Entelligence: Two strikes for Kindle is enough for me
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted July 23rd 2009 4:18PM
posted July 23rd 2009 4:18PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
I like books. No: I actually love books. In virtually every room in my home there are bookcases that are filled to overflowing. I like to purchase them, hold them as I read words written to inform, delight, and transport the reader into different times, new experiences, and enlighten them in ways they could not have imagined. Like the worst hot dog I've eaten and the worst beer I've drunk, the worst book I've read was wonderful... but books do have a downside. They're bulky to store, hard to travel with (paper is really, really heavy), and paperbacks in particular tend to not hold up well over time. So, in addition to books, I've been a fan of e-Books. My former venture capital firm did one of the first investments in Peanut Press (long sold and re-sold many times and now owned by Barnes and Noble) and more than a decade ago I struggled with reading fiction by Dan Brown on a Palm V device with low resolution and on backlight. It was a struggle -- but it was better than schlepping paper.
There have been a lot of e-book efforts over the last decade, but none of them have been successful. There have been dedicated readers such as the RocketBook and others. There were efforts from Microsoft to create an e-book market for their handheld devices and tablet PCs, and efforts from Adobe to publish books via the ubiquitous PDF format. None were successful -- until Amazon introduced the Kindle. While it was far from perfect, I felt that Amazon had done for the e-book reader what Apple had done for the PC. In the words of Alan Kay, the Macintosh was the first PC good enough to be criticized. I felt the same way about the Kindle. The Kindle had enough content to be interesting -- it focused on getting e-book prices lower (after all, what's the difference physically between an electronic version of a paperback and hardcover book?) and wisely bypassed the PC to load content. The Kindle 2, the Kindle DX, combined with Amazon's willingness to evolve the Kindle onto other platforms such as the iPhone seemed to make the Kindle appear to have the best chance of taking e-books to the mass market. But two events over the last few weeks have led me to put my Kindle back on the shelf and wonder again if the e-book market will ever take off.
Amazon states that "a copy of every book you purchased from the Kindle Store is backed up at Amazon.com in case you ever need to download it again. You can wirelessly re-download books for free any time. This allows you to make room for new titles on your Kindle, knowing that Amazon is storing your personal library of Kindle books. We even back up your last page read and annotations, so you'll never lose those, either. Think of it as a bookshelf in your attic--even though you don't see it, you know your books are there."
Sounds good. Not too different from eReader's policy where I can download books I bought more than decade ago to my iPhone, a device that didn't even exist when I bought them. My problems occurred after downloading my copy of Freakonomics to my Kindle 1, my iPhone and iPod touch. I discovered I couldn't download the book to my Kindle 2. I kept getting error after error that simply said this book can't be loaded on this device. A little time with Google revealed I was not alone. It seems there's a finite number of times each book can be downloaded, even if it's downloaded to the same device. This number is set by the publisher and varies from book to book, but Amazon never mentions this, and there's no indication of it anywhere during the purchase process. In short, it obviates the reason why one would buy an e-book in the first place. If I want to read Freakonomics at this point, I either have to find a device that I'm no longer using that has that content on it or buy a new copy. Sorry. That's just not acceptable and I've been debating what books I'd buy in the future. That was until last week.
More troubling for me was last week's news that customers who had purchased copies (note the irony) of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four discovered their copies had been deleted from their Kindles, and Amazon was issuing refunds. Now, these copies were unauthorized in the US, Amazon had no right to sell them, so I'm not surprised they were pulled from the store. But the idea of a company reaching on to my device and removing content I had put on there is beyond the pale UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Imagine Apple deciding somehow that the music on your iPod wasn't there legitimately and deleting it for you? (In fact, Apple has removed content from their app store such as Tris, which violated license agreements, but users who had downloaded the app to their device could continue to use it). Yes, Amazon blundered. They have said to the New York Times that they won't do this again. There are a hundred different ways they could have handled this. At the end of the day, they chose not to and that's a hard thing for me to get over.
