11 ms·

So you’re telling me you can give Amazon money for their closed book system, give them more money and they can just decide to take away “””your””” books you’ve

So you’re telling me you can give Amazon money for their closed book system, give them more money and they can just decide to take away “””your””” books you’ve bought over the years? Can’t wait for the apologist to appear and explain why this is just totally fine

wahnfrieden 4y ago
information and art should be free, and authors and artists should be entitled to decent living
- swarnie 4y ago
  Those two statements can't be reconciled in any viable society.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    sounds like hardened political rhetoric to say simply that it's not viable. even ahistorical if you look at recent eg wengrow and graeber research. where's your intellectual curiosity for possible alternatives to status quo? but sure, enjoy your current "viable society"
  - jfengel 4y ago
    It should work with a universal basic income. Everyone has enough to eat and a place to live. Then you price your efforts based on not needing a subsistence. It would make it easier to dismiss the notion of intellectual property, since you no longer need to artificially limit copying so that creators could survive. They'll probably want some kind of job to afford art supplies, but it's an option rather than a mandate. This is oversimplified, of course, but it doesn't seem fundamentally impossible.
    - patentatt 4y ago
      The limited monopoly isn't just for survival though, it's supposed to be an incentive.
      - jfengel 4y ago
        Lots of creators like to create for fun. The type of work is different but it's not necessarily any less productive overall.
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    Historically you had patrons that provided for artists and the like. They weren't necessary paid for particular works.
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      Which was universally shitty way to live to all creators in world on average. Sure, top1% maybe lived acceptably, but majority just starved without proper business models. (it's not based on numbers, just a guess based on how humans lived centuries ago)
  - xtracto 4y ago
    They can and should. Every time this discussion comes up in HN I describe how this could be viable. In the past it was done through something called patronage: a rich guy paid an artist for a painting or art piece. Nowadays with crowdfunding a writer could be paid by wannabe readers before the book is published, and only publish when he has obtained a FAIR compensation for his time working writing said book.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      There are undoubtedly creators who are operating on that model today. (Many Kickstarters for content, board games, etc would qualify I think.) It seems like most are not using that model. Maybe it’s not lucrative enough; maybe they’re not aware of the possibility.
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      That would fail spectacularly. Kickstarters only work for known authors, so the newcomers would be excluded automatically from the beginning, but we consumers won't feel this for a few years. Then it will stop being a novelty and hip thing to do (in about a week, given current attention economy), and the money streams will start to dry out, while the number of kickstarters will only increase while every existing author will switch to it. Then Kickstarter itself and other portals will start promoting "better" authors, making it a sort of an unofficial ranked contest. Promoting will be based on different metrics, fairly as far as reviewers will think. Mostly it will be based on popularity and track record of previous products of those authors. So the motivation to be seen on top (which equals - seen at all, due to the number or creators), will be releasing popular and catchy products, and as often as possible to generate a track record of good releases. Over a few years this will shift people to create a common as possible popular and simple products, mandatory oriented on kids and ya because that's a gigantic market, so the lowest common denominator products will be the most successful and popular. And so all kickstarter money, slowly drying out because more and more people will be tired of seeing this clown show and paying for inferior products, will be even further concentrated at the top kicktarting creators, while leaving "long tail" with zero money. Also audience will shift, while adults will stop participating in general, their kids will participate and will fund whatever is most flashy and predatory. Thus this perpetual machine will go on in circles eventually producing only garbage.
  - kolinko 4y ago
    Basic guaranteed income model aside, centuries ago artists lived off mecenates - affluent people who chose to support works of specific people. We see a renewed interest of that with Patreon and other services.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    Of course they can. Step 1: institute a basic income for authors and artists. Step 2: abolish copyright laws. (To simplify step 1, you could skip the thorny problem of defining who an "author" or an "artist" is by instituting a universal basic income.)
    - hunter2_ 4y ago
      But then attempts at supplementing that basic income with additional income -- i.e., gainful (self-)employment -- won't include being an author or artist. People wanting to do those things would be incentivised to do other things instead. People interested in living on exclusively the basic income while watching most other people live on that plus optional income would be few, I think.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        step 1 can encompass all people. lots of people with idle time choose to do art and not only for profit, this is very common and many of our valued cultural products have come from those kind of conditions (which no longer exist like they did in places such as england).
