Penguin Yanking Kindle Books From Libraries

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."

Comments

If Everything was "security"?

[LostCluster]

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

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

It's easy to strip the DRM out of the files.

Also, my local library supply audio books that you can download from home straight to your PC/Mac using Ebsco. You can take out the audio books for as short as one day. The software downloads the MP3 files to a hidden directory, I found they have no DRM attached. Copy paste to a new directory, you have the audiobook forever.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[Penguinisto]

That is also known as stealing.

Bullshit. The files were returned in the exact same condition as he received them.

Now copyright violations OTOH...

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[gweihir]

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[betterunixthanunix]

That is also known as stealing

Only by people who have never looked up the definitions of "stealing" and "copying."

And congratulations, you are fucking over libraries and everyone else (future versions will have ever more draconian DRM or simply not be available in libraries) for your own greed.

DRM is always doomed to fail. It attempts to solve an unsolvable security engineering problem (the secure device in an insecure environment) and the security only needs to be broken once for the whole system to fall apart. For some reason, copyright-based industries have failed to grasp this fundamental truth, and their lobbyists have convinced governments to prop up their bad security systems with undemocratic laws and censorship. They have even convinced the public school system to spread their greed-driven propaganda to young children.

Yet you defend these people.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[JustOK]

Better to use a duck. Cheaper too because you can put in on their bill.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[MimeticLie]

The definition that Google has for "steal" is:

Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".

Copyright infringement doesn't deprive the owner of the song of their property. They still own the song. Copyright infringement is illegal, but calling it theft is an attempt to make it something it is not. If we want to have a reasonable discussion of the issue, we should start by being clear about what copyright infringement is and what it isn't.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[geminidomino]

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.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[Artifakt]

The media don't get to charge people with crimes. The Media don't get to play judge, jury, and jailor. Shakespeare can say "Glamis hath Murdered Sleep" all he wants, but the courts are who decides what murder is. As long as there exists a Supreme Court decision that copyright violation is not theft (and yes, there is at least one to that effect), the media can call it 'high puppy mutilating pedo-treason' if they want, but guess what it is. That's right, it's Copyright Violation. How many legs does a dog have if the Media calls a tail a leg?

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[Clovert Agent]

Language evolves and drifts, but legal definitions do not.

Theft is a crime with a specific definition. Copyright violation is a different crime, with a different definition. They are both criminal actions, but they are _different_ types of crime. Trying to conflate the two is very successful PR by the media industry, since "theft" has negative connotations that "piracy" does not, but they are not the same.

For reference: try to find an instance of copyright violation which has been prosecuted (successfully or not) as theft. When copyright holders start charging violators with theft, I'll agree that the definition has shifted. Until then, they're not the same and should not be confused.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[Oligonicella]

Google, how quaint. Use a dictionary. There you'll find words have more than one meaning.

From Webster's Unabridged, and sticking with only verb transitive:

steal
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6. Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.

Now, if you'll kindly examine definition number two, you'll find that indeed, copying something without permission is stealing.

This makes you (adj) ...

wrong
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
6. not suitable or appropriate: He always says the wrong thing.
7. (of clothing) that should be worn or kept inward or under: You're wearing the sweater wrong side out.

... number two as well.

Re:If Everything was "security"?

[DrXym]

Not necessarily. The problem with DRM is the "rights" it protects are the content providers. My opinion is that once you purchase content it should become yours and DRM should protect your rights. i.e. if Amazon fucks up and discovers they sold 1984 when they weren't supposed to, tough they're going to have to settle a lawsuit with the providers since any content they sold no longer belongs to them to control. If Penguin sell some books to a library and doesn't like how the library lends their books then tough they'll have to go through whatever publisher / library arbitration mechanisms exist because they can't yank / revoke stuff out there already.

The best thing that could happen is if someone like the EU were to enshrine these rights in law and force providers to conform, i.e. that when you buy a book you are buying the book, not just a licence and that there is a mechanism to sell a book with a nominal processing fee. And also that all electronic content sold should be held with decryption keys in escrow in an open format so that subject to court order, or to platform collapse that the owner can retrieve it. Better yet if there were a single platform across all devices that managed the concept of ownership and transfer of ownership.

