still not changing...
  And now that Amazon has cut of the API they just have to wait a little till the company folds, and then there will be nobody left complaining about data theft (moreover in this particular case they probably do not even have to keep the data).
One more reason why... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · 2011-03-22 02:19 · Score: 1

... I don't like eBooks. There is no problem with APIs, DRM, ravenous megacorps, etc. when lending a paper book to someone. There is no lending fee and the loan event is not recorded.
As eBook development ascends the experience/technology curve (robustness, display quality, etc.), such devices could become a realistic alternative. But all this tethering and associated DRM kill the idea stone dead for me.
1. Re:One more reason why... by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-22 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you like science fiction, I suggest you take a look at Baen Books. There is no DRM at all on any of their ebooks and they even offer a selection of their ebooks completely free of charge. They offer the free library so you can find out for yourself whether or not you'll like a particular author and hopefully buy their other works. It's not completely clear from their website but they keep track of your purchases and let you re-download them whenever you need to. They've clearly got the right policies to earn my business.
What you buy is not what they sell by Arpie · 2011-03-22 02:26 · Score: 1

Bottom line is, you think you're purchasing an e-book. You buy it, it's yours -- albeit in digital form -- right? If it's yours, you can do what you want with it, right? Wrong on both counts! What they're selling you is a *limited license* to enjoy that content on certain platforms, within the limits imposed by them. You don't own the content -- at all. You're *not* at liberty to do with it the same (or analogous to what) you could do with a physical book.
I think this dichotomy, that what you perceive to be being is different than what is actually being sold, is what causes the drift between publishers and consumers.

--
/* TAANSTAFL */
1. Re:What you buy is not what they sell by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-22 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Go with Baen Books (if you like Sci-Fi/Fantasy). There's no DRM and they support multiple formats (and unlimited re-downloads) so you can read the ebooks they offer on any device.
2. Re:What you buy is not what they sell by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Can you legally lend these books?
3. Re:What you buy is not what they sell by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-22 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  They don't say you can't. According to this introduction to their free library:
  
  "I don't know any author, other than a few who are — to speak bluntly — cretins, who hears about people lending his or her books to their friends, or checking them out of a library, with anything other than pleasure. Because they understand full well that, in the long run, what maintains and (especially) expands a writer's audience base is that mysterious magic we call: word of mouth."
4. Re:What you buy is not what they sell by cdrguru · 2011-03-22 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Physical books include with the purchase the right to redistribute. You can redistribute the book intact to a single person or you can tear out the pages and distribute them to many, many people.
  Digital books do not include such rights because for the most part once you have one person redistributing that is all that is needed. Nobody else needs to buy - it is now free. As a reference for this I suggest checking out music and movies on the Internet. Both are free, both are providing pretty much zero revenue for digital sales other than streaming sites with commercials added.
  With eBooks it is pretty much the same. Once it is posted somewhere, why would you buy it? Once you read it, why would you ever buy it again? It is somewhat of a unique problem because unless redistribution is restricted (through licensing rather than outright sales), there will cease to be a market very, very quickly. It is sort of the only winning move is to not play.
They've learned from Microsoft by dgavin · 2011-03-22 03:09 · Score: 1

Let some small start-up test the water and prove a concept to be viable and then usurp their business model and bury them via patent abuse or just crush them financially. Amazon used to be a pretty decent company, now JB is just as greedy and unscrupulous as any other tech monopolist.
Let this be a lesson by Todd+Knarr · 2011-03-22 03:43 · Score: 2

Let Amazon's actions, and Twitter's, and others, be a lesson:
Never, ever make a competitor's (or potential competitor's) products and services a crucial part of your business unless you've got a written, signed contract with them that's got guarantees written in that they won't alter or discontinue those products and/or services and severe penalties if they fail to live up to those guarantees (scaled to the actual consequences to your business of the disruption, not to some arbitrary "fair" scale, and scaled to compensate you for those disruptions, not to be "fair"). Make sure your lawyers helped write the contract, don't touch a "take it or leave it" offer. Especially if their offer includes a clause that lets them change the terms at any time.
Doing otherwise is just becoming your competitor's unpaid R&D and market research department.
Who's mind is changing? by imahawki · 2011-03-22 04:18 · Score: 2

What do the anti-ebook crowd hope to accomplish? I don't think paper books are EVER going away so I'm not sure the crusade is merited. If you don't like ebooks, don't buy them. I prefer them for novels where there isn't going to be charts and graphs that need to be studied. And I don't think libraries are going away either. If there are fewer of them, that's not the end of the world. People can travel relatively small distances with ease. It will still be more convenient than 60 years ago when people had to "go to the city for the day". I think ebooks and laptop vs. tablet are the two most annoying and useless debates going on in technology. The people that use the new technology usually love it and the people who hate it aren't changing any minds.
Re:'will of the people' blockdead, stymage continu by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:34 · Score: 0

"Daddy, daddy, I just had sex!"

"That's my boy!"

"Daddy, when will my ass stop hurting?"

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:'will of the people' blockdead, stymage continu by Locke2005 · 2011-03-22 04:35 · Score: 1

Turing test. You fail.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Anti-competitive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 04:52 · Score: 0

How can I trust AWS when Amazon engages in such a blatant anti-competitive behavior?
their turf their rules by dean.collins · 2011-03-22 05:45 · Score: 1

When we were building out our 14 live chat sites eg - http://www.livef1chat.com/ - http://www.livebasketballchat.com/ - http://www.livehockeychat.com/ etc etc All of the developers were saying no need to build databases, just use Facebook login to provide access and control. Not a chance. Users can “link” their account to their facebook (you can post in real time to your facebook wall and your twitter stream from within out live chat apps) but there is no way to use our platform without registering for it first and that’s the way its going to be – some people see this as a stumbling block, i see it as good business sense.
Thanks! by nowen2dot · 2011-03-22 07:46 · Score: 1

I hadn't heard of them before. It looks like just the ticket! I'll certainly make use of the site.

--
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
Patent It by Kagato · 2011-03-22 07:48 · Score: 1

If I were them I would get a software patent going. Amazon want to kick you out, fine, but that doesn't mean you can't take a cut of the $$$.
BookLending.com API Access Is Uninterrupted by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 08:31 · Score: 0

For the record, the www.BookLending.com platform has the largest member base, and our API access has been uninterrupted.
Catherine MacDonald
BookLending.com
Under the REAL communism? by Cyberax · 2011-03-22 09:03 · Score: 1

Under the REAL communism? Inventors would hack together a device to read books from the global library, because it's so much easier.
Of course, real communism can't exist in a scarcity-based economy.
Real books are the repository of our civilization by aardquark · 2011-03-22 09:05 · Score: 1

Taking the long view, books printed 100 years ago will still be here 100 years from now... Where will electronic data be?
Goodbye, Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 11:15 · Score: 0

This is the kind of corporate behavior that makes me go out of my way to never ever
patronize that business again.