9 ms·

When Amazon(?) deleted 1984 from everyone's electronic book reader years ago, it is another indication of the control publishers want over what we read. They s

by jmclnx 4y ago

When Amazon(?) deleted 1984 from everyone's electronic book reader years ago, it is another indication of the control publishers want over what we read. They said it was a "mistake" and only when people when after them did the do something to correct that "mistake". So yes, publishers want Libraries gone. If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the next step. Plus its seem, just by accident, they are getting help from extremist in many US States. Those extremist are also conducting their own war on Libraries, but for different reasons. If they "win", the results will be close to what publishers want. From what I have seen, none of the big publishers have come out against the extremists (are there any small publishers left?).

wazoox 4y ago
"You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy about it". Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF, in the book "The Great Reset".
- barbazoo 4y ago
  Is this actually from the book and if so, what was the context in which it was said?
  - wazoox 4y ago
    No he said it while talking about the book, but I don't think it's in the book.
- chaghalibaghali 4y ago
  Actual context is described in this Reuters article "Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030": https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...
briandear 4y ago
[flagged]
- eynsham 4y ago
  > insist kids should read it It is fairly trivial to leave books in the library without forcing children to read them or recommending that they should. I hope that all school libraries have copies of Rudin, Marx and Kripke too—and that’s it; there’s no need to force all the contents of the library on every pupil.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > I hope that all school libraries have copies of Rudin, Marx and Kripke too—and that’s it. Honestly, I kind of doubt that would ever happen. Marx's most famous books might be kept only because of their extreme fame, but you'll rarely if ever see mathematicians or analytic philosophers like you listed. They'll rarely if ever be checked out, and will be weeded. A school library isn't an university library.
    - hooverd 4y ago
      Capital is a doorstopper and I can't imagine kids reading it.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        I agree, but my old high school library apparently has a copy available (according to their online catalog). I'd bet it's rarely been checked out, and never actually read (beyond a couple of pages). They also have the The Communist Manifesto, which seems more like the kind of thing a precocious or edgy teen might actually read (at least in the pre-smartphone era).
- aaomidi 4y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gender-d3a9c91f4b5383a5bf6df6f7d8ff65b6 https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gen... Inform yourself.
Mezzie 4y ago
> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the next step. They already enforce this on libraries. Unlike physical books which can be kept until they physically wear out or are destroyed (and even then they can be rebound and most libraries have some kind of book binding tools or access), the ebooks that libraries 'buy' are often artificially limited in terms of number of times they can be used. So libraries 'buy' an ebook that can be lent X amount of times with 1-2 'concurrent' lends. It's all so stupid.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Rent seeking is the end game of capitalism, especially with minimal regulations
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    It makes sense as an incentive. It just results in very silly situations where the library buys the terrible copies and just happen to also have information on how the DRM works and which programs can bypass it and since libraries exist to provide information, if someone asks for it, of course you tell them. Same way as there tend to be copiers that are out of sight (and camera) range. At least a couple of libraries I worked for had information by the copiers on exactly how much of a book you could copy before it was considered copyright infringement, thus informing people that they could copy the books. It's very kayfabe-esque. You're right that it's a fundamental values mismatch. Personally, I'm an extremist who would crash every F500 company to prevent another Library of Alexandria. Knowledge > money.
    - ketralnis 4y ago
      > how much of a book you could copy before it was considered copyright infringement So they help people follow the law?
      - 4y ago
vanilla_nut 4y ago
It's especially sad because community libraries are one of the few public spaces left in America. Sure, you can hang out at a coffee shop or a bar, but those spaces require you to buy a product just to exist in them. Just another example of capitalism destroying resources that make us a civilization (instead of just a bundle of subscriptions).
boomboomsubban 4y ago
Wasn't the deletion of 1984 because some third party had sold bootleg copies of the ebook? Deleting it from the customers devices is the wrong way to handle it, but I can genuinely see how the mistake would happen as they remove the bootleg copy from the server and then the e-readers would update and see the book doesn't exist so delet it from the device. A dumb event, but I'm not really seeing it as evidence of the publishers desire for licensed only books, something I agree is happening.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  As you said, it was the worst response from them. But I remember it was due to something odd, but forgot what. But the point is, they sold you the book. So if they were scammed they should eat the cost, not delete it from your device. At the time I was getting interested in these readers, that activity turned me off every getting/using an electronic reader.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I think we are missing the forest the trees. The issue is not that they took action. The issue is that this action was even possible and an option to begin with. If there was ever an argument for an analog library, this is it.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    Amazon have said that in the future if this happens again they will not remove the books from customer devices. https://mashable.com/archive/amazon-remote-delete https://mashable.com/archive/amazon-remote-delete > The statement, from Amazon's Drew Herdener, reads: > These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books...When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers....We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances. My Kindle is jail broken because I prefere using KOReader over Amazons own reader software. But even before it was jail broken if I ever brought books from Amazon I would use the "Download book to your computer" function and then run it though the DeDRM plugin for Calibre. https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools That way even if Amazon decide to no longer host the book (so you can't redownload them) or go back on their word about not remotely removing content I still have a DRM Free copy of the content I can put on the book. However it is a shame we as consumers have to go though these steps, our other option is to buy content from store that do not apply DRM to the books, but that as decision that is basically forced by the publishers.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. Of course they do. From the image in the article: "This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only." Key word being licensed. You don't OWN it. The wealthy don't want you to own anything. They want a nation of renters so that they can continue to see revenue off of everything in perpetuity.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Hm. I paid 'rent' to my local library for books - a fee for the membership card. I know, Amazon likely will charge more. But it's not unprecedented.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  How much does it cost you, and where are you located? It's free at our local libraries in Michigan. We have a property tax millage that provides most of the library budget. Is it anywhere close to the cost of providing the services your library provides, or a nominal fee to print the card?
- barbazoo 4y ago
  That sucks, public library memberships should be free.
eldritch_4ier 4y ago
[flagged]
- banannaise 4y ago
  These allegations are a combination of extreme hyperbole, wild misrepresentations, and outright lies, with the general goal of portraying queer people and minorities as evil people who want your children. Astute readers may recognize it as a variation on the Blood Libel, an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
  - debacle 4y ago
    You are very off base. Please educate yourself. Also, the concern has nothing to do with LGBT people - most LGBT parents I know also do not want these things in schools (or aren't aware, which are the majority).
JohnFen 4y ago
> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. Everyone wants to move to a "rent" model. It's the easiest way to fleece the largest number of people.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Yes, Amazon, in 2009: <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989...> <https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...>
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
> That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. Why not just interleave ads inside the book and monetize via standard CPM/CPC/affiliate business models? Imagine if you could tap a single button to sign up for horse-riding lessons after you've just read about the ride of the Rohirrim. Or maybe you could tap a button to get a tasty sandwich delivered to you — in the exact moment that you're reading about Frodo and the gang surviving off lembas bread. Especially with the advent of LLMs, it seems like in-stream advertising for classic literature (especially books that are already out of copyright) is a massive opportunity just waiting for someone to pick it up. I'm genuinely surprised it's not already being done.
- meristohm 4y ago
  That sounds awful. Were you speaking sarcastically? I will gladly support more of our tax money going to libraries so that anyone who cares to can read books uncluttered with advertisements.