Re:"Content" is a business model.

[sqlrob]

No, it's not.

The content gives you something to sell, exactly what you do with it is the business model.

Re:Content vs business model

[magnusrex1280]

Content is a thing that exists, whether you have a business model or not. Business model is the system or method you use to make money from a product or service, in this case the product/service is e-reader content.

I hate DRM, I swear I do

[chispito]

The editorializing in the summary, however, is so heavy-handed as to be absurd.

...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.

What the Hell?!

[newcastlejon]

"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."

(Emphasis mine)
I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.

For shame.

Re:What the Hell?!

[Rick Zeman]

"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."

(Emphasis mine)
I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.

Are you new here??

Re:What the Hell?!

[Penguinisto]

Question is, does the spin make the editorialized statement any less true?

I find it disturbing that the answer is, well, "no".

Idiotic summary

[ScentCone]

How is it that we're still not clear on the idea that the content (creating it, using a publisher to find a market for it, charging for it, and making money from that process) is the business model. People who create content for the pleasure of doing so give their work away all the time. There's plenty where that came from. Mechanisms to prevent people from ripping off content don't matter to people who don't have an interest in the content-selling business model.

Creative people who deliberately join up with a publisher, label, studio or other partner to handle their business affairs while they go about continuing to write, record, film and whatnot - they have decided to embrace a particular business model: not doing it for free. Whether or not every or any DRM tool is ideal or practical is beside the point. The issue is that there are people who create things (books, games, movies, music) for a living if they can find an audience, and charging for copies of what they create is the business model. If they can't find anyone to buy it, that's too bad for them. They need to work harder or choose better partners. But if people simply rip them off because it's fairly easy to do so, that's not a comment on the creative people, it's a comment on the people who like to make little entertainment slaves out them.

The submitter's silly implication - that DRM is ever used for any reason other than because being ripped off isn't part of the business model - is, well, silly.

Re:Idiotic summary

[betterunixthanunix]

Value is created by scarcity, and there is simply no natural scarcity of books in this century. We are trying to build walls into our technology so that we can pretend that we still live in a previous century, which is just absurd. We no longer buy stamps to do things like pay our bills or send personal letters, so why are we so worried about whether or not the book publishing system remains relevant?

Sorry, but if people want to make a living writing books, they will need to find a new way to monetize that. We cannot allow the Internet to become a maze of walls and restrictions, we cannot have our computers monitor what we do, all for the sake of keeping an old business model alive. Sorry if you are an author who is not creative enough to monetize your work in this century without tricking everyone into ceding control of their computers to you.

At one time we had people whose job was to tell stories around the campfire; then we discovered that stories could be written down, and storytellers who failed to adapt had to find new lines of work. Now selling books is an obsolete business model, because we have computer networks that can make nearly unlimited copies of any written work at high speed; writers who fail to adapt will have to find new lines of work.

Oh, well. Whatever.

[Turmoyl]

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.

Re:Oh, well. Whatever.

[bogaboga]

Let Penguin learn from what I hope is an expensive lesson.

Agreed. In fact I would rephrase this sentence to say:

Penguin will soon be drawing valuable insights from what I hope will eventually become a very expensive lesson.

Penguin Yanking Kindle Books From Libraries

[majesticmerc]

The dastard! He plans to bring illiteracy to Gotham!

Re:Congratulations on the FUD

[betterunixthanunix]

the real world marketplace works differently than the artificially supported one that runs acadamia

Ironically, music, movie, software, and book distribution are all artificially supported markets, propped up by increasingly draconian copyright laws, and academia is becoming more and more profit-oriented.

Is it just me...

[rsilvergun]

or does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.

I guess what I'm ticked off about is, I'm watching our civilization regress to pre-Renaissance levels of wealth inequality and all anybody cares about is the Beatles...

Re:Is it just me...

