4 ms·

It's not a cheap shot. The Kindle is designed for (figurative) book burning. Any book distribution system with strong DRM is. Amazon has the ability to remot

by tsally 17y ago

It's not a cheap shot. The Kindle is designed for (figurative) book burning. Any book distribution system with strong DRM is. Amazon has the ability to remotely delete (or worse, modify) any book on any Kindle anywhere. Never in the history of written works has a government or private entity had that ability. Again, it's not a cheap shot. Digital books and newspapers present a clear and present danger. I'm open to well supported arrangements about why the rights of copyright holders are more important than freedom of the press and free speech, but honestly I don't think such arguments exist.

gizmo 17y ago
The kindle is not designed for book burning, even if it might be used for that purpose. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of the "remote wipe", but as companies go Amazon has proven itself to be pretty trustworthy. And what's the worst case scenario? Amazon censors/deletes a bunch of books, people scream bloody murder and host some torrents. Never in the history of written works can a shout of a single man be heard by over a billion people. The internet still blows my mind, when I stop and think about it for a second. Thanks to encryption and publicly available algorithms people will always be able to communicate against the will of any government, even if the internet itself is compromised. So I don't think we have to worry about DRM and similar technologies. At any point in time we can just say 'No more!' and use something different, so DRM has no power over us. If you want to worry about something, worry that data can't be deleted, and advances in data mining (artificial intelligence) will change the laws of privacy forever. Perhaps, in 10 years from now, you'd wish for a remote wipe button.
- tsally 17y ago
  If you want to worry about something, worry that data can't be deleted, and advances in data mining (artificial intelligence) will change the laws of privacy forever. Perhaps, in 10 years from now, you'd wish for a remote wipe button. I'll never wish for something like that. The fact that data can't be deleted is one of the most encouraging developments of current technology. The kindle is not designed for book burning, even if it might be used for that purpose. This is incorrect. Figurative book burning is an explicit design goal of the Kindle. Without it, Amazon would have a very difficult time getting major publishers to put their works on the Kindle. Even if your statement was correct, design intentions are irrelevant; the fact that the capability is there is what matters. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of the "remote wipe", but as companies go Amazon has proven itself to be pretty trustworthy. I'll never be comfortable with the idea that I have to trust a company not to violate my rights. Rights are not a matter of trust, they are inalienable, natural guarantees. And what's the worst case scenario? Amazon censors/deletes a bunch of books, people scream bloody murder and host some torrents. Maybe in America. But not in China. And maybe not in America, now that you mention it. Public outcry may seem large from a technical person's perspective, but the average American does not care or know about the implications of remote deletion. You're also making the faulty assumption that deletion is the only option. Modification is far more dangerous. Did you know that the average Chinese citizen older than 40 has no idea how heavily their search results are being censored? Picture a Grandma sitting in her living room in China with her Kindle. She's reading Animal Farm. Her copy is sufficiently doctored that she thinks it is a novel about farm animals, not a work criticizing the corruption that results from a communist revolution. After she's done Grandma will go to sleep feeling happy, enlightened, and unoppressed by her government, blissfully unaware that she's been duped. Sounds far fetched? If you had asked me in the early 1930s whether a German political party would be able to convince a large portion of the German population that an Aryan race was desirable, I would have said it was far fetched too. Thanks to encryption and publicly available algorithms people will always be able to communicate against the will of any government, even if the internet itself is compromised. So I don't think we have to worry about DRM and similar technologies. At any point in time we can just say 'No more!' and use something different, so DRM has no power over us. Not if using encryption or circumventing DRM is illegal. If DRM achieves sufficient market penetration, you wont be able to go about your daily life without it. You barely can as it is.