by jmclnx 4y ago

wazoox 4y ago

"You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy about it". Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF, in the book "The Great Reset".

barbazoo 4y ago
Is this actually from the book and if so, what was the context in which it was said?
- wazoox 4y ago
  No he said it while talking about the book, but I don't think it's in the book.
chaghalibaghali 4y ago
Actual context is described in this Reuters article "Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030": https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...

briandear 4y ago

[flagged]

eynsham 4y ago
> insist kids should read it It is fairly trivial to leave books in the library without forcing children to read them or recommending that they should. I hope that all school libraries have copies of Rudin, Marx and Kripke too—and that’s it; there’s no need to force all the contents of the library on every pupil.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I hope that all school libraries have copies of Rudin, Marx and Kripke too—and that’s it. Honestly, I kind of doubt that would ever happen. Marx's most famous books might be kept only because of their extreme fame, but you'll rarely if ever see mathematicians or analytic philosophers like you listed. They'll rarely if ever be checked out, and will be weeded. A school library isn't an university library.
  - hooverd 4y ago
    Capital is a doorstopper and I can't imagine kids reading it.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      I agree, but my old high school library apparently has a copy available (according to their online catalog). I'd bet it's rarely been checked out, and never actually read (beyond a couple of pages). They also have the The Communist Manifesto, which seems more like the kind of thing a precocious or edgy teen might actually read (at least in the pre-smartphone era).
aaomidi 4y ago
https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gender-d3a9c91f4b5383a5bf6df6f7d8ff65b6 https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gen... Inform yourself.