      - nerdbert 4y ago
        You don't think anyone would hire a band to play an event, or a muralist to paint a wall?
        hunter2_ 4y ago
        Yes, but I meant people primarily interested in making things that are readily copyable. We can just as easily say being interested in that is an obsolete mindset without also saying basic income goes hand-in-hand.
    - swarnie 4y ago
      > Step 2: abolish copyright laws. I thought we were talking about viable societies? How can you expect any form of R&D investment if the investor can't expect to see an ROI? Sounds great if you want to stagnate but personally i dont.
  - nerdbert 4y ago
    In the current system, the percentage of artists who become wealthier than average from their creations is vanishingly close to zero. Almost all the money is skimmed by the huge range of industries that have arisen to capture the marginal proceeds created by copyright law. Maybe you could argue that all artists are motivated by the folly of dreaming that they will be the next unicorn who actually gets rich, but I don't think most of them are that naïve. They find creating fulfilling. They would still do so with a UBI.
Joeri 4y ago
Reminder: Amazon once secretly remotely wiped 1984 from people’s kindles. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki... You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. I think there should be legislation that sets a minimum standard for the rights people acquire when they “buy” a digital work.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. Which is fine, as long as you know that going in and set your price expectations accordingly. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a backup with the rest of your digital data.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    I don't think that a reasonable person would assume that Amazon can and will (as evidenced by the OP) remove your entire library at their sole discretion.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      So improve the documentation then so it's more clear what you're getting. Instant access to a digital version of a book, for a non-expiring rental, from an organization that could go defunct in the future. It does not have a perfect analogy in the physical world.
      - xigoi 4y ago
        > from an organization that could go defunct in the future. If only there was a way to preserve digital data even if the company you got it from no longer exists…
  - turminal 4y ago
    It's not fine, it's precisely the kind of thing that needs to be regulated because the average consumer is not capable of understanding the non-obvious long term consequences.
jl6 4y ago
I don’t think it’s fine at all, but the reason it’s allowed to happen is that they aren’t “your” books - what you’ve bought (or been tricked into buying) is a license, and that license comes with terms and conditions, including the right to revoke the license, which usually means you must remain in good standing with your new ebook feudal lord. Personally I think ebook vendors should be required to use language that makes it transparent that what you are buying is a kind of contract, which is different to a physical book in several important ways.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Personally, I think we need more protections for consumers. Either that license must be perpetual and unrevocable and grant far more rights than it does, or licenses should be abolished for proof of ownership for a digital copy. Real ownership, not some weird license that isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. Corporations (at least in Europe) aren't allowed to make you sign away your rights. I don't see why it should be any different for ebooks.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  Just imagine what it would be like if everything worked with the same design. You would own nothing and be happy...
  - honkler 4y ago
    Found you, Mr Schwab
T3RMINATED 4y ago
[dead]
latexr 4y ago
> Can’t wait for the apologist to appear and explain why this is just totally fine Could we avoid bait comments? They create unnecessary polarisation which is bad for everyone. We should strive for productive discussion which allows us to learn, not to shun the “other side” and start a flamewar before the conversation even begins.
- barneygale 4y ago
  Highlighting that HN is awash with corporate apologists _is_ a productive discussion. Far more productive than the apologists usually impose.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Is it awash in this case though? Very rarely have I read comments on HN in favor of DRM and restricting users' rights. In fact, HN in this sense is a bubble where people seem to agree with me on this issue, often misleading me into the belief most people are aware about the war on users' rights...
    - sebastialonso 4y ago
      Have the same feeling, which of course might not accurately reflect reality. But boy, this place can really make people force that "pristine me vs unethical you all" spirit. Just think about it, GP preemptively felt the need to shame virtual users having a different opinion.
uni_baconcat 4y ago
As Amazon announced Kindle services will be shutdown in China, they informed that all your books will not be downloadable after close. Books will be readable if you keep it in your original kindle devices. They won’t provide DRM-free books you purchased even before server shutdown.
bambax 4y ago
