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

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As is often the case, RMS is being sufficiently blunt, and proposing a set of possibly-unworkable solutions sufficiently far from the status quo, that he gives off that "extreme" vibe.

As is also often the case, it is pretty hard to argue with his thesis: Your traditional B&M bookstores, while hardly bastions of cypherpunk anonymity, were perfectly happy to take cash for whatever you felt like buying, and had neither the time nor the margins to use their cameras for anything other than trying to deter shoplifters.

Your online booksellers, Amazon etc, up the ante a bit by tracking your browsing of their inventory quite closely, and by virtue of the fact that(while this isn't impossible to get around, prepaid debit cards, and the like) the basic coin of the realm is credit/debit cards, generally establish an excellent correlation between buying history and buyer ID.

Ebooks up it still further, since they are tied directly to an account, and a CC, and frequently use(sometimes weak; but illegal in the US to break) DRM to control what you can and cannot do with what you 'own'.

Ebook readers up it still further, in that they can, and are known to, track not only your inspection of the inventory and eventual purchase; but your reading habits. The ones with location capabilities(such as all whispernet kindles), are known to report user location data to the mothership as well.

Obviously, most of these measures are somewhat slackly implemented, and a dedicated privacy-enthused individual with some time and technical skill can likely circumvent at least some of them; but that doesn't really change the fact that there has been an overwhelming increase(largely private sector and ebook driven) in the amount of transparency and control exercised over the population of readers. That simply cannot be usefully denied.

Re:I sort of agree

[The0retical]

I travel a lot and I read a lot so I've also been eyeing an ereader for quite some time. Until recently I've pretty much refused to buy one because I send paperbacks back and forth with my father after one of us gets done with the book and the idea of DRM offends me on pretty much every level. I also read quite a bit of sci-fi, specifically from the publisher Baen, and was unable to find any of that specific publishers books on Amazon or BN. After some searching I found that Baen does offer Ebooks for a couple of dollars less on older releases than a paperback and about half the price on new releases (hardcover only at the moment) through their own webstore without any DRM restrictions. As a result I am buying an ereader when I get home and will be directly supporting a publisher who sees that DRM is an awful idea, and has the advantage of not supporting a middleman like Amazon or BN.

I hope more Slashdotters will support publishers like Baen on their endeavor if only to show that DRM is not needed.

Re:I sort of agree

[Moryath]

For archiving things to a small space - say, carrying around your gaming book collection to a convention (old school RPGA player, I used to have to haul a ton of books with me; then I started just photocopying the one page with the content I needed on it and keeping it in the character sheaf because of airline restrictions on carry-ons and checked bags) - ebook readers and digital copy are wonderful. Your example of your notes is another great example of where something like that is actually useful.

For actual, enjoyable reading? I'd rather have a real book in my hand. It feels better.

For many books, I'm not going to read them more than once, so I'd much rather have the physical copy. I can give it to a friend when I'm done. I can loan it to someone. I can donate it to a library, or trade it in to a used book store. I can do NONE of those things with the current generation of ebooks.

I like to go camping. Good luck finding a charger for an ebook reader in the woods. Batteries for a flashlight, or a nicely bright campfire, and a real book please.

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

[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.

Re:Plain old pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when my dad was going to be sent to the gulag in Siberia for a typewriter he possessed. I was a kid and the KGB raided our house. I don't remember the exact details of why but they let him go. I do know the typewriter had the letters removed so it wasn't exactly illegal. He was copying a book that the government considered illegal/immoral. It was something about the Communist party and the mass murders; information that is now public.

With ebooks the copy part is easy these days. It can be distributed within minutes all over the world. Someone will break the encryption and publish it. I don't think we should reject ebooks, just not pay for ones with DRM in them. I doubt a lot of controversial books will have DRM in them anyway. If the information they contain is THAT good, someone will copy it by hand if necessary and distribute it. If you're worried about some cheesy novel and that amazon tracks you, find a warez copy. Information will be free, it'll just be a little harder to find than googling it.

Re:Plain old pdf

[wjousts]

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

Re:Voluntary payment for goods

[stonecypher]

"On the other, I can't help but think that the time spent creating such works is finite, and once complete no further time or resources are spent"

Speaking as a published author from a family of published authors, not only is this not true, but it completely misses the point.

Why would anyone write the books if they didn't receive a benefit? It takes *years*.

If you steal, you reduce the impetus for people to create. Simple as pie.

Helps you understand why indie game studios die, doesn't it? (Also speaking as the owner of an indie studio whose contract was pulled because of changing piracy rates during development.)

Maybe just stop trying to come up with excuses that it's okay for you to take things without paying for them. It isn't.

Is Stallman THAT obtuse? Is it possible?

[ScentCone]

I suppose that when he spends as much time as he does twisting himself into knots to explain some of his positions, that it's possible he doesn't actually mean to sound as Orwellian as he does. But really ... force people to spend part of each day (on pain of imprisonment, if they refuse) working to provide food, rent, and iTunes accounts for writers that they'd never in a million years otherwise choose to support? I don't want to spend part of every day laboring on behalf of a guy writing a book about alien abduction and its impact on the arrival date of the antichrist, or about the personal triumphs of Hugo Chavez, or some pedofilic manifesto.

And of course Stallman will have to expand on the details a bit ... because how shall we compensate that guy writing a book in a coffee shop in Brussels? Should US tax dollars pay his way through life, too? Or would Amazon have to work with the government in Belgium to tax the people of that country so that people in the US can read the bad Neal Stephenson rip-off the guy's working on? Do US taxpayers also get to pay "writers" who happen to be false personas representing propoganda committees in China, producing books extolling the virtues of censorship in a healthy society?

Ah. Well, obviously this calls for a single world-wide government to tax one group and provide a living for another group. Not that said government would play favorites or use any sort of capricious policy in deciding which writers get money. Not that anyone would jack up download numbers to skew the how-much-money-should-they-get stats, of course. And if that was a problem, well, all we'd need would be more government monitoring of who's downloading what, right, Richard?

Why do people even listen to this clown? The fact that he'd even mention such an idea shows what a bunch of toxic and mixed/contradictory premises make up the foundation of his world view.

Re:Voluntary payment for goods

[Quiet_Desperation]

Why would anyone write the books if they didn't receive a benefit? It takes *years*.

Is that human years or Stephen King years?

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.