Mezzie 4y ago

> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the next step. They already enforce this on libraries. Unlike physical books which can be kept until they physically wear out or are destroyed (and even then they can be rebound and most libraries have some kind of book binding tools or access), the ebooks that libraries 'buy' are often artificially limited in terms of number of times they can be used. So libraries 'buy' an ebook that can be lent X amount of times with 1-2 'concurrent' lends. It's all so stupid.

kevviiinn 4y ago
Rent seeking is the end game of capitalism, especially with minimal regulations
- Mezzie 4y ago
  It makes sense as an incentive. It just results in very silly situations where the library buys the terrible copies and just happen to also have information on how the DRM works and which programs can bypass it and since libraries exist to provide information, if someone asks for it, of course you tell them. Same way as there tend to be copiers that are out of sight (and camera) range. At least a couple of libraries I worked for had information by the copiers on exactly how much of a book you could copy before it was considered copyright infringement, thus informing people that they could copy the books. It's very kayfabe-esque. You're right that it's a fundamental values mismatch. Personally, I'm an extremist who would crash every F500 company to prevent another Library of Alexandria. Knowledge > money.
  - ketralnis 4y ago
    > how much of a book you could copy before it was considered copyright infringement So they help people follow the law?
    - 4y ago

vanilla_nut 4y ago

It's especially sad because community libraries are one of the few public spaces left in America. Sure, you can hang out at a coffee shop or a bar, but those spaces require you to buy a product just to exist in them. Just another example of capitalism destroying resources that make us a civilization (instead of just a bundle of subscriptions).

boomboomsubban 4y ago

Wasn't the deletion of 1984 because some third party had sold bootleg copies of the ebook? Deleting it from the customers devices is the wrong way to handle it, but I can genuinely see how the mistake would happen as they remove the bootleg copy from the server and then the e-readers would update and see the book doesn't exist so delet it from the device. A dumb event, but I'm not really seeing it as evidence of the publishers desire for licensed only books, something I agree is happening.

jmclnx 4y ago
As you said, it was the worst response from them. But I remember it was due to something odd, but forgot what. But the point is, they sold you the book. So if they were scammed they should eat the cost, not delete it from your device. At the time I was getting interested in these readers, that activity turned me off every getting/using an electronic reader.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I think we are missing the forest the trees. The issue is not that they took action. The issue is that this action was even possible and an option to begin with. If there was ever an argument for an analog library, this is it.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  Amazon have said that in the future if this happens again they will not remove the books from customer devices. https://mashable.com/archive/amazon-remote-delete https://mashable.com/archive/amazon-remote-delete > The statement, from Amazon's Drew Herdener, reads: > These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books...When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers....We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances. My Kindle is jail broken because I prefere using KOReader over Amazons own reader software. But even before it was jail broken if I ever brought books from Amazon I would use the "Download book to your computer" function and then run it though the DeDRM plugin for Calibre. https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools That way even if Amazon decide to no longer host the book (so you can't redownload them) or go back on their word about not remotely removing content I still have a DRM Free copy of the content I can put on the book. However it is a shame we as consumers have to go though these steps, our other option is to buy content from store that do not apply DRM to the books, but that as decision that is basically forced by the publishers.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. Of course they do. From the image in the article: "This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only." Key word being licensed. You don't OWN it. The wealthy don't want you to own anything. They want a nation of renters so that they can continue to see revenue off of everything in perpetuity.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Hm. I paid 'rent' to my local library for books - a fee for the membership card. I know, Amazon likely will charge more. But it's not unprecedented.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
How much does it cost you, and where are you located? It's free at our local libraries in Michigan. We have a property tax millage that provides most of the library budget. Is it anywhere close to the cost of providing the services your library provides, or a nominal fee to print the card?
barbazoo 4y ago
That sucks, public library memberships should be free.

eldritch_4ier 4y ago

[flagged]

banannaise 4y ago
These allegations are a combination of extreme hyperbole, wild misrepresentations, and outright lies, with the general goal of portraying queer people and minorities as evil people who want your children. Astute readers may recognize it as a variation on the Blood Libel, an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
- debacle 4y ago
  You are very off base. Please educate yourself. Also, the concern has nothing to do with LGBT people - most LGBT parents I know also do not want these things in schools (or aren't aware, which are the majority).

JohnFen 4y ago

> If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. Everyone wants to move to a "rent" model. It's the easiest way to fleece the largest number of people.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Yes, Amazon, in 2009: <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989...> <https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...>

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

> That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. Why not just interleave ads inside the book and monetize via standard CPM/CPC/affiliate business models? Imagine if you could tap a single button to sign up for horse-riding lessons after you've just read about the ride of the Rohirrim. Or maybe you could tap a button to get a tasty sandwich delivered to you — in the exact moment that you're reading about Frodo and the gang surviving off lembas bread. Especially with the advent of LLMs, it seems like in-stream advertising for classic literature (especially books that are already out of copyright) is a massive opportunity just waiting for someone to pick it up. I'm genuinely surprised it's not already being done.

meristohm 4y ago
That sounds awful. Were you speaking sarcastically? I will gladly support more of our tax money going to libraries so that anyone who cares to can read books uncluttered with advertisements.