I still buy Kindle books on Amazon occasionally, but immediately try to remove DRM and turn them into regular epub files in Calibre. It works 95% of the time. When it doesn't work I return them, and get 100% refund. It's an acceptable compromise.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Can Calibre deal with the newer Amazon DRM? I was under the impression that it could not at some point. Admittedly I haven't looked at either in years though so maybe that changed?
  - themadturk 4y ago
    It can if you are using an old-enough version of the Kindle reader app. Using an older version will allow you to download a copy of the file that lacks the latest protection scheme. To try to prevent this, Amazon tries very hard to make sure you download and install the latest version of the Kindle app.
- crayonviking 4y ago
  This is the way.
QuizzicalCarbon 4y ago
This is how digital goods are “sold” (leased is more accurate), it isn’t an Amazon issue or an e-book issue. You’re leasing access to digital goods, not owning them. It’s much larger and broader than that. That’s why it’s always a good idea to download digital goods and keep them on your own device and not in the cloud on a retailer’s server.
Yizahi 4y ago
You can also wipe your own library in the Amazon account permanently and without any refunds. Or the hacker can do it in a few minutes if your simple 1fa password is compromised. I still use Amazon for books, because really there is nothing like their selection + Kindle, but not because I like them.
- Zvez 4y ago
  I don't get this argument. You can burn your house, but it doesn't mean you should live in a hotel. The difference is that while I can do it by mistake, Amazon can do it intentionally.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    I consider this approach by Amazon insecure. I would much prefer that my purchases be purchased and not possible to delete using a single button in the interface. For example like Steam library. This forces me to treat my account as already lost and it is rather frustrating. I can't buy books proactively, I can't buy games or music there etc. By the way, when I first stepped in this landmine and went to complain on Amazon forum, regular people also defended this practice. It was even more mindboggling than Amazon actions itself. Like, why would people voluntarily defend strictly negative to them feature, and for free?..
delecti 4y ago
I'm not going to say it's "totally fine", but surely you can see why it's reasonable for them to detect the situation as suspicious. It's unclear whether OP was using a new or established account, but in either case they suddenly started adding multiple credit cards, each only for a single transaction. It's also unclear how many ebooks OP was trying to buy, but "so I started buying them one by one" certainly implies that OP added at least a half-dozen separate new cards in the span of a a few minutes.
PurpleRamen 4y ago
This is no news, and not limited to kindle. All digital goods can be gone the moment a company decides to wipe your account. Books, videos, music, apps...they all can be lost at any given time for whatever reason. There is no law protecting you anywhere in the world, at the moment, AFAIK. IIRC there are laws made at EU-level at the moment, so European might have some protection in some years. Also, depending on your country, you might be able to sue a company for compensation, but this is not fast and cumbersome. > Can’t wait for the apologist to appear and explain why this is just totally fine Obviously this is beneficial for the economic, because you will replace the lost goods and buy the important ones again. This will drive the numbers to signal bestsellers, and let unimportant ones dwindle into oblivion, or so...
daveslash 4y ago
This reminds me of "The Books Will Stop Working" [0] (2019). "Reminded that the Microsoft ebook store closes next week. The DRM'd books will stop working. I cannot believe that sentence. "The books will stop working." I keep saying it and it sounds worse each time." ~ Rob Donoghue [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331
jlarocco 4y ago
Maybe because it doesn't really happen? I've been buying ebooks on Amazon from the beginning. Never had one disappear. I know it can, but in practice it's not a concern. YMMV, if it doesn't work for you, don't shop there. It's funny that techies, of all people, don't realize online digital content doesn't last forever. We helped build the system, and now we have to live with it.
- CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago
  > It's funny that techies, of all people, don't realize online digital content doesn't last forever. We undoubtedly do realize this, but underestimated the degree to which companies would use this to siphon as much money out of the consumer as they theoretically could. It has made for many aggravating experiences, and ruined a lot of products that used to work perfectly.
- austinjp 4y ago
  I kinda think you're missing a point: the viability of your "books" is not under your control.
  - jlarocco 4y ago
    No, I see it very well. Looking at the bigger picture, very few things in life are under my control, and on the long list of things out of my control, this is a relatively minor, hypothetical problem.
    - austinjp 4y ago
      Then a further point being: it's not hypothetical. "Books" have "stopped working", see other comments. Whether you have or have not personally experienced this doesn't alter the reality. If this is a "minor problem" for you, why comment? If others here clearly feel it's more of a major issue, perhaps you'd benefit from seeking to understand why. Personally, I find it disturbing in several ways. The consolidation of editorial control in the hands of tech-oligarchs; the resultant de facto sterile homogeneity of expression; the ditching of customers en masse without recourse; the erosion of ownership and the expansion of eternal rental of anything and everything; on and on it goes.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

