12 ms·

On one hand, I understand the dangers from a philosophical viewpoint. On the other, I don't care what Amazon considers their rights or licenses with my Kindle.

On one hand, I understand the dangers from a philosophical viewpoint. On the other, I don't care what Amazon considers their rights or licenses with my Kindle. I'm going to read what I want to read, when I want to read it, on my Kindle, whether Amazon wants me to or considers me to have a license or not. Basically: I don't care what the EULA states for my Kindle. It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. If it ever came to the point of Amazon disabling Kindles for sharing this viewpoint, then I'm sure there would be a groundswell of support for an open-source OS for the Kindle and we'd all get coding. In the end, I'm not all that scared.

keithy 11y ago
I'm in the same boat, it's just too convenient to read from a Kindle compared to having to hold a paperback while laying in bed. These rules that Amazon imposes on ebooks doesn't really affect me, I purchase the books and I get to read them, that's it.
- davexunit 11y ago
  Give me convenience or give me death.
liveoneggs 11y ago
amazon cares and enforces what they want, like when they deleted 1984: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...
- ajuc 11y ago
  People just use callibre or other software to read anything they damn want on their kindles. When it stops being possible people won't buy kindles. As gog.com and CD Projekt RED shown - it's perfectly possible to make a living selling non-DRMed games (when their servers failed last tuesday people still bought the Witcher 3 expansion in gog, and then downloaded it from torrents), so I don't see how it's impossible to do with ebooks.
- pmlnr 11y ago
  Will they turn on the wifi on my device to do so?
alive2007 11y ago
> if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You have no carte blanche entitlement to access media or entertainment. If the executives at HBO figure that, financially speaking, it's in their best interest to keep new Game of Thrones episodes accessible to cable customers only, you have the right to not buy it and be frustrated at that and protest it until eventually enough people protest for HBO to budge. What you don't have the right to do is then to circumvent the legal and technological system set up for you to purchase Game of Thrones and access it for free, which, yes, is fucking theft. I can hear the scoffing through TCP/IP. And you're not just harming the company, you're not just harming the already rich suits at HBO. This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. People figure getting their music for free is a more rational individual choice than paying $16 for a CD. Everyone then makes the decision to get their media for free. Who cares about those stupid record labels, anyways? Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. Thank God it's physically impossible to "pirate" concert tickets. I know we're going on a tangent here, but people often falsely conflate open-source access to information and piracy into this one big, happy revolution against the evil gatekeepers and their evil transactions that involve my money. No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period.
- SlimXero 11y ago
  >No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. Tell that to the cable companies and radio stations that got their start the same way. Nearly every major media distribution channel in this country at least was founded on piracy. [Source: http://goo.gl/fN62uy http://goo.gl/fN62uy]
  - rakoo 11y ago
    That doesn't make it ok.
josefresco 11y ago
Your approach only works when the methods to work around these digital controls are easy and functional. If Amazon and those that advocate for strong DRM strengthened methods either technological or legal to pursue you and/or the tools that circumvent protection - you'd care.
- discreditable 11y ago
  eBook DRM is currently hilariously easy to crack. It's no different than DRM in other media.
  - rocky1138 11y ago
    He is spot on, even with your conditions.
craigching 11y ago
Personally I only read non-DRMed e-books. I usually make sure I get them in non-DRM PDF format. A couple of times I have accidentally bought DRM PDF e-books (e.g. from google books) and returned them ASAP. I generally use good reader on iOS to read my e-books. Certainly not free in the RMS sense, but at least I have them in a format that allows me to choose my reader. Note that I'm not criticizing your use of e-books, just presenting an alternative.
deong 11y ago
I do the same. And I rip the DRM off my Kindle books. I'm not putting them on a torrent site, but I'll send one to my girlfriend if I think she'd like it, because well, that's how you treat books. If Amazon cares enough to try to shut down the decryption with better technology, I'll stop buying Kindle books and I guess we'll both be a little bit poorer for it. That's their call though. I'll worry about it when I have to. I don't generally pirate things. I can't say I never do, but it's very rare, and I don't believe I'm in the right for doing so. But with ebooks, I'm paying Amazon for the book, and while I recognize the truth is that content creators and publishers have the right control distribution of their work, in practice I'm only willing to recognize those rights when they're not wholly unreasonable. HBO wanting me to pay for Game of Thrones is reasonable. Wanting to charge me as a commercial broadcaster if I have a watch party at my house isn't, and I feel like my treatment of ebooks is morally fine. It's an arbitrary line, I recognize, but it's one I'm currently fine with.
- gdilla 11y ago
