Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Penguin Yanking Kindle Books From Libraries

Posted by Unknown on from the every-time-you-share-jesus-kills-a-kitten dept.

New submitter moniker writes "Penguin Group is removing Kindle ebooks from libraries using Overdrive citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content."

5 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. If Everything was "security"? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems more like a grab for money from book sales than anything technical. Has there really been security leaks coming from online readers?

    1. Re:If Everything was "security"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All forms of DRM for ebooks will always be subject to pilfering. Such is the dirty secret of DRM and the built-in excuse for companies to yank their content whenever they feel like it suits their business agenda.

      There needs to be a safe harbor for libraries where they can make an owned paper book accessible however they want, including digitally.

    2. Re:If Everything was "security"? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty sure they didn't, since the number of users doing it is ever-growing, and the only ones who ever even fire a synapse about the "morality" of the act are the two noisy sides who wank on about it on tech-and-game forums on the web (and the crybaby IP owners who equate not only downloading, but perfectly legitimate used sales as 'stealing'. The douche from the company that shat out 'Heavy Rain' being my recent favorite).

      The media can say whatever they're paid to say. The zeitgeist isn't with them on this one, though.

  2. Oh, well. Whatever. by Turmoyl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Who cares? There is plenty of content, including new material, from more user-friendly publishers out there. Let Penguin learn from what I hope is an expensive lesson.

  3. Wrong by Burz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they have decided to embrace a particular business model: not doing it for free.

    You are soft-pedaling a profit motive that prefers to monopolize markets. We have seen for-profit publishers associations attack people who create and use public domain, GPL and creative commons works - even attacking the very idea of the public domain in legislation and insisting that the tech sector is “mobilizing to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright.’”.

    Bodies like MPAA, RIAA, Sound Exchange, ASCAP, GEMA have taken an increasingly hostile stance toward any author who is not under contract with established publishing corps even when the content is being offered for free. People who publish under CC and public domain are being DOS'ed with undeserved DMCA and 'three strikes' notices.

    It is your mamby-pamby presentation of for-profit publishing that is idiotic.