5 ms·

> Amazon publishes ebooks designed to attack your freedom (PDF[1] or html[2]). This is real. There is something wrong with the way Amazon deals with ebooks, an

> Amazon publishes ebooks designed to attack your freedom (PDF[1] or html[2]). This is real. There is something wrong with the way Amazon deals with ebooks, and it is sad to see people backing it up. --- [1]: http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf [2]: http://gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html http://gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html

the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
Can you elaborate what's the problem with DRM?
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. For example, depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media, because you no longer have the permission to use them, even though you already paid for it.
  - dpark 14y ago
    > depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media What? If ever a citation was needed, it's now.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      I don't know what kind of a 'citation' you're looking for. It's possible to write language like that into a license for use; whether or not that's enforceable is a function of several variables, such as how the license is written, which jurisdiction we're talking about, and which legal authority happens to comment on it. Say I provide some lawyer or judge who confirms this, and you find another who disagrees. There's no conflict there; my whole point is that this is a matter of legal opinion, and therefore a possibility. Contrast to sale of a physical good, where the first-sale doctrine means that such restrictions on subsequent sale and use can't exist. (The implication is that the same would apply to DRM-free media, because a lack of DRM means that they can't enforce any such restrictions, either through practical means or through legal channels).
      - true_religion 14y ago
        This is a pretty easy one. EULAs are generally public information linked to on the internet. Just link to the EULA that contains language that may indicate you need to delete your ebooks on declaring bankrupcy. If its 50 pages long, it might be helpful to provide a quote or two. Or link to someone elese who has done that analysis like say groklaw.
      - dpark 14y ago
        So what I'm hearing is that you basically made this up. >It's possible to write language like that into a license for use It's possible to write anything into the license. An MP3 license agreement could say that you have to eat a pound of chalk every time you play the song. That doesn't make it legally enforceable. Your hypothetical "bankruptcy clause" seems like it fits in this same category. Why would a judge ever agree that this is enforceable when it's so pointless and arbitrary?
  - jspthrowaway 14y ago
    > When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. What license do you use for software that you write?
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      Please explain why that's at all remotely relevant to the issue of Amazon's DRM vs. DRM-free ebooks, and not just an excuse to start yet another HN GPL vs. BSD flamewar.
      - jspthrowaway 14y ago
        That's a poor and incorrect assumption of what I'm arguing. Do you always counter someone's question with an assumption of what they're going to say? I hate people that do that with a fiery passion, particularly when bucketed into a group that I'm not even representing. My point is, you say "when [you] buy something, [you] want to know it's yours", the corollary being that you dislike software licenses entirely. Any software with a license is DRM-protected, including GPL and BSD software or software with a EULA. The operating system that you are currently using is licensed to you. There's probably nothing on your computer that you own aside from things you have created yourself. You have purchased or downloaded the software, yes, but the author has licensed it to you under specific terms. It is not yours. That is DRM. Anybody who hates DRM and continues to enforce a software license on their work, GPL or not, is experiencing cognitive dissonance (Richard Stallman included). GPL is actually one of the worst of the bunch because it mandates how you can redistribute things you build with "what is yours". Is this an ideal world? No. Is it the world we live in right now? Yes. I will not assume what your response will be, to your respect.
        chimeracoder 14y ago
        I'm sorry you hate me with a fiery passion. I can assure you the feeling is not mutual. I don't see the contradiction. Stallman would agree that the GPL isn't ideal; he'd say it's a hack designed to twist our broken legal system into respecting our fundamental freedoms. The GPL is almost an anti-license, since it exists solely to do the exact opposite of what copyright laws and licenses are intended to do (restrict freedoms). Put another way: yes, it's using the system, but any attempt to change the system from within is, by definition, 'using the system'. If our laws deemed proprietary software licenses to be non-enforceable, I doubt anybody (Stallman included) would see the need for the GPL.
hiddenstage 14y ago
How does Amazon deal with eBooks any differently than any other eBook seller?
InclinedPlane 14y ago
And "wrong" means "so evil they should be boycotted utterly"? There are many things I don't like about how Amazon deals with ebooks, but there are many things that are good about it as well, and I prefer to not let perfect be the enemy of good.
sseveran 14y ago
Well then someone should make the open Kindle. I love my kindle and haven't bought a dead tree book since I got it.
- jrockway 14y ago
  The problem is not the hardware: the hardware will read Free books just fine. The problem is that Amazon wants to sell you books that will only work on their platform, since those books subsidize their hardware. (Oddly, not much stops you from buying books from other stores, except that those stores all use different DRM. It's like heard immunity or something.) Publishers are also hesitant to offer their books in DRM-free format because book piracy would otherwise be rampant. (The fact that there's a torrent for every Kindle book ever just goes to show you how effective DRM is. Once again, it's another DRM scheme that only hurts legitimate users and publishers, but the lawyers tell everyone otherwise and so everyone is happy. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.) There are some publishers that just offer ebooks as PDFs that you download from their website. My book is like that (though it has a PDF password that your reader can just ignore), and some other books I've bought are like that. "Programming in Scala" is just a pure PDF download after you give them your money. It's a nice system and the rest of the industry will catch on soon. For now, publishers seem to enjoy working with middlemen that take a 30% cut of the author's revenue, but people are getting tired of the middlemen and with that, DRM will slowly fade away and open ebook platforms will be the norm. Just give it ten years.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    I by DRM-free books from O'Reilly. I wonder if they're profitable, or if O'Reilly does it for the good of mankind, or to make some other point. Or maybe they're just profitable. Whatever, I have no reluctance at all to buy an O'Reilly ebook. DRM books make me nervous. What happens to them when I die? The "Rights" in DRM refer to the sellers or publishers rights, not mine.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      I'm sure they're profitable. People were pirating O'Reilly books long before "ebook" was even a word. Didn't stop the authors from being reasonably compensated.