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "This is incorrect. Figurative book burning is an explicit design goal of the Kindle. Without it, Amazon would have a very difficult time getting major publishers to put their works on the Kindle. Even if your statement was correct, design intentions are irrelevant; the fact that the capability is there is what matters." Authors wouldn't need to resort to this if mass e-book piracy didn't exist. "You're also making the faulty assumption that deletion is the only option. Modification is far more dangerous. Did you know that the average Chinese citizen older than 40 has no idea how heavily their search results are being censored? Picture a Grandma sitting in her living room in China with her Kindle. She's reading Animal Farm. Her copy is sufficiently doctored that she thinks it is a novel about farm animals, not a work criticizing the corruption that results from a communist revolution. After she's done Grandma will go to sleep feeling happy, enlightened, and unoppressed by her government, blissfully unaware that she's been duped. Sounds far fetched? If you had asked me in the early 1930s whether a German political party would be able to convince a large portion of the German population that an Aryan race was desirable, I would have said it was far fetched too." Don't blame Amazon for something the government has been doing for many years. I don't think a grandmother in China would even want to read an anti-communist novel, considering the consequences. China is a scary place. "Not if using encryption or circumventing DRM is illegal. If DRM achieves sufficient market penetration, you wont be able to go about your daily life without it. You barely can as it is." You cry about DRM yet you offer no solution for copyright holders to protect their works. DRM is the direct result of the slow attack of the current copyright system through large amounts of people online that not only have no problem copying copyrighted materials, but feel it is their right.
    - tsally 17y ago
      You cry about DRM... No one is crying here. It's a serious issue. ...yet you offer no solution for copyright holders to protect their works. First, it's not clear they need protection. In 2009 movie revenues reached an all time high, despite 2009 being the year of the pirate. Second, copyright holders can protect their works by making the legitimate version more valuable than the pirated one. DRM is an attempt to get around this basic economic reality. Valve and Apple are examples of companies that understand this. Other companies should use Steam and iTunes as the gold standard for content distribution. DRM isn't what makes Steam and iTunes successful, it's that the distribution mechanism is convenient, quick, and social. Third, it is illegal for copyright holders to protect their copyrights by taking away the rights of citizens. Copyright is not a natural right and enforcement via rights restrictions is not in the purview of private entities. The government grants and protects copyright if and only if such granting and protection "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the US Constitution]. It's up to the government to decide what rights can be restricted to protect copyright and if such restrictions benefit the people at large. Personally I think DRM for the purpose of copyright enforcement developed by private entities is unconstitutional. Congress and Congress alone mandates the protections on copyright. Authors wouldn't need to resort to this if mass e-book piracy didn't exist. I don't really think this statement needs refutation. Let me phrase your statement another way: "law enforcement wouldn't need to resort to wiretapping every phone in America if crime didn't exist". Don't blame Amazon for something the government has been doing for many years. Well first of all it was a hypothetical. But I can and will blame companies for such behavior. Do you know how much money Cisco made from the Great Firewall? Companies that enable human rights violations share some responsibility. I'll blame the construction companies that provided materials to build the concentration camps too. Note that I'm not against other systems of government, just systems of government that systematically violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which the US is an author and signatory). I don't think US companies should do business with such governments.
rick888 17y ago
Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. How exactly are freedom of the press or speech in danger? The Internet pretty much has stopped any one governing body from taking that right away from anyone. In fact, it's destroying many newspapers.
- tsally 17y ago
  Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. No, I'm not forced to buy and use a Kindle (a rather facetious question). I'm not forced to buy and use teflon-coated bullets either. That doesn't change the fact that these two items which currently are legal have properties that I believe are immoral and illegal. Current law (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution [1] and the Federal ban against armor piercing ammunition [2]) suggests that certain properties of these items are legal only because of technicalities. I can advocate against these items even if I am not forced to buy them. A rather basic and reasonable claim on my part, if you ask me. How exactly are freedom of the press or speech in danger? If society is saturated with items that allow companies or governments to take away natural rights, then these rights are in danger. Just because these items haven't achieved full saturation yet doesn't mean we shouldn't be protesting them now. The Internet pretty much has stopped any one governing body from taking that right away from anyone. In fact, it's destroying many newspapers. Apparently not, given the Chinese government's success in censoring the internet there. [1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17