information and art should be free, and authors and artists should be entitled to decent living

swarnie 4y ago
Those two statements can't be reconciled in any viable society.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  sounds like hardened political rhetoric to say simply that it's not viable. even ahistorical if you look at recent eg wengrow and graeber research. where's your intellectual curiosity for possible alternatives to status quo? but sure, enjoy your current "viable society"
- jfengel 4y ago
  It should work with a universal basic income. Everyone has enough to eat and a place to live. Then you price your efforts based on not needing a subsistence. It would make it easier to dismiss the notion of intellectual property, since you no longer need to artificially limit copying so that creators could survive. They'll probably want some kind of job to afford art supplies, but it's an option rather than a mandate. This is oversimplified, of course, but it doesn't seem fundamentally impossible.
  - patentatt 4y ago
    The limited monopoly isn't just for survival though, it's supposed to be an incentive.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      Lots of creators like to create for fun. The type of work is different but it's not necessarily any less productive overall.
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  Historically you had patrons that provided for artists and the like. They weren't necessary paid for particular works.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Which was universally shitty way to live to all creators in world on average. Sure, top1% maybe lived acceptably, but majority just starved without proper business models. (it's not based on numbers, just a guess based on how humans lived centuries ago)
- xtracto 4y ago
  They can and should. Every time this discussion comes up in HN I describe how this could be viable. In the past it was done through something called patronage: a rich guy paid an artist for a painting or art piece. Nowadays with crowdfunding a writer could be paid by wannabe readers before the book is published, and only publish when he has obtained a FAIR compensation for his time working writing said book.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    There are undoubtedly creators who are operating on that model today. (Many Kickstarters for content, board games, etc would qualify I think.) It seems like most are not using that model. Maybe it’s not lucrative enough; maybe they’re not aware of the possibility.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    That would fail spectacularly. Kickstarters only work for known authors, so the newcomers would be excluded automatically from the beginning, but we consumers won't feel this for a few years. Then it will stop being a novelty and hip thing to do (in about a week, given current attention economy), and the money streams will start to dry out, while the number of kickstarters will only increase while every existing author will switch to it. Then Kickstarter itself and other portals will start promoting "better" authors, making it a sort of an unofficial ranked contest. Promoting will be based on different metrics, fairly as far as reviewers will think. Mostly it will be based on popularity and track record of previous products of those authors. So the motivation to be seen on top (which equals - seen at all, due to the number or creators), will be releasing popular and catchy products, and as often as possible to generate a track record of good releases. Over a few years this will shift people to create a common as possible popular and simple products, mandatory oriented on kids and ya because that's a gigantic market, so the lowest common denominator products will be the most successful and popular. And so all kickstarter money, slowly drying out because more and more people will be tired of seeing this clown show and paying for inferior products, will be even further concentrated at the top kicktarting creators, while leaving "long tail" with zero money. Also audience will shift, while adults will stop participating in general, their kids will participate and will fund whatever is most flashy and predatory. Thus this perpetual machine will go on in circles eventually producing only garbage.
- kolinko 4y ago
  Basic guaranteed income model aside, centuries ago artists lived off mecenates - affluent people who chose to support works of specific people. We see a renewed interest of that with Patreon and other services.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Of course they can. Step 1: institute a basic income for authors and artists. Step 2: abolish copyright laws. (To simplify step 1, you could skip the thorny problem of defining who an "author" or an "artist" is by instituting a universal basic income.)
  - hunter2_ 4y ago
    But then attempts at supplementing that basic income with additional income -- i.e., gainful (self-)employment -- won't include being an author or artist. People wanting to do those things would be incentivised to do other things instead. People interested in living on exclusively the basic income while watching most other people live on that plus optional income would be few, I think.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      step 1 can encompass all people. lots of people with idle time choose to do art and not only for profit, this is very common and many of our valued cultural products have come from those kind of conditions (which no longer exist like they did in places such as england).
    - nerdbert 4y ago
      You don't think anyone would hire a band to play an event, or a muralist to paint a wall?
      - hunter2_ 4y ago
        Yes, but I meant people primarily interested in making things that are readily copyable. We can just as easily say being interested in that is an obsolete mindset without also saying basic income goes hand-in-hand.
  - swarnie 4y ago
    > Step 2: abolish copyright laws. I thought we were talking about viable societies? How can you expect any form of R&D investment if the investor can't expect to see an ROI? Sounds great if you want to stagnate but personally i dont.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  In the current system, the percentage of artists who become wealthier than average from their creations is vanishingly close to zero. Almost all the money is skimmed by the huge range of industries that have arisen to capture the marginal proceeds created by copyright law. Maybe you could argue that all artists are motivated by the folly of dreaming that they will be the next unicorn who actually gets rich, but I don't think most of them are that naïve. They find creating fulfilling. They would still do so with a UBI.

