3 ms·

What I do not get is how amazon can be so right on the DRM issue with regards to digital music and be so backwards on the DRM of books.

blhack 17y ago
It isn't amazon, it is the publishers. Somebody commented on my blog about this the other day, and nailed it pretty well: http://www.gibsonandlily.com/comments/4043/ http://www.gibsonandlily.com/comments/4043/
- weaksauce 17y ago
  Great link! I am just surprised that amazon cannot explain this to the publishers. It would seem that they have a good deal of clout with the publishers being such an online presence. If they went the iPod route and once it gets on the device it is hard for the average person to get the data back off. That should satiate the publishers that they are not going to get easily ripped off. Of course the hackers here know to download a piece of software to transfer the songs off an iPod but 80%(not a real statistic) does not know how to do this.
  - irinotecan 17y ago
    Someone else above said the Kindle edition of 1984 was 99 cents. I'm sure the publisher is well aware of the benefits of having a kindle edition, but got greedy and demanded it be sold at a significantly higher price (or they get a much larger percentage of the gross). When Amazon balked, they took their marbles and went home.
- andreyf 17y ago
  It's not the publishers, it's copyright law. Copyright law gives the publishers certain rights. Publishers are economic entities which maximize profits. Blaming publishers for exercising legal rights which maximize profit is like blaming rocks for falling on people.
  - scscsc 17y ago
    Rocks did not lobby for the law of gravity.
  - kragen 17y ago
    When there are rocks in a position to fall on people, it is reasonable to warn others that they are hazardous in a way that, say, sheep or cotton balls in the same location would not be; and then to remove them.

3 ms·

What I do not get is how amazon can be so right on the DRM issue with regards to digital music and be so backwards on the DRM of books.

by weaksauce 17y ago

blhack 17y ago
It isn't amazon, it is the publishers. Somebody commented on my blog about this the other day, and nailed it pretty well: http://www.gibsonandlily.com/comments/4043/ http://www.gibsonandlily.com/comments/4043/
- weaksauce 17y ago
  Great link! I am just surprised that amazon cannot explain this to the publishers. It would seem that they have a good deal of clout with the publishers being such an online presence. If they went the iPod route and once it gets on the device it is hard for the average person to get the data back off. That should satiate the publishers that they are not going to get easily ripped off. Of course the hackers here know to download a piece of software to transfer the songs off an iPod but 80%(not a real statistic) does not know how to do this.
  - irinotecan 17y ago
    Someone else above said the Kindle edition of 1984 was 99 cents. I'm sure the publisher is well aware of the benefits of having a kindle edition, but got greedy and demanded it be sold at a significantly higher price (or they get a much larger percentage of the gross). When Amazon balked, they took their marbles and went home.
- andreyf 17y ago
  It's not the publishers, it's copyright law. Copyright law gives the publishers certain rights. Publishers are economic entities which maximize profits. Blaming publishers for exercising legal rights which maximize profit is like blaming rocks for falling on people.
  - scscsc 17y ago
    Rocks did not lobby for the law of gravity.
  - kragen 17y ago
    When there are rocks in a position to fall on people, it is reasonable to warn others that they are hazardous in a way that, say, sheep or cotton balls in the same location would not be; and then to remove them.