5 ms·

Amazon is not the enemy

49 points by randomwalker 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago
PS - Sony's reader supports publishers' DRM-content rights [1] just as well as Kindle, apart from the parts that can't be technically enforced by the lack of always-tethered-ness. The rule in the e-readers market is clear: do anything it takes to get content for your device. 1. Yes, they are rights protected by copyright law.
- billswift 17y ago
  No they are NOT rights. They are monopoly privileges granted by the gov't.
Elessar 17y ago
What an irrelevant article. There are two major points: 1) Amazon did something stupid. Changing the adjective is clever, but it's still an outrageous act. They went on YOUR machine and they DELETED something YOU PURCHASED. You BOUGHT IT. There is nothing more to say here. 2) Apple had the same problem with DRM and bent over backwards to accommodate labels. Now we're all happy. Apple never DELETED files straight from people's computers. They never took the step of taking away what you bought. There is absolutely no comparison here. The blogger also pleads for people to target the publisher. As if I can only be outraged at one company! I'll target both, thank you very much.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  That's because Apple never sold an mp3 it didn't have the right to sell. Amazon did, it realized it did, and it refunded people with an apology. Think of it like a doctor selling you a medicine, then calling you up and saying, "Oops, I wasn't authorized to give you those pills. I need them back, and I'll refund you entirely." There's a difference between removing an e-book and refunding it.
  - tjmc 17y ago
    I agree with your analogy, and it indicates the right thing to do here. Give the refund and ask people to delete the ebook themselves. The doctor wouldn't break into your house and take the pills out of the medicine cabinet.
    - zimbabwe 17y ago
      But "breaking in" indicates some disorder. I wouldn't trust a doctor to go into my house without asking me first. I would trust Amazon only to remove the thing they're legally obligated to remove. Perhaps I don't have the same feelings regarding owning a copy of somebody else's work. I don't feel ownership towards ebooks. I feel ownership towards the money I spend, but if I get that back I wouldn't be mad at what Amazon did. That's a minority opinion, and I think it would be worth debating somewhere that's not here.
      - aaronla 17y ago
        And this software recovery system Amazon has in place is foolproof? It can't be hacked, it cannot be misused or accidentally cause harm? Then I applaud their software expertise -- the rest of us have a hard time making such perfect software. This of course implies that the doctor would be within his rights if he caused no disorder. "I wouldn't trust a doctor to...". You didn't trust Amazon to either -- they just went in and did it, at someone's request. Hmm.. why does this prescription bottle have an antenna on it...
        zimbabwe 17y ago
        But see, I do trust Amazon, and I trust that if they got hacked they would fix their systems. I trust Amazon to handle my data more than I'd trust a doctor to handle my house.
  - tome 17y ago
    It's preposterous to compare copyright protection to the authorization of a doctor to prescribe you drugs.
grandalf 17y ago
I agree. I can't believe people are angry about it. If you don't like DRM, buy paper books or only download those that are already in the public domain. Sure DRM is a hassle, but so are a lot of things. For the most part, though, the problems with DRM are due to stupid business decisions and not even bad technology implementation -- consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails you have to re-purchase everything (with a single exception). DRM just means that more content is available -- if DRM truly does impose costs/hindrance, then eventually it will go away. In the meantime, you are free to choose it if you want (or not to). There are many books that are in the public domain that one might read as an alternative to 1984.
- tumult 17y ago
  consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails you have to re-purchase everything Or you could, like, make backups. Which iTunes even pleads you to do.
  - randomwalker 17y ago
    I'm guessing his point was that it is perfectly technologically feasible for iTunes to let you re-download songs if you lose them. The Kindle does that. I have to agree that except for the occasional SNAFU (which affects a small handful of users), the Kindle DRM doesn't inconvenience the user much, or at all.
    - sjs382 17y ago
      it is perfectly technologically feasible for iTunes to let you re-download songs if you lose them They have let me do this once before.
      - grandalf 17y ago
        you get one per lifetime :) I used mine.
        17y ago
TweedHeads 17y ago
If something erases data from my computer without my consent, yes, it is my enemy!