Books are precious. Important. The books that I purchase over the years -- from the literary treatises to the medieval Jewish commentaries, to techno thrillers and mysteries -- are far too valuable to me to take the chance on ever being locked out of the content that I own, or worse, having that content taken away from at the discretion of an employee at the bookstore where I purchased them. People have blamed this on DRM but it's not a DRM issue for me. I've bought protected content from Apple for years and have never had an issue of being locked out of it. Likewise from the folks at eReader and fictionwise. For now, I'm going back to paper, and when I do make e-book purchases, it will be through eReader (and now Barnes and Noble) where I have never lost access to content I own.
This is now two strikes for Amazon, and I'm not willing to wait for strike three before they're out. If the Kindle is going to really take on the mass market, Amazon needs to re-think how they're selling content and on what terms.
There have been a lot of e-book efforts over the last decade, but none of them have been successful. There have been dedicated readers such as the RocketBook and others. There were efforts from Microsoft to create an e-book market for their handheld devices and tablet PCs, and efforts from Adobe to publish books via the ubiquitous PDF format. None were successful -- until Amazon introduced the Kindle. While it was far from perfect, I felt that Amazon had done for the e-book reader what Apple had done for the PC. In the words of Alan Kay, the Macintosh was the first PC good enough to be criticized. I felt the same way about the Kindle. The Kindle had enough content to be interesting -- it focused on getting e-book prices lower (after all, what's the difference physically between an electronic version of a paperback and hardcover book?) and wisely bypassed the PC to load content. The Kindle 2, the Kindle DX, combined with Amazon's willingness to evolve the Kindle onto other platforms such as the iPhone seemed to make the Kindle appear to have the best chance of taking e-books to the mass market. But two events over the last few weeks have led me to put my Kindle back on the shelf and wonder again if the e-book market will ever take off.
Amazon states that "a copy of every book you purchased from the Kindle Store is backed up at Amazon.com in case you ever need to download it again. You can wirelessly re-download books for free any time. This allows you to make room for new titles on your Kindle, knowing that Amazon is storing your personal library of Kindle books. We even back up your last page read and annotations, so you'll never lose those, either. Think of it as a bookshelf in your attic--even though you don't see it, you know your books are there."
"The idea of a company reaching on to my device and removing content I had put on there is beyond the pale under any circumstances." |
Sounds good. Not too different from eReader's policy where I can download books I bought more than decade ago to my iPhone, a device that didn't even exist when I bought them. My problems occurred after downloading my copy of Freakonomics to my Kindle 1, my iPhone and iPod touch. I discovered I couldn't download the book to my Kindle 2. I kept getting error after error that simply said this book can't be loaded on this device. A little time with Google revealed I was not alone. It seems there's a finite number of times each book can be downloaded, even if it's downloaded to the same device. This number is set by the publisher and varies from book to book, but Amazon never mentions this, and there's no indication of it anywhere during the purchase process. In short, it obviates the reason why one would buy an e-book in the first place. If I want to read Freakonomics at this point, I either have to find a device that I'm no longer using that has that content on it or buy a new copy. Sorry. That's just not acceptable and I've been debating what books I'd buy in the future. That was until last week.
More troubling for me was last week's news that customers who had purchased copies (note the irony) of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four discovered their copies had been deleted from their Kindles, and Amazon was issuing refunds. Now, these copies were unauthorized in the US, Amazon had no right to sell them, so I'm not surprised they were pulled from the store. But the idea of a company reaching on to my device and removing content I had put on there is beyond the pale UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Imagine Apple deciding somehow that the music on your iPod wasn't there legitimately and deleting it for you? (In fact, Apple has removed content from their app store such as Tris, which violated license agreements, but users who had downloaded the app to their device could continue to use it). Yes, Amazon blundered. They have said to the New York Times that they won't do this again. There are a hundred different ways they could have handled this. At the end of the day, they chose not to and that's a hard thing for me to get over.