  For the longest time, ebooks and physical books were priced about the same by the publishers - even though the revenue structure was different (wholesale vs agency). What they forgot was, because of the reasons above, these products are not equivalent. You can resell, lend, etc a physical book whereas you can't an ebook. The consumer gets that an ebook is intrinsically less valuable (well most consumers; the convenience of not using up physical space or taking up weight with ebooks is a value add for many, but that may depend on price too).
  - eosrei 11y ago
    It's even worse when the digital version is more expensive than the physical book. $4 delivered for a real older book or $8 for the digital version? Why? The physical book is far more valuable; rather than simply recommending it, I can give it away.
  - cableshaft 11y ago
    Since the publishers won the rights to set their own prices on Amazon, the Kindle version has started to become $2-5 MORE expensive. There's two book groups I'm in right now where the current book they're reading is more expensive for the digital copy than for a brand new paperback. I refuse to pay more. Sometimes I might be willing to pay the same, but NOT more. In comparison, The Martian was only $2 for the Kindle version because that guy originally posted his book for only a dollar (or something), and I bought it immediately and told everyone I knew about how cheap it was (the book was good enough I'd have been happy to have paid $10 for it, though).
mwcampbell 11y ago
> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. In a civilized society, respect for the law must trump our endless appetite for convenient entertainment. There are causes that merit civil disobedience, but this isn't one of them. If we can't consume some piece of entertainment legally, then we should just pass on it; there's always something else we can enjoy instead.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  respect for the law must trump Why?
  - rout39574 11y ago
    Because you'd prefer that other people not casually erect their own legal structure where your interests are concerned. The law exists, among other reasons, to save us the N! negotiation of appropriate barriers. In that way, taking some aliquot of entertainment is not different from sleeping on your porch. Or in your living room.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      And when the law is broken, backwards, or wrong? Slavish adherence to the law regardless of its nuance is not noble, it does not contribute to some greater whole, it is mere obedience, nothing more. "Speed Limit 65" on major highways is a law too, and one that has roughly as much respect among the people as copyright law. And we're a more efficient society for ignoring it.
      - chipotle_coyote 11y ago
        I think the problem the OP is pointing to is exactly where one draws the line between "this law is broken, backwards or wrong" and "breaking this law gets me what I want at zero cost with little chance of penalty." Actually walking out of a store with a physical copy of a book (or a CD or a movie) is something most people would agree is theft, but making a digital copy of the same book or CD or movie without paying for it is... something else. By this point anyone on HN can enumerate the salient differences, which all revolve around digital copies having zero marginal cost. The problem is that we too often ignore the salient similarities. The reason you want this particular book or CD or movie has nothing to do with the marginal cost of that particular copy. The bulk of the value always lay in the creative work; in digital media, all of the value lies in the creative work. If I want to sell you a novel and you don't like the price I've set, you'd never think that justifies walking out of the store without paying for a physical copy. Why does it justify you making a digital copy without paying for it? DRM is a terrible "solution" to this problem, but I think its worst feature may be that its existence obscures the actual value of creative works by focusing attention back on the medium. My hypothetical novel's value, or lack thereof, ultimately has nothing to do with whether it's a trade paperback or an EPUB file. The principle of "you give me money in exchange for my work" remains the same even if my work is not fixed in a physical, tangible form.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. I'm with you, up until here. If I buy some content (e-book, movie, TV show, etc.), and then DRM malfunctions or is senselessly restrictive (client doesn't exist for some platform, etc.), I feel it is justifiable to "pirate" the content which I paid for. Particularly in the case of malfunctioning DRM (which is unfortunately common for PC games these days), it is the provider who failed to hold up their end of the bargain (whatever their EULA may say). But of all the things studios do, deciding where to sell or not sell content is something that they actually have every right to do. We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. If HBO doesn't want to release Game of Thrones during the season to Amazon, etc. because they want people to watch it on their network, what right do I have to steal it because I don't want to pay for cable?
- rocky1138 11y ago
  Because it's dumb that they want you to suck it through their straw.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    So you deserve a particular piece of entertainment because it exists and you pay someone else for an internet connection? What exactly are your criterion for the thinness of the straw before you feel justified in routing around it? It sounds like a moving target to me.
    - rocky1138 11y ago
