Stallman: eBooks Are Attacking Our Freedoms

Barence submitted note of a paper written by RMS called The Danger of eBooks saying "Free software guru Richard Stallman claims consumers should reject eBooks until they 'respect our freedoms.' He highlights the DRM embedded in eBooks sold by Amazon as an example of such restrictions, citing the infamous case of Amazon wiping copies of George Orwell's 1984 from users' Kindles without permission. He also rails against Amazon for forcing people to identify themselves before buying eBooks. His suggested remedy? Distributing tax funds to authors based on their popularity, or 'designing players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments.'"

Comments

I sort of agree

[Jack Malmostoso]

While generally I don't share the same extreme views of RMS I must say that I am finding very hard to warm up to ebooks.
I've been considering a Kindle for a while now, but the idea of not being able to *really* own my book is holding me back.
Additionally, I suppose one could accept the restrictive terms of ebooks if the price was substantially lower than their dead tree counterparts, but this does not seem to be the case.
If I'm going to spend my hard earned cash, I prefer to have the physical book mine to read, re-read, share and lend.

Re:I sort of agree

[sakdoctor]

That's a vote for DRM though.

1. Can't find eBook in a non-restricted format
2. Download for free
3. Profit

It doesn't matter if the industry reacts by piling on more DRM though. Someone who isn't me, i.e. the consumers who accept DRM get screwed, and I get a superior free product.
Zero tolerance on DRM!

Re:I sort of agree

[AmiMoJo]

I wouldn't say his idea of the government collecting and distributing money to authors based on popularity is particularly extreme. That is basically what the music industry bodies who collect royalties do, only they make it so you have to join their little club to be eligible to receive. In Canada the government taxes blank CDs and pays the money to the artists via the industry body, so all RMS is saying is that we should cut out the corrupt middle man and just pay people for their work directly.

That seems like the only reasonable solution to me. Make all electronic mediums free and compensate from taxes. People can still sell physical copies, and trying to sell pirate material would still be illegal, but copying for private use would no longer be copyright infringement. Using any sane estimation of "lost" sales per pirate copy the tax would be pretty low.

Re:I sort of agree

[gstoddart]

I wouldn't say his idea of the government collecting and distributing money to authors based on popularity is particularly extreme.

No, but it's still stupid in that all you do is pay people according to their popularity, and give no consideration to what works are actually being read by specific people.

That is basically what the music industry bodies who collect royalties do, only they make it so you have to join their little club to be eligible to receive. In Canada the government taxes blank CDs and pays the money to the artists via the industry body, so all RMS is saying is that we should cut out the corrupt middle man and just pay people for their work directly.

Again, they're paying that out based on 'popularity' and what essentially amounts to record sales reports ... so, all of the money goes to Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber.

If I'm not listening to either of them, the levy amounts to a subsidy of successful artists in proportion to their success ... to me, that makes no sense. I explicitly don't listen to those artists who are going to benefit from this formula.

Hell, the formula provided by the corrupt middle-men, so why should I trust them?

That seems like the only reasonable solution to me. Make all electronic mediums free and compensate from taxes. People can still sell physical copies, and trying to sell pirate material would still be illegal, but copying for private use would no longer be copyright infringement. Using any sane estimation of "lost" sales per pirate copy the tax would be pretty low.

How is this reasonable? You tax me on the assumption I'm ripping you off, and then compensate random people based on a formula of how successful they have been and assume that they are being 'ripped off' in proportion to all of the moneys collected.

In the case of the 'tax' on blank media ... what if I'm not using the blank media for anything but backing up my own legal, digital information? WTF am I doing paying a tax to support artists if the media isn't being used to copy their stuff?

I support the artists I like by buying their fucking albums ... why should my money go to support some band I can't stand? Because some stupid formula says that that artist deserves 3% of the net revenues of all music because they accounted for 3% of sales in stores? And if you're taking it out of any other tax pool ... why should my parents, who don't buy music, be subsidizing artists?

I just don't get the logic behind this "compensate the most popular ones" ... it's stupid when the music industry proposes it, and it's stupid to do it for books.

Respecting freedom

[tripleevenfall]

In a way, this is a very ironic post. I think that respecting freedoms involves me respecting others' right to give up their freedom if they feel like they want to in exchange for having the cool new device.

Some subsets of humanity, perhaps indeed the largest subset, only learns by experience. It might take them losing all their books, down the road, or having to buy an entirely new device to keep "owning" what they already "own" before they learn. This is a new technology. We can't get upset yet that the general public doesn't get it. They have to get their knuckles rapped before they will realize.

Our job is not to legislate their choices for them, it's to support and sustain better alternatives so they will come over when they see the light.

Re:Respecting freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that respecting freedoms involves me respecting others' right to give up their freedom

Your argument applies just as poorly to something to like debt bondage.

Re:Respecting freedom

[rolfwind]

If there was a right to give up freedom, shouldn't you be advocating for voluntary slavery?

The problem with allowing people give up some of their rights is that it not only effects them, but it will be passed down to their kids. In this case, a legacy of proprietary e-book libraries may have a very real effect.

Once, government was once seen as a protector of freedoms of the general public, and not just the bailer-out of large, well-connected banks and car companies/union. I would like to see a return of that role.

Re:Respecting freedom

[Hijacked Public]

If he is advocating tax funds be distributed to authors, he is certainly advocating the forcing of something.

Re:Respecting freedom

[praxis]

How about these objections:

1) I would like to have first sale rights to my books.
2) I would like to be able to donate books to the library after I am done reading them.
3) I would like for books I donate to my library be in circulation at least as long as physical books.
4) I would like to be assured that my books won't vanish without my knowledge or permission.
5) I would like to be able to read my books without a third party knowing which pages I've read at what times and *where*.
6) I would like to be able to purchase my books without divulging my identity.

Yes, not all of these concerns are true of all readers or distribution schemes, but I've yet to find a reader that addresses all of them.

Batshit Hippy Slams E-books

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares

Re:Plain old pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

I exercise my freedom by not buying ebooks with DRM in them.

Re:Plain old pdf

[wjousts]

Except you just sent a message to the seller that you're okay with DRM.

Re:Plain old pdf

[TheRaven64]

Do you honestly believe that DRM prevents books ending up on TPB? It used to be that typing the title of my first book into Google gave an illegal download site as the top link. Right next to it were a load of books that were only available in hardcopy or DRM'd version. At my request, my publisher now has a clause to my contracts stating that they're not allowed to use DRM when distributing my books. It does nothing to prevent piracy, and it does piss off legitimate customers. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that was a sound business strategy. They had no objection to the clause, because they had no intention of using DRM.