Books are precious. Important. The books that I purchase over the years -- from the literary treatises to the medieval Jewish commentaries, to techno thrillers and mysteries -- are far too valuable to me to take the chance on ever being locked out of the content that I own, or worse, having that content taken away from at the discretion of an employee at the bookstore where I purchased them. People have blamed this on DRM but it's not a DRM issue for me. I've bought protected content from Apple for years and have never had an issue of being locked out of it. Likewise from the folks at eReader and fictionwise. For now, I'm going back to paper, and when I do make e-book purchases, it will be through eReader (and now Barnes and Noble) where I have never lost access to content I own.
This is now two strikes for Amazon, and I'm not willing to wait for strike three before they're out. If the Kindle is going to really take on the mass market, Amazon needs to re-think how they're selling content and on what terms.
It's a shame there's a limit that doesn't seem to be publicized. iTunes' limit is obnoxious but public. I'm leery of all of these e-formats because you never truly own them. Read about the guy who tried to sell a song he bought on iTunes. You're renting your wares.
When I do buy an ebook reader, it will be one with no DRM that can handle PDF's of all kinds without issue.
These companies look for ways to make more money all the time. and this lil secret of how many times you can download the content you purchase till you have to purchase it again!!!! WTF AMAZON!!!!! How about AMAZONIOTS They think we will purchase things twice... i say again TWICE!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! I stick to paper burry me in it plz this way it may take me a while to find it but once i do it be there forever and i only purchase it once :)
You're right about the content never really being your own, which the author hinted at. But the second part of the problem he seems to miss when he says "they reached out and removed it from MY device". The concept that all these vendors do not want you to figure out is that not only is the content never really yours, but the DEVICE is not really yours either. The Kindle is theirs. You're just buying the right to use one until it breaks.
Your iPhone? joint ownership by Apple and AT&T. They try to control what you can do with it. Sure jailbreaking is tolerated now, but fast forward another 10 years and I bet you it will be completely illegal to do anything with one of these devices outside the scope of what they designed it for, and it will seem perfectly normal to prosecute you criminally if you do.
I feel like we're in a transition period deciding who owns that physical device you "paid for".
ash - iTunes songs don't have DRM on them any more. You can do whatever you want with them.
You're right, Zak. Sorry about that. I think I was confusing it with Apps from the App Store. They're the same as the eBooks. I wish there was an app resale market since some of these are worthwhile for about 10 minutes.
@Zak - Regardless of whether the songs are protected by DRM or not, the songs ARE NOT yours. "Buying" a track on iTunes is really purchasing a non-transferable license for you to listen to that track. You cannot resale the song, you cannot trade it in for store credit when you're done with it.
It's not a DRM issue - it's an ownership issue. With physical media, the licensing rights have been tied to said physical medium and thus were transferable. With digital purchases the license arrangement is with an individual.
I've been buying ebooks since first getting them from Peanut Press almost 10 years ago. I still have them. They've not disappeared. They *do* have DRM, but Fictionwise (I guess the new owners of the DRM used in my books) have been very helpful in copying my files between PCs and now copying the files over to my iPhone. Sounds like Amazon isn't this helpful.....
AFAIK itunes do have your info embedded so they can sue you if you spread them around, so you can't 'do anything' as you say, read the fine print.
And it could just be a tag (which you could edit or remove) but they could also add a number in the sounddata itself to id you, the technology is available.
I have no idea what they do I don't use itunes, but I recall there was anger that they put all sorts of personal data like phonenumbers or something in the 'DRM-free' file that was too sensitive to have in mp3's, so they toned that down a bit.
I'm going by things I saw come by in the technews and you'd have to look up the details and read the agreement to know what's what though.
@Andrew jones
I'm not all knowing on the subject, but I recall reading the fine print on physical media (music video) where it is clear that you may not rent, lend, broadcast, copy or sell the item.
--
That Peanut Press has allowed content to move between media and device is incredible. Try that on with EA if u paid for a game available on multiple platforms; or with Nintendo if you owned a super nes cart available on VConsole. Try it with MS/Adobe if u got robbed and u had registered ur ownership with them. Try it with a music label when u paid for the record, then the cassette, then the cd (twice cause u lost one) and u think maybe nah screw paying again for a crappy digital copy.
We have been ripped off by content sellers forever, over and over, worse than freakin drug dealers.