Joeri 4y ago

Reminder: Amazon once secretly remotely wiped 1984 from people’s kindles. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki... You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. I think there should be legislation that sets a minimum standard for the rights people acquire when they “buy” a digital work.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> You don’t actually buy digital books, you rent a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration. Which is fine, as long as you know that going in and set your price expectations accordingly. If those terms are unacceptable, walk away. If you do decide it's worth it, keep a backup with the rest of your digital data.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  I don't think that a reasonable person would assume that Amazon can and will (as evidenced by the OP) remove your entire library at their sole discretion.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    So improve the documentation then so it's more clear what you're getting. Instant access to a digital version of a book, for a non-expiring rental, from an organization that could go defunct in the future. It does not have a perfect analogy in the physical world.
    - xigoi 4y ago
      > from an organization that could go defunct in the future. If only there was a way to preserve digital data even if the company you got it from no longer exists…
- turminal 4y ago
  It's not fine, it's precisely the kind of thing that needs to be regulated because the average consumer is not capable of understanding the non-obvious long term consequences.

jl6 4y ago

I don’t think it’s fine at all, but the reason it’s allowed to happen is that they aren’t “your” books - what you’ve bought (or been tricked into buying) is a license, and that license comes with terms and conditions, including the right to revoke the license, which usually means you must remain in good standing with your new ebook feudal lord. Personally I think ebook vendors should be required to use language that makes it transparent that what you are buying is a kind of contract, which is different to a physical book in several important ways.

Sakos 4y ago
Personally, I think we need more protections for consumers. Either that license must be perpetual and unrevocable and grant far more rights than it does, or licenses should be abolished for proof of ownership for a digital copy. Real ownership, not some weird license that isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. Corporations (at least in Europe) aren't allowed to make you sign away your rights. I don't see why it should be any different for ebooks.
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
Just imagine what it would be like if everything worked with the same design. You would own nothing and be happy...
- honkler 4y ago
  Found you, Mr Schwab

T3RMINATED 4y ago

[dead]

latexr 4y ago

> Can’t wait for the apologist to appear and explain why this is just totally fine Could we avoid bait comments? They create unnecessary polarisation which is bad for everyone. We should strive for productive discussion which allows us to learn, not to shun the “other side” and start a flamewar before the conversation even begins.

barneygale 4y ago
Highlighting that HN is awash with corporate apologists _is_ a productive discussion. Far more productive than the apologists usually impose.
- the_af 4y ago
  Is it awash in this case though? Very rarely have I read comments on HN in favor of DRM and restricting users' rights. In fact, HN in this sense is a bubble where people seem to agree with me on this issue, often misleading me into the belief most people are aware about the war on users' rights...
  - sebastialonso 4y ago
    Have the same feeling, which of course might not accurately reflect reality. But boy, this place can really make people force that "pristine me vs unethical you all" spirit. Just think about it, GP preemptively felt the need to shame virtual users having a different opinion.

uni_baconcat 4y ago

As Amazon announced Kindle services will be shutdown in China, they informed that all your books will not be downloadable after close. Books will be readable if you keep it in your original kindle devices. They won’t provide DRM-free books you purchased even before server shutdown.

bambax 4y ago

I still buy Kindle books on Amazon occasionally, but immediately try to remove DRM and turn them into regular epub files in Calibre. It works 95% of the time. When it doesn't work I return them, and get 100% refund. It's an acceptable compromise.

bogomipz 4y ago
Can Calibre deal with the newer Amazon DRM? I was under the impression that it could not at some point. Admittedly I haven't looked at either in years though so maybe that changed?
- themadturk 4y ago
  It can if you are using an old-enough version of the Kindle reader app. Using an older version will allow you to download a copy of the file that lacks the latest protection scheme. To try to prevent this, Amazon tries very hard to make sure you download and install the latest version of the Kindle app.
crayonviking 4y ago
This is the way.

