5 ms·

Major flaws in both points here: 1) You can lend your Kindle out all you want and let people read your books, just as you could before. You just can't duplicat

by aneth 15y ago

Major flaws in both points here: 1) You can lend your Kindle out all you want and let people read your books, just as you could before. You just can't duplicate the book onto someone else's Kindle or in any other way, just as you couldn't before. This is a reasonable restriction and not any worse than it was with a physical book, which you are also prohibited from scanning, photocopying and distributing outside of fair use. 2) You can not copy/paste a physical book either. I agree that this should be allowed, but it's not a dystopian future - there is no loss over physical books here, only gain. Perhaps Amazon should allow some sort of way to help with "fair use" citations, and maybe they should remove restrictions on public domain material. On the latter though, those are generally available for free from many sources, so the fact that you can't copy/paste on your Kindle is an inconvenience, not a dystopia.

fr0sty 15y ago
> You can lend your Kindle out all you want and let people read your books, just as you could before. Only until that becomes a violation of Amazon's TOS, or reading your books requires you be 'authenticated' with a rights server. These things happen in steps and just because it works now does not imply that is will continue to work next week/month/year.
- Travis 15y ago
  Have you actually read that this plan is in the works, or that someone at amazon intends to do it? Otherwise, it sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
  - fr0sty 15y ago
    I'll point to the music industry for prior art: Originally, the CD you purchased was your to enjoy in perpetuity unless you chose to resell it. Current 'state of the art' is either: A. Purchase a streaming 'membership' where you only have the right to personally stream music from a remote server B. Purchase encrypted, non-transferrable 'tracks' which will become unplayable when the company supplying them stops running their servers. There are still avenues (Amazon mp3) which do not take this approach (DRM), but you still cannot legally resell the goods you purchased.
    - Travis 15y ago
      I'm a little unclear why you are referencing patent law. Anyhow, it seems strange that you feel like you have a right to something produced by someone else. I'm not sure they should be able to make laws making circumvention illegal. But, aren't you complaining because you can't access someone else's work in a manner that you think is convenient? The whole "our rights are being squashed because I can't share my ebook with you" argument reeks a little too much of entitlement for me to get behind it.
      - hxa7241 15y ago
        This whole 'entitlement' angle is just wrong thinking here. The fundamental is that technological advance has given us something good, that we did not have before, for free. The sensible question is, how can we best benefit from it. Are we entitled to the invention of the car? Are we entitled to comfortably travel at faster than walking pace? The question seems meaningless, let alone unhelpful.
        Travis 15y ago
        I don't think that's necessarily the sensible question. Aamazon built the kindle. It is their to decide what to do with it. You and I have no right to usurp their product because we want to alter the benefit. If you don't like the DRM or the features, don't use the product, or start a competitor to the Kindle. Please don't expand my comment to any other industries. There are certain safety and utility businesses that require regulation. I don't think being able to electronically download a book over a propriety network using a proprietary device (that someone chose to purchase) is one of those.
        d2zo 15y ago
        If it comes to be that a significant majority of the book market is locked by DRM schemes, then no, Amazon ought not have the right to do as they please, and a regulatory agency should be established to ensure fair and equitable access to the materials. Education, water, electricity, communication, and healthcare are all fine and proper examples of what happens when incumbents reach "escape velocity" and their past innovations turn into today's rent seeking.
  - omouse 15y ago
    Considering all the abuses that giant media companies visit on us daily with attacks on "pirates", bittorrent, etc. maybe you should be providing us with concrete proof that there this is no such plan in the works.
    - Travis 15y ago
      I'll take more time than I should to respond to your comment. It doesn't deserve to be in this discussion, as it's just a knee-jerk reaction with little substance. In short, I'll just say this: * "media companies" is an unnecessarily broad category. But saying "books' rights owners" would invalidate your entire point. Now, you could have pointed out that the MPAA and RIAA felt they had no choice but to lock things down and "attack". Then you could have pointed out the similarity in contexts between their situation and the books' rights groups. Then it would have been reasonable (although a huge stretch, IMO) to suggest that the books' rights groups may make similar decisions. But you chose not to, which leads me to my next two points: * you cannot prove a negative (this is a big one, so you might want to re-read it) * your tone is overly emotional and inflammatory, something that at once weakens your points and makes me not like you very much
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
Travis 15y ago
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. I suppose the counterargument would be that you can't lend just one book at a time, or something similar. However, that is as much a consequence of packing all your books into one device as it is amazon's fault. I don't see why people would expect a business to be run in a method that yields no tangible benefits (why does amazon or penguin want you to share books?), but could have consequences (reduced sales). Sometimes it seems like people are shocked when companies act in their best interests. It's very strange.
- kevindication 15y ago
  The point of the article is in fact that because the companies have acted in their (perceived) best interests, we have lost freedom. And that maybe we should care.
  - Travis 15y ago
    Have we really lost any freedoms? You can still get any book on paper, and will for the near future. You can still swap books all you like. If people are willing to give up their right to loan books in exchange for the convenience of eBooks, it sounds more like an exchange of freedom for convenience. But that's a choice people make, which is something I can't get too worked up over. I also don't buy an argument that paper books are going away any time soon. There are huge swaths of people 40-and-up who will never read ebooks (and I suspect that is the demographic that reads more "books" than the younger set)
    - danieldk 15y ago
      Have we really lost any freedoms? Not per se. But it is withdrawal of extra freedoms/features that electronic media and the internet provide e.g. nearly-free copying and distribution and random access. There are many possible (and legal) applications that are made impossible, even for the buyer of a book. Think e.g. of corpus linguistics, applications for automatic annotation of phrases, etc. The media companies are trying to turn what is new and provides enormous potential benefits to the population into what is old, because it is easier to stay with old business methods than to reinvent yourself.
hubb 15y ago
1) except that lending someone your kindle isn't like lending them a book -- it's lending them your entire library at once 2) you are comparing "copying" text from a sheet of paper to an electronic device. that doesn't make any sense at all. people who view text on an electronic screen are used to being able to select and copy it. that was never possible, nor will it ever be with a physical paper book.
- rfrey 15y ago
  Copying an ebook is conceptually the same as photocopying a physical book, or duplicating a physical music album. It's just easier and faster to copy a computer file, or cut-and-paste a portion of it.
- delinka 15y ago
  It's not anyone's fault but your own that your entire readable library lives in one physical device. Asking to change copyright to allow you to "photocopy" someone else's work and give it to a friend is unacceptable. Now that I've played devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of the technological measures that attempt to prevent piracy. I believe that the solution is pricing digital media so that it's more 'disposable' - that is, price it so cheaply that pirating and even lending is too much trouble.
  - rick888 15y ago
    Music is already 99 cents. It can't get more disposable than that. Apps in the iphone and Android stores are also very cheap (most are under $10). Piracy hasn't slowed down.
sambeau 15y ago
Are you sure that you can legally lend your Kindle if it contains copyrighted work? I would be surprised if this wasn't also covered by the strict sense of the law (not that I am suggesting that anyone would ever prosecute for it).
- aneth 15y ago
  Interesting question. I'm not lawerly enough to answer outright, but regardless of the current law I don't that a case against someone lending their Kindle would ever be upheld. It's analgous to saying letting someone use your computer is a violation of your OS license. Like you say though, likely a moot point.
aneth 15y ago
Ok, one good counter-point below: You can't loan an individual book (other than through the Amazon program) using a Kindle. Folks, this is not an Orwellian conspiracy, but rather a limitation of matter and energy which is a consequence of the tradeoffs we make when we decide to use an ereader and put all our books in one device.