One thing I read that was interesting was the upcoming issue with digital media when someone dies, you could bequeath your record collection but your iTunes account, what happens there
hmm as for on server recording of purchases (faux backup) well there is a disaster waiting to happen. Imagine the headline 'crackers attack amazon, destroy ownership database'
This article is wrong. From Amazon directly:
"Publishers choose whether they apply DRM to their content and thus determine how many copies of each title can be downloaded to different Kindle devices at the same time. There is no limit on the number of times a title can be downloaded, only limits on the number of simultaneous devices."
You can download the book as much as you want. The publisher can limit how many devices can have the content at the same time. The worst case scenario is it is exactly like a book, you can only have it in one place at one time, but in the instance the author used, the book is in 3 locations as once. Sounds reasonable to me.
I like like information. My Kindle 2 let'e me have 70+ books as reference material at my finger tips. I find it much better than a physical book. As for the 1894 thing, they did refund the money and there is a valid version available for purchase.
Zak, all files purchased in the past from itunes (aka itunes) have strict DRM and it costs a lot of money to remove the DRM
Fortunately I read and don't edit books as my typing sucks.
This story is exactly the reason that I refuse to buy any DRMed content that I can't strip off the DRM and the reason I dislike the over-the-air-only syncing that the Kindle has. As inconvenient as it is compared to the Kindle, if it means I can keep a backup of my purchased e-books, I will happily hook my Sony Reader via USB to my computer to sync. I will never have to worry about my e-books being removed without my permission, or refusing to install on a new device I bought, or no longer working with a device five years down the road because it doesn't supported the outdated DRM the e-book is encrypted with.
I agree with Tracy in Cary. It's ironic and absurd that in the land(s) of the free, we have more restrictions and control than in lands where freedom is rare. In other parts of the world, devices and purchases are treated as your property with some limitations. Here, you pay people premium dollars to loan items and purchases that's not ever really in your control or ownership.
There has to and needs to be a better middle ground and I can't accept that jumping on every draconian big brother measure of control is the right or proper way to do this.
If someone sells you a stolen car, do you get to keep it when the cops come a knockin at your door?
Cops come and 'knock' on your door and explains what happened. They don't just impound the car without even letting you know what's happened.
At least they had the decency to knock.
Not quite. Or at all.
It's like you bought a BMW from a dealer in Germany, and BMW got upset because they didnt tell the dealer it was ok to export the car to the US, so the dealer came in the middle of the night, towed your car, and left a refund check in the mailbox.
@BigD145: You likened this to a person buying a stolen car and then the cops come and take it back. That's not what happened at all. It's more like someone sold me a stolen car and then broke into my garage to take it back himself. No cops involved.
If that happened, wouldn't you be outraged at the idea of the seller coming into your garage without your permission to retrieve the car (even if they left your purchase price on the floor)?
Good point, but I find it interesting that the company would rather delete the few copies that have already been sold and give back the money rather than keep what they've got and just stop selling. Come on, it's one of the Rules of Acquisition: "Once you have their money, NEVER give it back."
If someone sells you a car you can re-sell it. You can't with an ebook… If your logic applies to ebooks then so does mine.
Maybe not, but I'd sure hope some goons from Chevy wouldn't show up and steal it back! (I have nothing against or for Chevy, just needed an example)
If the car costs nothing to reproduce and is infinitely scalable, then yes.
Not a very well thought out statement.
If someone sells you a car through a private sale, it's up to YOU to do your due diligence and do a VIN check and be sure that it's not stolen. Takes a few minutes of your time to visit your local PD and can keep you out of jail.
Next time try some apples to apples comparisons.
Mike makes a good point. This is a bad analogy since we are not talking about tangible goods.
Usage rights for hard copies of content are not the same for digital content.
So its ok If I break into your house, take something, but leave money for it?
@Seraphim
Why are people so pissed about this, then? Shouldn't the public have done their research and found out that the copies were unauthorized for sale in the US?