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  His point is that Amazon's not the company we should be pissed off at right now. If they want to provide us with their Kindle store, which 99% of the time is excellent and wonderful (I just got the Kindle iPhone app and I love that it syncs with my Kindle and with the web reader), they have to deal with publishers that are antique and ignorant and full of themselves. Think the RIAA is tyrannical? The publishing industry is ten times worse. It sucks that Amazon had to do this, but given a choice between a terrific store that's subject to the whims of publishers and no store at all, I'll take the terrific store, and hope that my Shakespeare and Austen remain intact. Amazon is one of the few companies that I trust almost wholeheartedly. I don't think they're fuck-something-up-proof, but I believe firmly that the company as a whole cares about its users and about giving them the best experience possible, even when it's at cost to them. I've never had a bad experience with Amazon, whether it was as a customer or as a seller. I understand the kneejerk impulse here, which is to call Amazon an Evil Big Corporation, but I find it sad that a decade of building trust can be so quickly thrown out the door.
  - randomwalker 17y ago
    That summed up my position better than I did. Thank you :-)
  - TweedHeads 17y ago
    I don't care if the kindle store is excellent. I don't care if amazon is good 99% of the time. I don't care if BigPrint is the devil and amazon was coerced. Nobody should EVER under any circumstance delete ANYTHING from my computer, even if I bought it or not, if it is pirated or not, if it is stolen or not. If it was your mistake to allow that to happen you should ask politely and we should be able to decide what to do. I hope Apple takes notices, I know they have a remote shut-down switch in every iphone. They better never use it.
luchak 17y ago
I don't buy the part about how the Kindle needs our support. Sure, I can buy the hardware, that's nice. But it's useless to me without content (no, a shitty web browser doesn't count, and I'm not swimming in book PDFs). So I need to buy books, unless I want an expensive plastic brick, but these books have DRM on them that's more restrictive than I'm willing to accept. How would buying those books send the right message? The way it sounds to me is "hey, take my books away any time you like, that's cool." I mean, if you're happy with the Kindle DRM, sure, buy one. But if I'm not, how is it (even marginally) in my interest for me to buy one?
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
If it has DRM I will pirate it so I can get the DRM free version. If it has no copy protection I will buy it in the store. I support companies that recognize property rights.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  That's a little naive. You never copied a book a thousand times because you don't own a printing press. There's no market capital overhead to prevent you making a million copies of an e-book. You obviously don't support property rights if you're willing to pirate products. You can recognize property rights by not buying their product and complain, that's your legal recourse for a market decision you don't like. When you buy a creative product you are completely restricted in how you use it, regardless of if you bought a book, an e-book, a song or a CD. You can't use it for public events, you can't sell it on without the authors/publishers permission (in books the permission is implied hence legal, with e-books the permission is not implied hence illegal), you definitely cannot make copies. These are their property rights, they made it so they own every right and those rights extend implicitly from every post-it you write on to every photograph you take. Until you, or an author says, 'yes you can use that' (when you buy their product you have automatic right of private use) and if you ask an author if you can copy their book/song/movie and they say yes, well then you have that right. Until then it's a crime, that's why people get punished for it. So please don't be ignorant and claim you support companies that recognize property rights, they all fully recognize them because they have ALL the rights. If PubCo Inc recalls its book it has to do everything in its power to retrieve the book, which can include legal action. It can happen with everything from cars to microwaves, it also could happen with a book. And it happened with an ebook, Amazon had a recall obligation and they got every single ebook recalled like they're obligated to. Quit your whining, change the laws if you care so much because you obviously don't understand property rights and obligations if you're complaining a recall of a product goes against your rights. If you own an illegal product through legal means, it's still an illegal product! Microsoft offers to replace your OS with a legal one if you can prove someone sold you an illegal copy of Windows and they've offered that for years, because they'd rather get the distributor than the purchaser. However it's your legal obligation to make sure the products you buy are genuine. Microsoft can still sue you for illegally owning a copy of their product, even if you paid someone full price believing you bought a real MS Vista. It's then your legal right to sue the person who defrauded you! The only things in this world that you will legally own is your land and house. God forbid the zoning laws change or someone wants to put a bypass through your property. You can also own anything you make, so if you want to own your books, make your own. You want to own your computer? Make your own, out of parts you made yourself. I don't even own my animals, because if I don't care for them like I'm legally obligated to, they get taken away by the SPCA.