      Essentially, as long as I am able to pay a decent price for content without them telling me how I can consume it, I'll do it. If the price is too high I'll wait until it comes down and not pirate it (see: waiting for a game to be cheaper during a Steam sale). If the company tries to control how I consume the content in a way that is illogical or very inconvenient, I'll get it by other means or just avoid it altogether. Examples: 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. 3. Apple requires the use of Safari to view their live streams, for no valid technical reason. So, I don't listen or pay attention to anything during their keynotes. At the office, headphones go on. From my perspective, they don't want me as a customer anyway, so there's no point in giving them any mindshare.
timtadh 11y ago
Just buy the paperback or get it from the library. Actual books are great and have no ethical concerns unlike the ones the FSF has raised on e-books. Kindles are cool technology but a paper back is still better for actually reading. Libraries are fantastic and I still like physical books stores as well. If you "want to read what you want" the path is clear, read actual books.
- jobigoud 11y ago
  e-books have zero ethical concerns. DRMed books do.
walterbell 11y ago
Are you familiar with the proposed TPP laws for DRM circumvention and destruction of devices, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-...?
- rocky1138 11y ago
  If I don't care about the EULA for my current devices, what makes you think I'll suddenly care about another, slightly different EULA?
  - walterbell 11y ago
    The TPP is not a EULA, it is a set of laws which allow devices (like cellphones) to be inspected and seized at borders, destroyed by court order, among many other implications, http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-seiz.html http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-s...
coldtea 11y ago
>I'm going to read what I want to read, when I want to read it, on my Kindle, whether Amazon wants me to or considers me to have a license or not. Basically: I don't care what the EULA states for my Kindle. It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. Then again, if this lands you in jail, or without internet access for downloading pirated material ("tree strikes laws" etc) then you'd do care. So, not caring might be a short-term option, but it's not a long term political stance. Not just because of the off-chance of being hit with a lawsuit as mentioned, but mainly because this leads to even more powerful DRM (it's not impossible: there are programs that are considered virtually "uncrackable" and indeed haven't been cracked for 5-6 years, despite popular demand, usually constly pro applications using some dongle or internet based security scheme), more restrictions for legitimate users (who, for example, won't jailbreak their devices), etc.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Amazon is only one of many counterparties with which you should be concerned. Access and transferability are only two rights specified. Anonymity, open formats, and freedom from arbitrary withdrawal of the book (Amazon famously exercised this capability on 1984 of all titles) are other factors. And don't underestimate power of law. The computer software industry has long used rampant piracy of their products, often tacitly encouraged, as a lever to squeeze users for as much revenue as possible, under colour of law. That's only one of several such applications of this particular lever. RMS has been, and continues to be, highly prescient on virtually all areas of free access to information, software or otherwise.
- greyman 11y ago
  But did RMS offered some technological solutions regarding solving those pain points? The article sounds as if Amazon was the culprit here, but imho Amazon needs to comply with what publishers wants, and also to protect copyright rights of the authors.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    RMS typically calls out an leading exemplar of a specific problem. In the case of eBooks, that would be Amazon. And yes, he does offer specific technical alternatives. Amazon's been large enough to exert its will on publishers before. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/05/amazon-malignant-monopoly-or-j.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/05/amazon-m...
intopieces 11y ago
I don't think the focus of this article is us, the technology savvy. I think the danger is for the common reader, who doesn't know the difference between .MOBI or .EPUB and wouldn't know how to circumvent DRM on an Amazon book to keep it. There's still the risk that these systems will become more sophisticated that even mid-level savvy folks give up. Do we know the implications of TPP w/r/t ebooks? But I think it's important that we maintain the community to circumvents copyright. Copyright, the way it is implemented today, is anti-cultural. If we have any hope of harvesting our incredible digital archiving ability, we must maintain ways to keep content free of DRM. But it's up to us - no one will do it for us.
nbardy 11y ago
I don't understand the pirate right that its not okay to control distribution of an item. I understand the argument against DRM and definitely feel that when I purchase I should of have full ownership of that product. Distribution, however, is a completely different argument. Scarcity is something companies have consistently used to control values of products. Should movie publishers not be allowed to keep movie in theaters before a DvD release. Or gaming companies not allow early access to pre orders?
- Nadya 11y ago
  >Scarcity is something companies have consistently used to control values of products. Manufactured scarcity is not something I approve of. So to answer the questions that follow: No and no. I don't approve of manufactured scarcity of "more important things" like food/water/electricity - why would I approve of it for entertainment and other trivial things? It being "non-essential" doesn't give them moral justification, in my opinion. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Qwertious 11y ago
You're funding their bullshit, and therefore enabling it.