@BigD145 The problem is, a big retailer like Amazon should not be selling an unauthorized title to begin with. If you buy a stolen BMW from a major BMW dealer, the dealer will offer to replace it with a new model (perhaps with more options for all the trouble) or offer full refund. Amazon offered only the refund without giving any notice whatsoever. It should have tried harder to negotiate with the publisher to get the rights and offer the buyer a choice of replacing it with the authorized title (with full annotations intact) or full refund (plus some additional balance as compensation for the trouble).
As the original post said, it doesn't matter WHY Amazon reached onto your Kindle and deleted the books. It doesn't matter that the books weren't authorized for sale in the US.
What would have happened if it were a physical book is that the publisher would have paid a fine (and probably coughed up all sales proceeds) to the real rights holder and you, the innocent buyer, would have gotten to keep your book that you bought.
This whole 'stolen car' analogy is rotten from the start, and like all bad analogies it just serves to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.
BigD145, when you shop at places like Amazon or K-mart or B&N (etc) there is an implicit trust that what they are selling you is legit. Without that trust, business to consumer interaction would cease to exist. You don't go into a Kmart, find a pair of shoes then go and do research to make sure it's going to be a legit purchase. You trust that what is being sold to you by these operators (on which their reputation and business is at stake) is legit.
The analogy with the car was bad in the first place and this belief that it's on the consumer to do their research on the legality of every product they purchase is also completely counter to how our society and business works. The onus is and should always be on the businesses to take that course of action.
When a business you pruchased from comes back and reclaims the item you bought without your explicit knowledge, that trust is completely broken. Even above the DRM issues, this is one of an issue of trust in the consumer to business relationship; or rather the complete breaking of that trust.
Amazon are not cops. A subtle but important difference..
Wow, that's rough. I like how they advertise it as a utopian e-bookshelf and then you only get a certain amount of downloads. At least the iTunes Music Store is very upfront and numerous times will it tell you "yeah... you can't download these again.. so how about backing them up?!" At least no surprises.
Speaking of surprises, the fact that they could/did remotely remove content on your device is scary. I just imagined Sony reaching through and 'unhacking' or remote bricking my PSP simply because its running CFW or like you said about Apple and unauthorized music on my iDevices.
The irony of the two titles was probably the best part.
Less QQ moar page 2. This was pretty well written, though - I never gave amazon the chance because I was afraid of things like this happening. Figured I'd stick with eReader until all their problems came to the forefront. Looks like I made the right decision.
So, am I to take away from this, that plastic logic will be superior because of B&N being eReader?
eReader is a pretty recent acquisition of B&N. There's no telling how the business model will change over the next year.
It's unfortunate the author here didn't discuss how eReader's DRM is superior when it comes to user control. A protected eReader (.pdb) book has absolutely no contact with eReader once you've downloaded. There's an encoding process that requires you enter the credit card number and name on it you purchased the book with (once when you open the first book) in the software you're reading it with. And then that's it. eReader (or fictionwise or Barnes and Noble for now) couldn't get at that book later if they wanted to.
It's not a perfect system, but it's a far preferable one to those with DRM servers and you wonder whether you'll still be able to read when they shut down the servers. Or now, whether your store of choice can reach through and call takebacks. Commerce shouldn't be played like Calvinball--we should, at an absolute minimum, know the rules in advance.
@CrtlBurn, you are correct, it's too soon to know what B&N will do with their recent acquisition, but hopefully they continue with eReader's way of calming media producers and not Amazon's. I'd like to think that one of the things that prompted the purchase was the eReader tech itself.
The fact that this many people are freaking out about 1984 (and remotely removing content) on the Kindle demonstrates it's a big concern (though most who *are* freaking out don't even own Kindles). As a Kindle owner myself, it doesn't alarm me in the least.
The bottom line is that the Kindle is beholden to publishers -- content will always be king (though at times, content is worth more/less than others). If the publisher decides to pull the plug, the plug is pulled.