by aneth 15y ago

fr0sty 15y ago

> You can lend your Kindle out all you want and let people read your books, just as you could before. Only until that becomes a violation of Amazon's TOS, or reading your books requires you be 'authenticated' with a rights server. These things happen in steps and just because it works now does not imply that is will continue to work next week/month/year.

Travis 15y ago
Have you actually read that this plan is in the works, or that someone at amazon intends to do it? Otherwise, it sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
- fr0sty 15y ago
  I'll point to the music industry for prior art: Originally, the CD you purchased was your to enjoy in perpetuity unless you chose to resell it. Current 'state of the art' is either: A. Purchase a streaming 'membership' where you only have the right to personally stream music from a remote server B. Purchase encrypted, non-transferrable 'tracks' which will become unplayable when the company supplying them stops running their servers. There are still avenues (Amazon mp3) which do not take this approach (DRM), but you still cannot legally resell the goods you purchased.
  - Travis 15y ago
    I'm a little unclear why you are referencing patent law. Anyhow, it seems strange that you feel like you have a right to something produced by someone else. I'm not sure they should be able to make laws making circumvention illegal. But, aren't you complaining because you can't access someone else's work in a manner that you think is convenient? The whole "our rights are being squashed because I can't share my ebook with you" argument reeks a little too much of entitlement for me to get behind it.
    - hxa7241 15y ago
      This whole 'entitlement' angle is just wrong thinking here. The fundamental is that technological advance has given us something good, that we did not have before, for free. The sensible question is, how can we best benefit from it. Are we entitled to the invention of the car? Are we entitled to comfortably travel at faster than walking pace? The question seems meaningless, let alone unhelpful.
      - Travis 15y ago
        I don't think that's necessarily the sensible question. Aamazon built the kindle. It is their to decide what to do with it. You and I have no right to usurp their product because we want to alter the benefit. If you don't like the DRM or the features, don't use the product, or start a competitor to the Kindle. Please don't expand my comment to any other industries. There are certain safety and utility businesses that require regulation. I don't think being able to electronically download a book over a propriety network using a proprietary device (that someone chose to purchase) is one of those.
        d2zo 15y ago
        If it comes to be that a significant majority of the book market is locked by DRM schemes, then no, Amazon ought not have the right to do as they please, and a regulatory agency should be established to ensure fair and equitable access to the materials. Education, water, electricity, communication, and healthcare are all fine and proper examples of what happens when incumbents reach "escape velocity" and their past innovations turn into today's rent seeking.
- omouse 15y ago
  Considering all the abuses that giant media companies visit on us daily with attacks on "pirates", bittorrent, etc. maybe you should be providing us with concrete proof that there this is no such plan in the works.
  - Travis 15y ago
    I'll take more time than I should to respond to your comment. It doesn't deserve to be in this discussion, as it's just a knee-jerk reaction with little substance. In short, I'll just say this: * "media companies" is an unnecessarily broad category. But saying "books' rights owners" would invalidate your entire point. Now, you could have pointed out that the MPAA and RIAA felt they had no choice but to lock things down and "attack". Then you could have pointed out the similarity in contexts between their situation and the books' rights groups. Then it would have been reasonable (although a huge stretch, IMO) to suggest that the books' rights groups may make similar decisions. But you chose not to, which leads me to my next two points: * you cannot prove a negative (this is a big one, so you might want to re-read it) * your tone is overly emotional and inflammatory, something that at once weakens your points and makes me not like you very much
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]