[mdmkolbe]

And I'm sure those /.ers are just as frustrated when you act as if information is a form of property subject to the same rules as physical goods.

Re:Is it just me...

[proxima]

does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital

First of all, slashdot is not a monolith. Different people will pipe up in different conversations to say their bit.

Second, there is a fundamental difference between physical property rights and intellectual property rights. The former is inherently scarce (e.g. if you force Apple to do X with its money, it can't do Y with the same money, in general). The latter is not (e.g. my copy of an ebook did not prohibit anyone else from having a copy of an ebook).

This is why some people (I'm not necessarily among them) object to using the word "stealing" to refer to copyright infringement. A copyright holder doesn't "lose" money when someone downloads content illegally, but they do, potentially, lose a sale. For some industries this distinction is important (various professional-level software packages don't bother pursuing pirates, because they know that it will increase its market share to sell to their real customers, the businesses which will pay hundreds for a software package).

Keep in mind that the purpose of intellectual property laws (patents and copyrights) is to encourage innovation. A temporary monopoly gives people a (greater) incentive to create original works, knowing that they can try to extract value from their creations. This inherently limits the rights of others, who would otherwise be able to use and build upon works in the public domain.

The trouble is that this model has been breaking down on a few levels from its original intent. The first is that copyright extensions have kept works from entering the public domain for quite some time. The second is that patents on some inventions, especially software, are/were often granted with too little deference (one can argue) to prior art and "obviousness". Instead of encouraging innovation by small players, big companies amass patents in a kind of cold war against other big companies, and keep small businesses from being able to enter (because in many industries it's basically impossible not to be sued for patent infringement for something). You see entire company purchases made just for the building up of patent portfolios (arguably a large part of Google acquiring Motorola, for example). This isn't innovation, it's a new cost to doing business in these industries.

Do I subscribe to all of the above? No. But it's not inconsistent to strongly believe in physical property rights but think that intellectual property rights have gone too far.

Finally, it's fine to argue that wealth inequality is not an ideal outcome. To describe it as "pre Renaissance" is to imply heading into the dark ages. Within the western world, even fairly poor people live much better than the richest of that era, by most reasonable measures. To say that "all anybody cares about is the Beatles" when the news is plastered with the Occupy Wall Street protests rings pretty hollow to my ears.

Re:Is it just me...

[LordLucless]

or does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.

No, those two views are perfectly harmonious.
"It's THEIR money (they earnt it), let them spend it however they want" = "It's MY content (I bought it), let me use it however I want"

Wrong

[Burz]

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.

Where's the evidence?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The summary declares, without any evidence whatsoever, that Penguin's motives are not what they say, and furthermore that this is "One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content." If the examples are evidentially supported to the same degree as this one, then exactly how sure can we be about the trend? How much evidence do we have, in total, towards the hypothesis that companies do not use DRM to protect their content?

I'm not trying to take the companies' side here. It just frightens me that the standard of evidence required to become slashdot fact is so very low. Once you believe something to be fact, it will influence your beliefs, and what you believe to be fact in the future. If one starts accepting facts with such a low standard of evidence, the bullshit can snowball until the most tenuous of hypotheses can seem so sure that one will defend it against anything but the most blatant of contradictions. I've seen it many times, and I've had it happen to me before.

Here's another topic to think about. Everyone knows that the government is simply eating out of Big Corporation's wallet, right? How do they know this? Think back to all the times you think you've seen examples of this, and really consider the following questions: "Is this the only explanation that this at all likely? Can you find some kind of contradiction in the version of events that they offer? Did you even listen to their version of the events?". While seemingly disproportionate mistrust of government is vital to democracy, it doesn't hurt to fact check once and a while!

Thank you for reading. I hope you take some of this on board.

Re:What's the difference?

[mdmkolbe]

Things that you can buy/sell but that most people wouldn't call property:

• Education
• Legal advice
• Delivery of a letter or package
• Medical treatment
• Advertising
• A hair cut
• Maid services
• Someone choosing to settle out of court instead of suing you
• A judge's favor (i.e. bribery)
• etc.