You aren't buying an actual "book" when you buy a Kindle eBook. There's nothing to resell once you're done, nothing tangible. What you're (in essence) buying is an encrypted file, and the right to read the book. And that is a right that can (in theory) be taken away by unscrupulous publishers.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Amazon, and unfortunately the Kindle, are at the mercy of many publishers. The content you own is being (in effect) licensed out, and it's (again, in effect) a limited license that can be withdrawn for a multitude of reasons. If that's a dealbreaker for you -- and I don't think it should be, given that this will almost DEFINITELY not happen again (after all the freaking out, Amazon will undoubtedly modify its publisher agreement to prevent this sort of thing from happening again) -- avoid the Kindle.
For me, it's a minor, not so troubling concern, given the multitude of other options the consumer has. If one publisher decides to shoot itself (and customers) in the foot, so be it. Their loss - the Kindle, which I've found to be a marvelous little (though overpriced) device, shouldn't be the victim in what is no more than a legal spat between titans.
Great point. Although it's creepy that Amazon pulled the content, the fact is that this content is tangible and the publishers own the ultimate rights.
I guess Amazon was just hasty in making 1984 available
I fully understand and agree with the concept of paying for a 'license' to use content.
What I don't agree with is publishers' attempts to charge the same amount or more for a 'license' as they do for physical media, and the fact that they don't make it obvious that you're basically renting the content instead of owning it.
Publishers already got in trouble over something like this by charging more for CDs than cassettes. At first CDs were more expensive due to manufacturing costs, but they never bothered lowering prices once it became cheaper to make CDs than cassettes. The resulting class action lawsuit made a bunch of lawyers rich, and we get coupons for free Frostys at Wendy's with the purchase of a baked potato.
Publishers see this as a way to increase profit margins. It's FAR cheaper to distribute digital content. In addition, they sell a license for the work instead of ownership rights. This allows them to play games like what we see with the Kindle. Some people will be upset, but others will just pay up again, or go buy a physical copy if they really like the work.
Publishers and content distributors need to make it CRYSTAL FRACKING CLEAR that you're buying a license to use the content, not ownership rights. Of course if they did that, they'd have to clearly outline the terms of the license, and people wouldn't be willing to pay nearly so much for content. This is why I either buy mp3s, or I grab music with my Zune Pass. I'm under no illusion that I own my Zune Pass music - and that's why it's so cheap. If it's a song I really like, I'll cough up $.99 to 'own' it in the mp3 format.
Maybe some day we'll see some consumer protection laws that require full, clear disclosure of terms for digital content. For now though I guess it's buyer beware.
So I'm wondering how legal is this scenario...
Harry Potter book 8 comes out for the Kindle. They sell a million copies at $10. The gather statistics on the Kindle to see that people are continually re-reading it. So the publisher "pulls" the book back, refunds your $10, and re-lists it for $15.
Oh an they use the stats they gathered to target specifically the people re-reading the book and are most likely to pay the extra money for it.
At what point does this cross the line from sleazy to illegal?
Full Disclosure: I am one of those people who do not own a Kindle.
Actually you are buying an actual book and There is something tangible. There is a file, and you should own that file and be able to loan it to a friend or resell it if you no longer want it. The issue is that publishers distrust a that you might loan a friend an ebook by transferring, not copying the ebook file to your friend. And that your friend will
read that ebook, then give the file back to you when done. Copying a computer file is a trivial matter that most people barely give a thought to. A printed book can also be copied but it is far from trivial. Both acts are illegal.
I do own an older REB 1100 eBook reader and I love it. I have all my ebooks backed up on my computer and can load them onto or off of my reader at will. I have looked at the Kindle and passed because of issues such as Amazon's discretionary access. I understand publishers and authors are concerned that money will be lost to unscrupulous people. Frankly I think the obstacles created by DRM schemes is worse. If it would work, I would accept paying a few cents more per title to compensate for stolen books. Ultimately that would fail because even if those that purchased books were paying just a little more, eBooks lost to illegal copying of files would still be viewed as lost revenue and someone would start again trying to recoup the loss.
@Beaner I understand the whole 1984 fiasco and wouldn't want them taking anything off my Kindle myself, but the rest of the article doesn't make sense. Why not, just like you did with your eReader files, doesn't the author here just back up the books he's bought to his computer. Transfer away. Problem solved.