Skeuomorph 17y ago
Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and has said it will not take that action in the future. http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227 http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showAr... As for the enemy being DRM itself instead of Amazon, I'm not sure it's DRM as much as fragmented or proprietary 'standards' that are the problem for casual users just trying to experience frictionless media. Consider the cross-device annoyances of unprotected WMV, DIVX, or Flash, for example. I understand why Amazon and Sony want to protect their "software" sales, but am disappointed that these protected books are not cross compatible. Both ebook stores have a limited selection, yet each device meets a usability niche. On that point, I also would argue against the final jab from the article: "can we stop making silly comparisons between the Kindle and Sony's or whoever's two-bit book reader that no one's ever heard of?" In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold 189,000 units in 2008. Originally, however, the Sony Reader was available only through Sony and Borders. Sony began selling its Reader and related accessories in Target stores at the end of 2008. By mid-2009, Sony Readers are sold at Apple stores, Best Buy, Borders, Brookstone, Costco, Fry's, Office Depot, Sam's Club, Sears, Staples, Target, Walgreens, Walmart, and many web retailers including Amazon. It is also available in the UK in Waterstone's, Dixons, and more. The Kindle is available from Amazon.com in the US only. Given the Sony Reader's wide retail distribution, it's unlikely "no one's ever heard of" it, and purely anecdotally, I feel I see more of them on planes. (Disclosure: I own an original Sony PRS-500, a newer Sony PRS-505, and a Kindle DX. My leisure books are on the Sony Reader for ergonomics, battery life, and travel. My technical books and documents, both Word and PDFs, are on the Kindle DX for the screen size, though it needs to be recharged from dead every few days.)
- randomwalker 17y ago
  "Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and has said it will not take that action in the future." I am aware of that, and indeed Amazon's ability to see right from wrong and admit that they messed up is part of what prompted me to write the article. "In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold 189,000 units in 2008." Point taken. Perhaps I was biased by my own anecdotal observations. I've seen half a dozen Kindles "in the wild," i.e, not counting early adopter friends, but not one Sony Reader. But in terms of the data, note that you're comparing Sony's worldwide sales with Kindle sales in the U.S. Besides, the numbers you quote are from Mark Mahaney, who later revised his estimates to 500k for 2008, which would mean almost a million up until now. http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-says-amazon-sold-500000-kindles-last-year-12-billion-business-next-year/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-says-amazon-so...
jsz0 17y ago
I agree with this for the most part. Amazon doesn't publish books or make copyright law. It's really up to the consumers/voters to change the law or vote with their dollars. In this case I'm sure it's not too hard to track down a PDF copy of 1984. No real harm done except to the publisher who will ultimately have to change their ways. No justice, no peace.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Create 17y ago
Just to retrieve stuff from the Memory Hole: Amazon's behaviour is not new, neither borderline braindead by any standards widely accepted by society. Life always worked like this. Digital Restrictions Management stakeholders, like SONY rootkits are colluding with all antimalware vendors and major OS suppliers to be trusted (see HDCP, miniDP). The standard procedure in case of deadtree books [1], which are democratically banned by Human Rights Champions, is to wipe off the shelves wholesale by the censors, on consensus. And block any dissemination by showing no interest, like CW/YRO/Story Nobody Wanted. Although the information age makes old techniques more cumbersome, they still work surprisingly well, perhaps because of a lack of active interest from most people. And stuff just gets more complicated from this point... [1] Look for this on Amazon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt:_Me_and_War_criminals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt:_Me_and_War_criminals
- scscsc 17y ago
  I'm curious about the book. Why not simply publish it digitally? Why go through "traditional" publishers?
Tichy 17y ago
"books aren't magically going to become DRM-free without first becoming digital, and there's no way that's going to happen except under whatever terms the publishers choose to impose." Oh, so to get rid of DRM, we should first swallow the pill and make ourselves dependent on it. Then, when we are completely at the mercy of DRM, it will magically go away over night. Makes sense - NOT!