Travis 15y ago

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. I suppose the counterargument would be that you can't lend just one book at a time, or something similar. However, that is as much a consequence of packing all your books into one device as it is amazon's fault. I don't see why people would expect a business to be run in a method that yields no tangible benefits (why does amazon or penguin want you to share books?), but could have consequences (reduced sales). Sometimes it seems like people are shocked when companies act in their best interests. It's very strange.

kevindication 15y ago
The point of the article is in fact that because the companies have acted in their (perceived) best interests, we have lost freedom. And that maybe we should care.
- Travis 15y ago
  Have we really lost any freedoms? You can still get any book on paper, and will for the near future. You can still swap books all you like. If people are willing to give up their right to loan books in exchange for the convenience of eBooks, it sounds more like an exchange of freedom for convenience. But that's a choice people make, which is something I can't get too worked up over. I also don't buy an argument that paper books are going away any time soon. There are huge swaths of people 40-and-up who will never read ebooks (and I suspect that is the demographic that reads more "books" than the younger set)
  - danieldk 15y ago
    Have we really lost any freedoms? Not per se. But it is withdrawal of extra freedoms/features that electronic media and the internet provide e.g. nearly-free copying and distribution and random access. There are many possible (and legal) applications that are made impossible, even for the buyer of a book. Think e.g. of corpus linguistics, applications for automatic annotation of phrases, etc. The media companies are trying to turn what is new and provides enormous potential benefits to the population into what is old, because it is easier to stay with old business methods than to reinvent yourself.

hubb 15y ago

1) except that lending someone your kindle isn't like lending them a book -- it's lending them your entire library at once 2) you are comparing "copying" text from a sheet of paper to an electronic device. that doesn't make any sense at all. people who view text on an electronic screen are used to being able to select and copy it. that was never possible, nor will it ever be with a physical paper book.

rfrey 15y ago
Copying an ebook is conceptually the same as photocopying a physical book, or duplicating a physical music album. It's just easier and faster to copy a computer file, or cut-and-paste a portion of it.
delinka 15y ago
It's not anyone's fault but your own that your entire readable library lives in one physical device. Asking to change copyright to allow you to "photocopy" someone else's work and give it to a friend is unacceptable. Now that I've played devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of the technological measures that attempt to prevent piracy. I believe that the solution is pricing digital media so that it's more 'disposable' - that is, price it so cheaply that pirating and even lending is too much trouble.
- rick888 15y ago
  Music is already 99 cents. It can't get more disposable than that. Apps in the iphone and Android stores are also very cheap (most are under $10). Piracy hasn't slowed down.

sambeau 15y ago

Are you sure that you can legally lend your Kindle if it contains copyrighted work? I would be surprised if this wasn't also covered by the strict sense of the law (not that I am suggesting that anyone would ever prosecute for it).

aneth 15y ago
Interesting question. I'm not lawerly enough to answer outright, but regardless of the current law I don't that a case against someone lending their Kindle would ever be upheld. It's analgous to saying letting someone use your computer is a violation of your OS license. Like you say though, likely a moot point.

aneth 15y ago

Ok, one good counter-point below: You can't loan an individual book (other than through the Amazon program) using a Kindle. Folks, this is not an Orwellian conspiracy, but rather a limitation of matter and energy which is a consequence of the tradeoffs we make when we decide to use an ereader and put all our books in one device.