keithy 11y ago

I'm in the same boat, it's just too convenient to read from a Kindle compared to having to hold a paperback while laying in bed. These rules that Amazon imposes on ebooks doesn't really affect me, I purchase the books and I get to read them, that's it.

davexunit 11y ago
Give me convenience or give me death.

liveoneggs 11y ago

amazon cares and enforces what they want, like when they deleted 1984: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...

ajuc 11y ago
People just use callibre or other software to read anything they damn want on their kindles. When it stops being possible people won't buy kindles. As gog.com and CD Projekt RED shown - it's perfectly possible to make a living selling non-DRMed games (when their servers failed last tuesday people still bought the Witcher 3 expansion in gog, and then downloaded it from torrents), so I don't see how it's impossible to do with ebooks.
pmlnr 11y ago
Will they turn on the wifi on my device to do so?

alive2007 11y ago

> if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You have no carte blanche entitlement to access media or entertainment. If the executives at HBO figure that, financially speaking, it's in their best interest to keep new Game of Thrones episodes accessible to cable customers only, you have the right to not buy it and be frustrated at that and protest it until eventually enough people protest for HBO to budge. What you don't have the right to do is then to circumvent the legal and technological system set up for you to purchase Game of Thrones and access it for free, which, yes, is fucking theft. I can hear the scoffing through TCP/IP. And you're not just harming the company, you're not just harming the already rich suits at HBO. This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. People figure getting their music for free is a more rational individual choice than paying $16 for a CD. Everyone then makes the decision to get their media for free. Who cares about those stupid record labels, anyways? Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. Thank God it's physically impossible to "pirate" concert tickets. I know we're going on a tangent here, but people often falsely conflate open-source access to information and piracy into this one big, happy revolution against the evil gatekeepers and their evil transactions that involve my money. No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period.

SlimXero 11y ago
>No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. Tell that to the cable companies and radio stations that got their start the same way. Nearly every major media distribution channel in this country at least was founded on piracy. [Source: http://goo.gl/fN62uy http://goo.gl/fN62uy]
- rakoo 11y ago
  That doesn't make it ok.

josefresco 11y ago

Your approach only works when the methods to work around these digital controls are easy and functional. If Amazon and those that advocate for strong DRM strengthened methods either technological or legal to pursue you and/or the tools that circumvent protection - you'd care.

discreditable 11y ago
eBook DRM is currently hilariously easy to crack. It's no different than DRM in other media.
- rocky1138 11y ago
  He is spot on, even with your conditions.

craigching 11y ago

Personally I only read non-DRMed e-books. I usually make sure I get them in non-DRM PDF format. A couple of times I have accidentally bought DRM PDF e-books (e.g. from google books) and returned them ASAP. I generally use good reader on iOS to read my e-books. Certainly not free in the RMS sense, but at least I have them in a format that allows me to choose my reader. Note that I'm not criticizing your use of e-books, just presenting an alternative.

deong 11y ago

I do the same. And I rip the DRM off my Kindle books. I'm not putting them on a torrent site, but I'll send one to my girlfriend if I think she'd like it, because well, that's how you treat books. If Amazon cares enough to try to shut down the decryption with better technology, I'll stop buying Kindle books and I guess we'll both be a little bit poorer for it. That's their call though. I'll worry about it when I have to. I don't generally pirate things. I can't say I never do, but it's very rare, and I don't believe I'm in the right for doing so. But with ebooks, I'm paying Amazon for the book, and while I recognize the truth is that content creators and publishers have the right control distribution of their work, in practice I'm only willing to recognize those rights when they're not wholly unreasonable. HBO wanting me to pay for Game of Thrones is reasonable. Wanting to charge me as a commercial broadcaster if I have a watch party at my house isn't, and I feel like my treatment of ebooks is morally fine. It's an arbitrary line, I recognize, but it's one I'm currently fine with.