49 points by randomwalker 17y ago

PS - Sony's reader supports publishers' DRM-content rights [1] just as well as Kindle, apart from the parts that can't be technically enforced by the lack of always-tethered-ness. The rule in the e-readers market is clear: do anything it takes to get content for your device. 1. Yes, they are rights protected by copyright law.

billswift 17y ago
No they are NOT rights. They are monopoly privileges granted by the gov't.

Elessar 17y ago

What an irrelevant article. There are two major points: 1) Amazon did something stupid. Changing the adjective is clever, but it's still an outrageous act. They went on YOUR machine and they DELETED something YOU PURCHASED. You BOUGHT IT. There is nothing more to say here. 2) Apple had the same problem with DRM and bent over backwards to accommodate labels. Now we're all happy. Apple never DELETED files straight from people's computers. They never took the step of taking away what you bought. There is absolutely no comparison here. The blogger also pleads for people to target the publisher. As if I can only be outraged at one company! I'll target both, thank you very much.

zimbabwe 17y ago
That's because Apple never sold an mp3 it didn't have the right to sell. Amazon did, it realized it did, and it refunded people with an apology. Think of it like a doctor selling you a medicine, then calling you up and saying, "Oops, I wasn't authorized to give you those pills. I need them back, and I'll refund you entirely." There's a difference between removing an e-book and refunding it.
- tjmc 17y ago
  I agree with your analogy, and it indicates the right thing to do here. Give the refund and ask people to delete the ebook themselves. The doctor wouldn't break into your house and take the pills out of the medicine cabinet.
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    But "breaking in" indicates some disorder. I wouldn't trust a doctor to go into my house without asking me first. I would trust Amazon only to remove the thing they're legally obligated to remove. Perhaps I don't have the same feelings regarding owning a copy of somebody else's work. I don't feel ownership towards ebooks. I feel ownership towards the money I spend, but if I get that back I wouldn't be mad at what Amazon did. That's a minority opinion, and I think it would be worth debating somewhere that's not here.
    - aaronla 17y ago
      And this software recovery system Amazon has in place is foolproof? It can't be hacked, it cannot be misused or accidentally cause harm? Then I applaud their software expertise -- the rest of us have a hard time making such perfect software. This of course implies that the doctor would be within his rights if he caused no disorder. "I wouldn't trust a doctor to...". You didn't trust Amazon to either -- they just went in and did it, at someone's request. Hmm.. why does this prescription bottle have an antenna on it...
      - zimbabwe 17y ago
        But see, I do trust Amazon, and I trust that if they got hacked they would fix their systems. I trust Amazon to handle my data more than I'd trust a doctor to handle my house.
- tome 17y ago
  It's preposterous to compare copyright protection to the authorization of a doctor to prescribe you drugs.

grandalf 17y ago

I agree. I can't believe people are angry about it. If you don't like DRM, buy paper books or only download those that are already in the public domain. Sure DRM is a hassle, but so are a lot of things. For the most part, though, the problems with DRM are due to stupid business decisions and not even bad technology implementation -- consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails you have to re-purchase everything (with a single exception). DRM just means that more content is available -- if DRM truly does impose costs/hindrance, then eventually it will go away. In the meantime, you are free to choose it if you want (or not to). There are many books that are in the public domain that one might read as an alternative to 1984.

tumult 17y ago
consider Apple iTunes -- if your hard drive fails you have to re-purchase everything Or you could, like, make backups. Which iTunes even pleads you to do.
- randomwalker 17y ago
  I'm guessing his point was that it is perfectly technologically feasible for iTunes to let you re-download songs if you lose them. The Kindle does that. I have to agree that except for the occasional SNAFU (which affects a small handful of users), the Kindle DRM doesn't inconvenience the user much, or at all.
  - sjs382 17y ago
    it is perfectly technologically feasible for iTunes to let you re-download songs if you lose them They have let me do this once before.
    - grandalf 17y ago
      you get one per lifetime :) I used mine.
      - 17y ago

TweedHeads 17y ago

If something erases data from my computer without my consent, yes, it is my enemy!