@Everyone complaining about the reselling of songs/books/movies/etc. It is ABSOLUTELY illegal to sell COPIES of any physical media you have purchased in the first place, and do you really think the court system have enough time and money to sort out who's really selling their only copy of digital media and who's just selling copies of things (aka bootlegging)?
"Harry Potter book 8 comes out for the Kindle. They sell a million copies at $10. The gather statistics on the Kindle to see that people are continually re-reading it. So the publisher "pulls" the book back, refunds your $10, and re-lists it for $15."
That sounds great to me. I get to read the book, then probably re-read, and then Amazon pulls the book from my Kindle and refunds me the purchase price. I get annoyed, but I got to read Harry Potter 8 for free! NO, I'm not buying it again for $15!
@Beaner
Not to rattle your cage here, but you are incorrect. An eBook is not, in fact, tangible. Tangible means something that you can grasp and hold. An eBook exists only as a series of electrical impulses, organized magnets, or organized i/o gates on a flash drive. When you buy an eBook, you are not buying the book itself, but a license to use the electronic copy that you are provided. You do not receive a tangible copy (unless they mail you the paperback too).
Now don't get me wrong; I agree with you that the owners should have more flexibility with their purchases. However, there is no law requiring this. And on top of that, we (the consumer) are the ones agreeing to these terms of licensure by purchasing the media in the first place. If people are pissed about the restrictive nature of licensed electronic material, they need to vote with their wallets. Which, coincidentally, is what the author of the article is suggesting.
I, for one, am one of those old fashioned folks. I still buy hard cover books when there is one I want to own. I still buy a CD of the artists I want in my music collection. I simply exercise my right to fair use and transfer the songs from my CD to my iTunes.
I realize that my seemingly luddite ways don't address the issue that the article author brings up (that being the inability to have unfettered access to the content you pay for, whether for ownership, or license). To that end, I can only offer this advice: suck it up and buy the competitor if you're that unhappy with their business practices. The only way we will see effective change with Amazon and the Kindle line of ereaders is to hit them where it hurts: their bottom line.
This is a DRM issue. DRM has always been designed to take rights from the users and give them back to the content-makers.
I find it ironic that Amazon, who sells DRM-free music, would make such a huge mistake.
That's completely untrue. DRM was a meant only to mean that something sold to you stayed with you. At best, it was a means to and end to show the RIAA and MPAA that there was a market for online content and they should just abandon all things digital. The real issue is that Amazon can access a device for more than just downloading (which should be pull in the first place) without notification or consent of the owner.
Well it's one thing for record companies to concede to not having DRM, since there is always the available revenue stream of concert tickets and whatnot. But for books, book sales are it. I hate, hate, hate music DRM, but for books, I can understand.
Umm... Hello??? This is not a DRM issue. This is an Amazon issue.
Even if the books were DRM free, that wouldn't stop Amazon from limiting the number of times you could download them. They handle it on their end - has nothing to do with the file itself. Same with the books they took back, they could have been DRM free, but because the Kindle is connected, they can reach out and take them back.
While I don't care for DRM, don't blame this on DRM - this is Amazon not being up-front about what is really going on.
The kindle isn't the only ereader. The Sony one has none of these problems.
Furthermore, how hard is it to hook up a camera & OCR to an ereader to remove DRM? Answer: not at all.
Apple only lets you download a song from iTunes ONCE. You're not complaining about that.
It's crappy that the publisher put a limit on it but it's a lot better than the limit on iTunes. Should it be fixed? Definitely...Amazon says you'll always have access to your purchases, and letting the publishers get around this is reprehensible, but it's not really Amazon's fault that the publishers are greedy bastards.
As far as 1984 goes: Amazon apologised and said they're going to fix that situation in the future. If their explanation of what happened is true it was an unfortunate consequence of the way their purchasing system was set up. Don't knock them for a one time accident. Now, if it happens again, then there's a problem.
The Kindle and eBook market is new and there are going to be growing pains. Wait until the system reaches equilibrium before you start discounting it.