gdilla 11y ago
For the longest time, ebooks and physical books were priced about the same by the publishers - even though the revenue structure was different (wholesale vs agency). What they forgot was, because of the reasons above, these products are not equivalent. You can resell, lend, etc a physical book whereas you can't an ebook. The consumer gets that an ebook is intrinsically less valuable (well most consumers; the convenience of not using up physical space or taking up weight with ebooks is a value add for many, but that may depend on price too).
- eosrei 11y ago
  It's even worse when the digital version is more expensive than the physical book. $4 delivered for a real older book or $8 for the digital version? Why? The physical book is far more valuable; rather than simply recommending it, I can give it away.
- cableshaft 11y ago
  Since the publishers won the rights to set their own prices on Amazon, the Kindle version has started to become $2-5 MORE expensive. There's two book groups I'm in right now where the current book they're reading is more expensive for the digital copy than for a brand new paperback. I refuse to pay more. Sometimes I might be willing to pay the same, but NOT more. In comparison, The Martian was only $2 for the Kindle version because that guy originally posted his book for only a dollar (or something), and I bought it immediately and told everyone I knew about how cheap it was (the book was good enough I'd have been happy to have paid $10 for it, though).

mwcampbell 11y ago

> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. In a civilized society, respect for the law must trump our endless appetite for convenient entertainment. There are causes that merit civil disobedience, but this isn't one of them. If we can't consume some piece of entertainment legally, then we should just pass on it; there's always something else we can enjoy instead.

Karunamon 11y ago
respect for the law must trump Why?
- rout39574 11y ago
  Because you'd prefer that other people not casually erect their own legal structure where your interests are concerned. The law exists, among other reasons, to save us the N! negotiation of appropriate barriers. In that way, taking some aliquot of entertainment is not different from sleeping on your porch. Or in your living room.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    And when the law is broken, backwards, or wrong? Slavish adherence to the law regardless of its nuance is not noble, it does not contribute to some greater whole, it is mere obedience, nothing more. "Speed Limit 65" on major highways is a law too, and one that has roughly as much respect among the people as copyright law. And we're a more efficient society for ignoring it.
    - chipotle_coyote 11y ago
      I think the problem the OP is pointing to is exactly where one draws the line between "this law is broken, backwards or wrong" and "breaking this law gets me what I want at zero cost with little chance of penalty." Actually walking out of a store with a physical copy of a book (or a CD or a movie) is something most people would agree is theft, but making a digital copy of the same book or CD or movie without paying for it is... something else. By this point anyone on HN can enumerate the salient differences, which all revolve around digital copies having zero marginal cost. The problem is that we too often ignore the salient similarities. The reason you want this particular book or CD or movie has nothing to do with the marginal cost of that particular copy. The bulk of the value always lay in the creative work; in digital media, all of the value lies in the creative work. If I want to sell you a novel and you don't like the price I've set, you'd never think that justifies walking out of the store without paying for a physical copy. Why does it justify you making a digital copy without paying for it? DRM is a terrible "solution" to this problem, but I think its worst feature may be that its existence obscures the actual value of creative works by focusing attention back on the medium. My hypothetical novel's value, or lack thereof, ultimately has nothing to do with whether it's a trade paperback or an EPUB file. The principle of "you give me money in exchange for my work" remains the same even if my work is not fixed in a physical, tangible form.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

> It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. I'm with you, up until here. If I buy some content (e-book, movie, TV show, etc.), and then DRM malfunctions or is senselessly restrictive (client doesn't exist for some platform, etc.), I feel it is justifiable to "pirate" the content which I paid for. Particularly in the case of malfunctioning DRM (which is unfortunately common for PC games these days), it is the provider who failed to hold up their end of the bargain (whatever their EULA may say). But of all the things studios do, deciding where to sell or not sell content is something that they actually have every right to do. We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists. If HBO doesn't want to release Game of Thrones during the season to Amazon, etc. because they want people to watch it on their network, what right do I have to steal it because I don't want to pay for cable?

rocky1138 11y ago
Because it's dumb that they want you to suck it through their straw.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  So you deserve a particular piece of entertainment because it exists and you pay someone else for an internet connection? What exactly are your criterion for the thinness of the straw before you feel justified in routing around it? It sounds like a moving target to me.
  - rocky1138 11y ago
    Essentially, as long as I am able to pay a decent price for content without them telling me how I can consume it, I'll do it. If the price is too high I'll wait until it comes down and not pirate it (see: waiting for a game to be cheaper during a Steam sale). If the company tries to control how I consume the content in a way that is illogical or very inconvenient, I'll get it by other means or just avoid it altogether. Examples: 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time. 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me. 3. Apple requires the use of Safari to view their live streams, for no valid technical reason. So, I don't listen or pay attention to anything during their keynotes. At the office, headphones go on. From my perspective, they don't want me as a customer anyway, so there's no point in giving them any mindshare.