zimbabwe 17y ago
His point is that Amazon's not the company we should be pissed off at right now. If they want to provide us with their Kindle store, which 99% of the time is excellent and wonderful (I just got the Kindle iPhone app and I love that it syncs with my Kindle and with the web reader), they have to deal with publishers that are antique and ignorant and full of themselves. Think the RIAA is tyrannical? The publishing industry is ten times worse. It sucks that Amazon had to do this, but given a choice between a terrific store that's subject to the whims of publishers and no store at all, I'll take the terrific store, and hope that my Shakespeare and Austen remain intact. Amazon is one of the few companies that I trust almost wholeheartedly. I don't think they're fuck-something-up-proof, but I believe firmly that the company as a whole cares about its users and about giving them the best experience possible, even when it's at cost to them. I've never had a bad experience with Amazon, whether it was as a customer or as a seller. I understand the kneejerk impulse here, which is to call Amazon an Evil Big Corporation, but I find it sad that a decade of building trust can be so quickly thrown out the door.
- randomwalker 17y ago
  That summed up my position better than I did. Thank you :-)
- TweedHeads 17y ago
  I don't care if the kindle store is excellent. I don't care if amazon is good 99% of the time. I don't care if BigPrint is the devil and amazon was coerced. Nobody should EVER under any circumstance delete ANYTHING from my computer, even if I bought it or not, if it is pirated or not, if it is stolen or not. If it was your mistake to allow that to happen you should ask politely and we should be able to decide what to do. I hope Apple takes notices, I know they have a remote shut-down switch in every iphone. They better never use it.

luchak 17y ago

I don't buy the part about how the Kindle needs our support. Sure, I can buy the hardware, that's nice. But it's useless to me without content (no, a shitty web browser doesn't count, and I'm not swimming in book PDFs). So I need to buy books, unless I want an expensive plastic brick, but these books have DRM on them that's more restrictive than I'm willing to accept. How would buying those books send the right message? The way it sounds to me is "hey, take my books away any time you like, that's cool." I mean, if you're happy with the Kindle DRM, sure, buy one. But if I'm not, how is it (even marginally) in my interest for me to buy one?

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

If it has DRM I will pirate it so I can get the DRM free version. If it has no copy protection I will buy it in the store. I support companies that recognize property rights.

electromagnetic 17y ago
That's a little naive. You never copied a book a thousand times because you don't own a printing press. There's no market capital overhead to prevent you making a million copies of an e-book. You obviously don't support property rights if you're willing to pirate products. You can recognize property rights by not buying their product and complain, that's your legal recourse for a market decision you don't like. When you buy a creative product you are completely restricted in how you use it, regardless of if you bought a book, an e-book, a song or a CD. You can't use it for public events, you can't sell it on without the authors/publishers permission (in books the permission is implied hence legal, with e-books the permission is not implied hence illegal), you definitely cannot make copies. These are their property rights, they made it so they own every right and those rights extend implicitly from every post-it you write on to every photograph you take. Until you, or an author says, 'yes you can use that' (when you buy their product you have automatic right of private use) and if you ask an author if you can copy their book/song/movie and they say yes, well then you have that right. Until then it's a crime, that's why people get punished for it. So please don't be ignorant and claim you support companies that recognize property rights, they all fully recognize them because they have ALL the rights. If PubCo Inc recalls its book it has to do everything in its power to retrieve the book, which can include legal action. It can happen with everything from cars to microwaves, it also could happen with a book. And it happened with an ebook, Amazon had a recall obligation and they got every single ebook recalled like they're obligated to. Quit your whining, change the laws if you care so much because you obviously don't understand property rights and obligations if you're complaining a recall of a product goes against your rights. If you own an illegal product through legal means, it's still an illegal product! Microsoft offers to replace your OS with a legal one if you can prove someone sold you an illegal copy of Windows and they've offered that for years, because they'd rather get the distributor than the purchaser. However it's your legal obligation to make sure the products you buy are genuine. Microsoft can still sue you for illegally owning a copy of their product, even if you paid someone full price believing you bought a real MS Vista. It's then your legal right to sue the person who defrauded you! The only things in this world that you will legally own is your land and house. God forbid the zoning laws change or someone wants to put a bypass through your property. You can also own anything you make, so if you want to own your books, make your own. You want to own your computer? Make your own, out of parts you made yourself. I don't even own my animals, because if I don't care for them like I'm legally obligated to, they get taken away by the SPCA.

