Yet another cautionary tale.

Preceding Amazon Kindle's now publicised capacity to arbitrarily delete content without notice or permission is this other blog post about the joys of digitally restricted (read: deliberately broken) content -

Kindle’s DRM Rears Its Ugly Head… And It IS Ugly

Essentially, with Kindles you are only allowed an unspecified number of downloads to an unspecified number of devices; you are not entitled to know how many; new devices may void your download rights altogether, and if your downloads start failing thats too bad you need to buy your content all over again because you never really owned it anyway. And if you complain, you're probably a liar and a thief.

Significant inroads have been made against rights managed content, but the war is nowhere near over. So, unless you actually have no problem paying money for vapour that could vanish in the blink of an eye, avoid feeding the DRM beast and stick to hard copies, or soft ones that have no restrictions and allow you to back up. Take note you I-retards.

DefectiveByDesign.org

Tags: abuse, amazon, consumer, drm, kindle, orwell, rights

Views: 3

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

People always ask me why as a computer person, I don't have an iPod. I usually say I don't like to be tied to one format or point of access.

Anything with DRM is a way of being able to take it back, once you have purchased it. It outlines the current state of one sided copyright laws.

At least the States got basic fair use right even if its being trample on by the DMCA. Here in Canada we have nothing on the books protecting fair use (such as parody using clips of broadcast materials). It is usually conveniently ignored when it is used here, thus we have the appearance of fair use laws.
They're not taking shit off my iPod....everything in my iPod is also in the original CD on my shelf here at home...I buy the actual CD first, then put it on my iPod....fuck buying shit in files off itunes.

As far as the Kindle goes...I just like having books on my bookshelf, I don't want them in electronic format at the moment.
Yup,most of my reading material is through the library.. I'm not paying $30.00 for a book...Not happening..I will not use electronic books cause i do not trust the content providers any further than I can fling a bull elephant. Don't want to pay their prices either....I'd much rather have a book in my hand. With a book ,no worries about batteries or other problems it might have,such as having to upgrade it and the costs that will incur. And a paperback won't break if it accidentally falls off the couch or gets stepped on in the dark.
I destroyed (figuratively) my local library growing up. Singlehandedly kept me occupied on the weekends and kept me out of my mothers hair. I used to love to go to the library. I would even drag my sister there because I figured since I loved reading so much so would she.

Best thing the cities ever did imho, the public library system deserves a rejuvenation.
Not that it makes any difference in the outcome but Jeff Bezos who owns Amazon and the Kindle Bookstore had this to say today.

This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

With deep apology to our customers,

Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com


Here is the original post with comments.
His apology is irrelevant. The mere fact that a 3rd party has full administrative read/write/delete rights over your device is not acceptable, no matter how you dress it up. It's the same as leaving a copy of the keys to your house at the store when you buy a hard copy, "just in case there's some error we need to fix and so we don't need to bother you about it."
No. The article specifically addresses some publishers that limit both the number of attempts you can make to download the same file, and the number of devices you can copy it to. Exceeding either can set a disable flag. Exceeding these caps is not possible without circumventing DRM - which is a criminal offense in the US.
I'm waiting on my PADD personally.
"You can still buy paper copies to reread and resell. For how I use the Kindle, it works well."

I am glad you found a use for your kindle, I am sure I would love one as well, but why should I have to buy 2-3 copies of something I could have 1 copy of and use wherever I wanted to.

My big issue with DRM is that its ineffective and causes problems only those who buy DRM'd product. If it can be played or displayed on some electronic device, there is always some way to remove the copy protections, it has simply been true 100% of the time so far. DRM always seems to be about limiting rights to something the consumer has purchased in good faith.

Instead they should focus on what the consumer wants and sell them a good product at a decent price. One of the limits of my purchasing ability, has always been shelf space. Electronic files take up very little shelf space, and the space required is shrinking all the time. You figure that some smart person within certain groups would see that.

I want ebooks to be successful, I want movies, art, music to continue as well. I have a huge plethora of electronics and devices, all for the single purpose of providing me a way to enjoy copies of these great things. I would also like to be able to share what I like with others, as easy as the way I can take a book from my shelf and go to a friend and say "hey you should read this you might like it". Right now the way things are heading with copyright I might not even be able to do that anymore (I exaggerate but I don't see anything but this argument coming from the other-side). DRM is trying to prevent the sharing of information, which is something I don't believe in. DRM is not the answer, nor is total unrestricted piracy (which I am guilty of thank you bittorrent).

If I knew that by paying a decent fee to the artist/creator for something that they created, and it would give me access for my lifetime to any device I owned. Plus if I lost the file and didn't back it up (due to device failure) I could get it back no problem, I would purchase it if I liked it.

I make an active effort to support those companies and groups who understand this and try to work with the consumers. But I will never purchase a device or product that has DRM on it, where I can avoid it (damn you macrovision).
That is more than you are getting now with a paper copy or CD or DVD

Very true, but those copies I can freely share with my friends without feeling the wrath of "OMG that is stealing", and yes if I destroy or lose them they are gone forever, well not the DVD or CD since I can easily make a backup of them. I can even scan the book and make an electronic copy for myself. They seem to object to the fact that it is now so easy to do just that, by anyone who can do a simple Google search.

iTunes shows that people will buy, if you make it easy and cost effective to get the product, even without DRM. I have no idea what file sharing or the future of digital media will look like in 10 years, no one does. I also don't create art, music or film, but I do consume it, why don't they at least ask me what I would like instead of pushing copy protection after copy protection scheme down my throats.

So, they develop electronic protections just complicated enough to flummox the average consumer and pathetic enough to make sophisticated users laugh

Yes us sophisticated users laugh, so do the unsophisticated ones. I see people file sharing that don't know the first thing about the computer they are using other then how to get on the internet. They copy, download, upload all the time, a lot of times from their own library of purchases, because everything you need is only a mouse click away to do it for yourself. However they still purchase even though they can get it for free.

I do have an idealized view of what I would like my electronic purchasing world to look like, it is not necessarily what I would accept. I am more then willing to give and get, find an acceptable medium. But I don't accept DRM as part of that compromise because it doesn't seem to be a compromise at all, plus it makes criminals of ordinary everyday people.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service