QuizzicalCarbon 4y ago

This is how digital goods are “sold” (leased is more accurate), it isn’t an Amazon issue or an e-book issue. You’re leasing access to digital goods, not owning them. It’s much larger and broader than that. That’s why it’s always a good idea to download digital goods and keep them on your own device and not in the cloud on a retailer’s server.

Yizahi 4y ago

You can also wipe your own library in the Amazon account permanently and without any refunds. Or the hacker can do it in a few minutes if your simple 1fa password is compromised. I still use Amazon for books, because really there is nothing like their selection + Kindle, but not because I like them.

Zvez 4y ago
I don't get this argument. You can burn your house, but it doesn't mean you should live in a hotel. The difference is that while I can do it by mistake, Amazon can do it intentionally.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  I consider this approach by Amazon insecure. I would much prefer that my purchases be purchased and not possible to delete using a single button in the interface. For example like Steam library. This forces me to treat my account as already lost and it is rather frustrating. I can't buy books proactively, I can't buy games or music there etc. By the way, when I first stepped in this landmine and went to complain on Amazon forum, regular people also defended this practice. It was even more mindboggling than Amazon actions itself. Like, why would people voluntarily defend strictly negative to them feature, and for free?..

delecti 4y ago

I'm not going to say it's "totally fine", but surely you can see why it's reasonable for them to detect the situation as suspicious. It's unclear whether OP was using a new or established account, but in either case they suddenly started adding multiple credit cards, each only for a single transaction. It's also unclear how many ebooks OP was trying to buy, but "so I started buying them one by one" certainly implies that OP added at least a half-dozen separate new cards in the span of a a few minutes.

PurpleRamen 4y ago

This is no news, and not limited to kindle. All digital goods can be gone the moment a company decides to wipe your account. Books, videos, music, apps...they all can be lost at any given time for whatever reason. There is no law protecting you anywhere in the world, at the moment, AFAIK. IIRC there are laws made at EU-level at the moment, so European might have some protection in some years. Also, depending on your country, you might be able to sue a company for compensation, but this is not fast and cumbersome. > Can’t wait for the apologist to appear and explain why this is just totally fine Obviously this is beneficial for the economic, because you will replace the lost goods and buy the important ones again. This will drive the numbers to signal bestsellers, and let unimportant ones dwindle into oblivion, or so...

daveslash 4y ago

This reminds me of "The Books Will Stop Working" [0] (2019). "Reminded that the Microsoft ebook store closes next week. The DRM'd books will stop working. I cannot believe that sentence. "The books will stop working." I keep saying it and it sounds worse each time." ~ Rob Donoghue [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331

jlarocco 4y ago

Maybe because it doesn't really happen? I've been buying ebooks on Amazon from the beginning. Never had one disappear. I know it can, but in practice it's not a concern. YMMV, if it doesn't work for you, don't shop there. It's funny that techies, of all people, don't realize online digital content doesn't last forever. We helped build the system, and now we have to live with it.

CapmCrackaWaka 4y ago
> It's funny that techies, of all people, don't realize online digital content doesn't last forever. We undoubtedly do realize this, but underestimated the degree to which companies would use this to siphon as much money out of the consumer as they theoretically could. It has made for many aggravating experiences, and ruined a lot of products that used to work perfectly.
austinjp 4y ago
I kinda think you're missing a point: the viability of your "books" is not under your control.
- jlarocco 4y ago
  No, I see it very well. Looking at the bigger picture, very few things in life are under my control, and on the long list of things out of my control, this is a relatively minor, hypothetical problem.
  - austinjp 4y ago
    Then a further point being: it's not hypothetical. "Books" have "stopped working", see other comments. Whether you have or have not personally experienced this doesn't alter the reality. If this is a "minor problem" for you, why comment? If others here clearly feel it's more of a major issue, perhaps you'd benefit from seeking to understand why. Personally, I find it disturbing in several ways. The consolidation of editorial control in the hands of tech-oligarchs; the resultant de facto sterile homogeneity of expression; the ditching of customers en masse without recourse; the erosion of ownership and the expansion of eternal rental of anything and everything; on and on it goes.