Skeuomorph 17y ago

Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and has said it will not take that action in the future. http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227 http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showAr... As for the enemy being DRM itself instead of Amazon, I'm not sure it's DRM as much as fragmented or proprietary 'standards' that are the problem for casual users just trying to experience frictionless media. Consider the cross-device annoyances of unprotected WMV, DIVX, or Flash, for example. I understand why Amazon and Sony want to protect their "software" sales, but am disappointed that these protected books are not cross compatible. Both ebook stores have a limited selection, yet each device meets a usability niche. On that point, I also would argue against the final jab from the article: "can we stop making silly comparisons between the Kindle and Sony's or whoever's two-bit book reader that no one's ever heard of?" In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold 189,000 units in 2008. Originally, however, the Sony Reader was available only through Sony and Borders. Sony began selling its Reader and related accessories in Target stores at the end of 2008. By mid-2009, Sony Readers are sold at Apple stores, Best Buy, Borders, Brookstone, Costco, Fry's, Office Depot, Sam's Club, Sears, Staples, Target, Walgreens, Walmart, and many web retailers including Amazon. It is also available in the UK in Waterstone's, Dixons, and more. The Kindle is available from Amazon.com in the US only. Given the Sony Reader's wide retail distribution, it's unlikely "no one's ever heard of" it, and purely anecdotally, I feel I see more of them on planes. (Disclosure: I own an original Sony PRS-500, a newer Sony PRS-505, and a Kindle DX. My leisure books are on the Sony Reader for ergonomics, battery life, and travel. My technical books and documents, both Word and PDFs, are on the Kindle DX for the screen size, though it needs to be recharged from dead every few days.)

randomwalker 17y ago
"Regardless of the position of this article, Amazon has agreed with the public that revoking these books was an inappropriate action for Amazon to take, and has said it will not take that action in the future." I am aware of that, and indeed Amazon's ability to see right from wrong and admit that they messed up is part of what prompted me to write the article. "In December 2008, Sony said that it had sold 300,000 units of its Sony Reader since the device launched end of 2006. Meanwhile, TechCrunch says Kindle sold 189,000 units in 2008." Point taken. Perhaps I was biased by my own anecdotal observations. I've seen half a dozen Kindles "in the wild," i.e, not counting early adopter friends, but not one Sony Reader. But in terms of the data, note that you're comparing Sony's worldwide sales with Kindle sales in the U.S. Besides, the numbers you quote are from Mark Mahaney, who later revised his estimates to 500k for 2008, which would mean almost a million up until now. http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-says-amazon-sold-500000-kindles-last-year-12-billion-business-next-year/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090203/citi-says-amazon-so...

jsz0 17y ago

I agree with this for the most part. Amazon doesn't publish books or make copyright law. It's really up to the consumers/voters to change the law or vote with their dollars. In this case I'm sure it's not too hard to track down a PDF copy of 1984. No real harm done except to the publisher who will ultimately have to change their ways. No justice, no peace.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Create 17y ago

Just to retrieve stuff from the Memory Hole: Amazon's behaviour is not new, neither borderline braindead by any standards widely accepted by society. Life always worked like this. Digital Restrictions Management stakeholders, like SONY rootkits are colluding with all antimalware vendors and major OS suppliers to be trusted (see HDCP, miniDP). The standard procedure in case of deadtree books [1], which are democratically banned by Human Rights Champions, is to wipe off the shelves wholesale by the censors, on consensus. And block any dissemination by showing no interest, like CW/YRO/Story Nobody Wanted. Although the information age makes old techniques more cumbersome, they still work surprisingly well, perhaps because of a lack of active interest from most people. And stuff just gets more complicated from this point... [1] Look for this on Amazon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt:_Me_and_War_criminals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt:_Me_and_War_criminals

scscsc 17y ago
I'm curious about the book. Why not simply publish it digitally? Why go through "traditional" publishers?

Tichy 17y ago

"books aren't magically going to become DRM-free without first becoming digital, and there's no way that's going to happen except under whatever terms the publishers choose to impose." Oh, so to get rid of DRM, we should first swallow the pill and make ourselves dependent on it. Then, when we are completely at the mercy of DRM, it will magically go away over night. Makes sense - NOT!