by tsally 17y ago

gizmo 17y ago

The kindle is not designed for book burning, even if it might be used for that purpose. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of the "remote wipe", but as companies go Amazon has proven itself to be pretty trustworthy. And what's the worst case scenario? Amazon censors/deletes a bunch of books, people scream bloody murder and host some torrents. Never in the history of written works can a shout of a single man be heard by over a billion people. The internet still blows my mind, when I stop and think about it for a second. Thanks to encryption and publicly available algorithms people will always be able to communicate against the will of any government, even if the internet itself is compromised. So I don't think we have to worry about DRM and similar technologies. At any point in time we can just say 'No more!' and use something different, so DRM has no power over us. If you want to worry about something, worry that data can't be deleted, and advances in data mining (artificial intelligence) will change the laws of privacy forever. Perhaps, in 10 years from now, you'd wish for a remote wipe button.

tsally 17y ago
If you want to worry about something, worry that data can't be deleted, and advances in data mining (artificial intelligence) will change the laws of privacy forever. Perhaps, in 10 years from now, you'd wish for a remote wipe button. I'll never wish for something like that. The fact that data can't be deleted is one of the most encouraging developments of current technology. The kindle is not designed for book burning, even if it might be used for that purpose. This is incorrect. Figurative book burning is an explicit design goal of the Kindle. Without it, Amazon would have a very difficult time getting major publishers to put their works on the Kindle. Even if your statement was correct, design intentions are irrelevant; the fact that the capability is there is what matters. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of the "remote wipe", but as companies go Amazon has proven itself to be pretty trustworthy. I'll never be comfortable with the idea that I have to trust a company not to violate my rights. Rights are not a matter of trust, they are inalienable, natural guarantees. And what's the worst case scenario? Amazon censors/deletes a bunch of books, people scream bloody murder and host some torrents. Maybe in America. But not in China. And maybe not in America, now that you mention it. Public outcry may seem large from a technical person's perspective, but the average American does not care or know about the implications of remote deletion. You're also making the faulty assumption that deletion is the only option. Modification is far more dangerous. Did you know that the average Chinese citizen older than 40 has no idea how heavily their search results are being censored? Picture a Grandma sitting in her living room in China with her Kindle. She's reading Animal Farm. Her copy is sufficiently doctored that she thinks it is a novel about farm animals, not a work criticizing the corruption that results from a communist revolution. After she's done Grandma will go to sleep feeling happy, enlightened, and unoppressed by her government, blissfully unaware that she's been duped. Sounds far fetched? If you had asked me in the early 1930s whether a German political party would be able to convince a large portion of the German population that an Aryan race was desirable, I would have said it was far fetched too. Thanks to encryption and publicly available algorithms people will always be able to communicate against the will of any government, even if the internet itself is compromised. So I don't think we have to worry about DRM and similar technologies. At any point in time we can just say 'No more!' and use something different, so DRM has no power over us. Not if using encryption or circumventing DRM is illegal. If DRM achieves sufficient market penetration, you wont be able to go about your daily life without it. You barely can as it is.
- rick888 17y ago
  "This is incorrect. Figurative book burning is an explicit design goal of the Kindle. Without it, Amazon would have a very difficult time getting major publishers to put their works on the Kindle. Even if your statement was correct, design intentions are irrelevant; the fact that the capability is there is what matters." Authors wouldn't need to resort to this if mass e-book piracy didn't exist. "You're also making the faulty assumption that deletion is the only option. Modification is far more dangerous. Did you know that the average Chinese citizen older than 40 has no idea how heavily their search results are being censored? Picture a Grandma sitting in her living room in China with her Kindle. She's reading Animal Farm. Her copy is sufficiently doctored that she thinks it is a novel about farm animals, not a work criticizing the corruption that results from a communist revolution. After she's done Grandma will go to sleep feeling happy, enlightened, and unoppressed by her government, blissfully unaware that she's been duped. Sounds far fetched? If you had asked me in the early 1930s whether a German political party would be able to convince a large portion of the German population that an Aryan race was desirable, I would have said it was far fetched too." Don't blame Amazon for something the government has been doing for many years. I don't think a grandmother in China would even want to read an anti-communist novel, considering the consequences. China is a scary place. "Not if using encryption or circumventing DRM is illegal. If DRM achieves sufficient market penetration, you wont be able to go about your daily life without it. You barely can as it is." You cry about DRM yet you offer no solution for copyright holders to protect their works. DRM is the direct result of the slow attack of the current copyright system through large amounts of people online that not only have no problem copying copyrighted materials, but feel it is their right.
  - tsally 17y ago
    You cry about DRM... No one is crying here. It's a serious issue. ...yet you offer no solution for copyright holders to protect their works. First, it's not clear they need protection. In 2009 movie revenues reached an all time high, despite 2009 being the year of the pirate. Second, copyright holders can protect their works by making the legitimate version more valuable than the pirated one. DRM is an attempt to get around this basic economic reality. Valve and Apple are examples of companies that understand this. Other companies should use Steam and iTunes as the gold standard for content distribution. DRM isn't what makes Steam and iTunes successful, it's that the distribution mechanism is convenient, quick, and social. Third, it is illegal for copyright holders to protect their copyrights by taking away the rights of citizens. Copyright is not a natural right and enforcement via rights restrictions is not in the purview of private entities. The government grants and protects copyright if and only if such granting and protection "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the US Constitution]. It's up to the government to decide what rights can be restricted to protect copyright and if such restrictions benefit the people at large. Personally I think DRM for the purpose of copyright enforcement developed by private entities is unconstitutional. Congress and Congress alone mandates the protections on copyright. Authors wouldn't need to resort to this if mass e-book piracy didn't exist. I don't really think this statement needs refutation. Let me phrase your statement another way: "law enforcement wouldn't need to resort to wiretapping every phone in America if crime didn't exist". Don't blame Amazon for something the government has been doing for many years. Well first of all it was a hypothetical. But I can and will blame companies for such behavior. Do you know how much money Cisco made from the Great Firewall? Companies that enable human rights violations share some responsibility. I'll blame the construction companies that provided materials to build the concentration camps too. Note that I'm not against other systems of government, just systems of government that systematically violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which the US is an author and signatory). I don't think US companies should do business with such governments.

rick888 17y ago

Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. How exactly are freedom of the press or speech in danger? The Internet pretty much has stopped any one governing body from taking that right away from anyone. In fact, it's destroying many newspapers.

tsally 17y ago
Are you forced to only buy and use a Kindle? If you don't like the fact that amazon modifies or remotely deletes your books, don't buy it. No, I'm not forced to buy and use a Kindle (a rather facetious question). I'm not forced to buy and use teflon-coated bullets either. That doesn't change the fact that these two items which currently are legal have properties that I believe are immoral and illegal. Current law (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution [1] and the Federal ban against armor piercing ammunition [2]) suggests that certain properties of these items are legal only because of technicalities. I can advocate against these items even if I am not forced to buy them. A rather basic and reasonable claim on my part, if you ask me. How exactly are freedom of the press or speech in danger? If society is saturated with items that allow companies or governments to take away natural rights, then these rights are in danger. Just because these items haven't achieved full saturation yet doesn't mean we shouldn't be protesting them now. The Internet pretty much has stopped any one governing body from taking that right away from anyone. In fact, it's destroying many newspapers. Apparently not, given the Chinese government's success in censoring the internet there. [1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html#a_17