timtadh 11y ago

Just buy the paperback or get it from the library. Actual books are great and have no ethical concerns unlike the ones the FSF has raised on e-books. Kindles are cool technology but a paper back is still better for actually reading. Libraries are fantastic and I still like physical books stores as well. If you "want to read what you want" the path is clear, read actual books.

jobigoud 11y ago
e-books have zero ethical concerns. DRMed books do.

walterbell 11y ago

Are you familiar with the proposed TPP laws for DRM circumvention and destruction of devices, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-...?

rocky1138 11y ago
If I don't care about the EULA for my current devices, what makes you think I'll suddenly care about another, slightly different EULA?
- walterbell 11y ago
  The TPP is not a EULA, it is a set of laws which allow devices (like cellphones) to be inspected and seized at borders, destroyed by court order, among many other implications, http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-seiz.html http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-s...

coldtea 11y ago

>I'm going to read what I want to read, when I want to read it, on my Kindle, whether Amazon wants me to or considers me to have a license or not. Basically: I don't care what the EULA states for my Kindle. It's the same attitude I have around pirating movies or shows: if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. Then again, if this lands you in jail, or without internet access for downloading pirated material ("tree strikes laws" etc) then you'd do care. So, not caring might be a short-term option, but it's not a long term political stance. Not just because of the off-chance of being hit with a lawsuit as mentioned, but mainly because this leads to even more powerful DRM (it's not impossible: there are programs that are considered virtually "uncrackable" and indeed haven't been cracked for 5-6 years, despite popular demand, usually constly pro applications using some dongle or internet based security scheme), more restrictions for legitimate users (who, for example, won't jailbreak their devices), etc.

dredmorbius 11y ago

Amazon is only one of many counterparties with which you should be concerned. Access and transferability are only two rights specified. Anonymity, open formats, and freedom from arbitrary withdrawal of the book (Amazon famously exercised this capability on 1984 of all titles) are other factors. And don't underestimate power of law. The computer software industry has long used rampant piracy of their products, often tacitly encouraged, as a lever to squeeze users for as much revenue as possible, under colour of law. That's only one of several such applications of this particular lever. RMS has been, and continues to be, highly prescient on virtually all areas of free access to information, software or otherwise.

greyman 11y ago
But did RMS offered some technological solutions regarding solving those pain points? The article sounds as if Amazon was the culprit here, but imho Amazon needs to comply with what publishers wants, and also to protect copyright rights of the authors.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  RMS typically calls out an leading exemplar of a specific problem. In the case of eBooks, that would be Amazon. And yes, he does offer specific technical alternatives. Amazon's been large enough to exert its will on publishers before. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/05/amazon-malignant-monopoly-or-j.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/05/amazon-m...

intopieces 11y ago

I don't think the focus of this article is us, the technology savvy. I think the danger is for the common reader, who doesn't know the difference between .MOBI or .EPUB and wouldn't know how to circumvent DRM on an Amazon book to keep it. There's still the risk that these systems will become more sophisticated that even mid-level savvy folks give up. Do we know the implications of TPP w/r/t ebooks? But I think it's important that we maintain the community to circumvents copyright. Copyright, the way it is implemented today, is anti-cultural. If we have any hope of harvesting our incredible digital archiving ability, we must maintain ways to keep content free of DRM. But it's up to us - no one will do it for us.

nbardy 11y ago

I don't understand the pirate right that its not okay to control distribution of an item. I understand the argument against DRM and definitely feel that when I purchase I should of have full ownership of that product. Distribution, however, is a completely different argument. Scarcity is something companies have consistently used to control values of products. Should movie publishers not be allowed to keep movie in theaters before a DvD release. Or gaming companies not allow early access to pre orders?

Nadya 11y ago
>Scarcity is something companies have consistently used to control values of products. Manufactured scarcity is not something I approve of. So to answer the questions that follow: No and no. I don't approve of manufactured scarcity of "more important things" like food/water/electricity - why would I approve of it for entertainment and other trivial things? It being "non-essential" doesn't give them moral justification, in my opinion. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Qwertious 11y ago

You're funding their bullshit, and therefore enabling it.