Analyzing Amazon's E-Book Loan Agreement 214
conel writes "The Economist has a knowledgeable mainstream take on the restrictions publishers are forcing on e-books. From the article: 'They wish you to engage in two separate hallucinations. First, that their limited license to read a work on a device or within software of their choosing is equivalent to the purchase of a physical item. Second, that the vast majority of e-books are persistent objects rather than disposable culture. ... Just as with music, DRM will be cracked. As more people possess portable reading devices, the demand and availability for pirated content will also rise. (Many popular e-books can now be found easily on file-sharing sites, something that was not the case even a few months ago, as Adrian Hon recently pointed out.)"
Re:eBook piracy (Score:5, Informative)
or listening to the classics [librivox.org].
Re:What's wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
it doesn't make much sense to build in the ability to give unlimited copies to everyone
What you don't seem to understand is that B&N's lending policy doesn't come remotely close to this -- in fact, it doesn't remotely come close to what you can do with a printed book. If I give the book to you, you can keep it as long as it takes you to finish reading it -- no need to return it in 14 days. If you want to borrow it again next year, you can ask me and I'll probably let you. In fact, I might just tell you to keep it, in which case you own it now, and you could loan it to other people or pass it along, too. I could also loan it to someone other than you, if I chose to keep it.
None of this is possible with the B&N e-reader loan policy. With a Nook, I can loan the book to you once. You can only have it for 14 days, after which it disappears from your Nook and reappears on mine. And from that moment forward, I can never lend it to anyone ever again. Not to you, not to anyone else. And that's that. That is a far, far cry from what people expect when they purchase a book.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
It's a one time 14 day loan, you can't loan the same book twice. That's absurd.
If it were just a 14 day loan it would be a bit ridiculous, but not completely unacceptable.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen that suggestion several times. And it sounds just as stupid every time. You're not lending a READER when you let someone borrow your kindle/nook/whatever, you're lending your ENTIRE LIBRARY. If I buy a book, I can lend the book. That's the end of the story. I am perfectly fine with the fact that book lent out can't be read by me - that's fine. What I don't appreciate being told is how long the loan is, who is "allowed" to be lent the book, and "if" I'm allowed to lend the book.
Re:One publisher seems to have a clue... (Score:1, Informative)
The Vorkosigan books by Lois McMaster Bujold are ones I like.
All of the Baen CDs can be downloaded (legally, even) from here:
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
The most recent CD (#24 - Cryoburn) has, I think, all of the
Vorkosigan books to date.
The Honor Harrington series by David Weber is also available, on
some of the other CDs.
It's worth noting that the CDs contain books that aren't yet
available on Baen's website.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't say nothing would change. There would be fewer employed lawyers, and some of the conglomerates who have divisions that do nothing but own other people's intellectual property would probably go out of business.
But music would still be sold, books would still be sold. Movies would still be sold.
That's not true. People pay for books they could easily take out of the library for free. I commonly pay for music that I could download for free.