the_mitsuhiko 14y ago

Can you elaborate what's the problem with DRM?

chimeracoder 14y ago
When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. For example, depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media, because you no longer have the permission to use them, even though you already paid for it.
- dpark 14y ago
  > depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media What? If ever a citation was needed, it's now.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    I don't know what kind of a 'citation' you're looking for. It's possible to write language like that into a license for use; whether or not that's enforceable is a function of several variables, such as how the license is written, which jurisdiction we're talking about, and which legal authority happens to comment on it. Say I provide some lawyer or judge who confirms this, and you find another who disagrees. There's no conflict there; my whole point is that this is a matter of legal opinion, and therefore a possibility. Contrast to sale of a physical good, where the first-sale doctrine means that such restrictions on subsequent sale and use can't exist. (The implication is that the same would apply to DRM-free media, because a lack of DRM means that they can't enforce any such restrictions, either through practical means or through legal channels).
    - true_religion 14y ago
      This is a pretty easy one. EULAs are generally public information linked to on the internet. Just link to the EULA that contains language that may indicate you need to delete your ebooks on declaring bankrupcy. If its 50 pages long, it might be helpful to provide a quote or two. Or link to someone elese who has done that analysis like say groklaw.
    - dpark 14y ago
      So what I'm hearing is that you basically made this up. >It's possible to write language like that into a license for use It's possible to write anything into the license. An MP3 license agreement could say that you have to eat a pound of chalk every time you play the song. That doesn't make it legally enforceable. Your hypothetical "bankruptcy clause" seems like it fits in this same category. Why would a judge ever agree that this is enforceable when it's so pointless and arbitrary?
- jspthrowaway 14y ago
  > When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. What license do you use for software that you write?
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    Please explain why that's at all remotely relevant to the issue of Amazon's DRM vs. DRM-free ebooks, and not just an excuse to start yet another HN GPL vs. BSD flamewar.
    - jspthrowaway 14y ago
      That's a poor and incorrect assumption of what I'm arguing. Do you always counter someone's question with an assumption of what they're going to say? I hate people that do that with a fiery passion, particularly when bucketed into a group that I'm not even representing. My point is, you say "when [you] buy something, [you] want to know it's yours", the corollary being that you dislike software licenses entirely. Any software with a license is DRM-protected, including GPL and BSD software or software with a EULA. The operating system that you are currently using is licensed to you. There's probably nothing on your computer that you own aside from things you have created yourself. You have purchased or downloaded the software, yes, but the author has licensed it to you under specific terms. It is not yours. That is DRM. Anybody who hates DRM and continues to enforce a software license on their work, GPL or not, is experiencing cognitive dissonance (Richard Stallman included). GPL is actually one of the worst of the bunch because it mandates how you can redistribute things you build with "what is yours". Is this an ideal world? No. Is it the world we live in right now? Yes. I will not assume what your response will be, to your respect.
      - chimeracoder 14y ago
        I'm sorry you hate me with a fiery passion. I can assure you the feeling is not mutual. I don't see the contradiction. Stallman would agree that the GPL isn't ideal; he'd say it's a hack designed to twist our broken legal system into respecting our fundamental freedoms. The GPL is almost an anti-license, since it exists solely to do the exact opposite of what copyright laws and licenses are intended to do (restrict freedoms). Put another way: yes, it's using the system, but any attempt to change the system from within is, by definition, 'using the system'. If our laws deemed proprietary software licenses to be non-enforceable, I doubt anybody (Stallman included) would see the need for the GPL.

hiddenstage 14y ago

How does Amazon deal with eBooks any differently than any other eBook seller?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

And "wrong" means "so evil they should be boycotted utterly"? There are many things I don't like about how Amazon deals with ebooks, but there are many things that are good about it as well, and I prefer to not let perfect be the enemy of good.

sseveran 14y ago

Well then someone should make the open Kindle. I love my kindle and haven't bought a dead tree book since I got it.

jrockway 14y ago
The problem is not the hardware: the hardware will read Free books just fine. The problem is that Amazon wants to sell you books that will only work on their platform, since those books subsidize their hardware. (Oddly, not much stops you from buying books from other stores, except that those stores all use different DRM. It's like heard immunity or something.) Publishers are also hesitant to offer their books in DRM-free format because book piracy would otherwise be rampant. (The fact that there's a torrent for every Kindle book ever just goes to show you how effective DRM is. Once again, it's another DRM scheme that only hurts legitimate users and publishers, but the lawyers tell everyone otherwise and so everyone is happy. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.) There are some publishers that just offer ebooks as PDFs that you download from their website. My book is like that (though it has a PDF password that your reader can just ignore), and some other books I've bought are like that. "Programming in Scala" is just a pure PDF download after you give them your money. It's a nice system and the rest of the industry will catch on soon. For now, publishers seem to enjoy working with middlemen that take a 30% cut of the author's revenue, but people are getting tired of the middlemen and with that, DRM will slowly fade away and open ebook platforms will be the norm. Just give it ten years.
- antidoh 14y ago
  I by DRM-free books from O'Reilly. I wonder if they're profitable, or if O'Reilly does it for the good of mankind, or to make some other point. Or maybe they're just profitable. Whatever, I have no reluctance at all to buy an O'Reilly ebook. DRM books make me nervous. What happens to them when I die? The "Rights" in DRM refer to the sellers or publishers rights, not mine.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    I'm sure they're profitable. People were pirating O'Reilly books long before "ebook" was even a word. Didn't stop the authors from being reasonably compensated.