A Leaked Contract Reveals that Amazon Insists on DRM

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by alansplace

The section in question:

"Unless we mutually agree otherwise, we will use DRM in
connection with the download of the eBooks, and we may use any
available digital book DRM technolog"

...simply says that the default is for Amazon to apply DRM. Hugh Howey is a prime example of no DRM on any of his Amazon distributed books.

"Amazon Insists on DRM" is codswallop!

Exactly.

It's the default, that's all it says. And that's the way it works when using KDP.

[latepaul]

You write a boilerplate for the most common case, saving time, that's its purpose. One can be agnostic about something that nevertheless has a prevailing opinion e.g. publishers wanting DRM.

Personally I'm agnostic on Bezos' agnosticism on this!

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Of course Bezos insisted on DRM. He doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from his site and use them with another device not made by his company.

All those other devices I can buy from amazon and install a kindle app on, you mean?

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

So many people have told me that I am wrong (including an engineer who has years of experience in negotiating contracts) that I am throwing in the towel.

At least you are willing to admit you might have called it wrong and aren't continuing to argue black is white immaterial of what everyone else thinks! That's quite refreshing.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Of course Bezos insisted on DRM. He doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from his site and use them with another device not made by his company. And he doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from another company and use them with device made by his company. He wants a closed system in which he can control everything.

He may not want people buying books elsewhere to read on a Kindle, but the fact that Kindle apps are available for many platforms suggests that he doesn't care what device you use.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Of course Bezos insisted on DRM. He doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from his site and use them with another device not made by his company. And he doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from another company and use them with device made by his company. He wants a closed system in which he can control everything.

I've bought plenty of DRM-free books from Amazon (usually small publishers or indies who understand that DRM is a bit pointless), and for those which aren't, there's always "Alf magic" anyway.

Originally Posted by avantman42

He may not want people buying books elsewhere to read on a Kindle, but the fact that Kindle apps are available for many platforms suggests that he doesn't care what device you use.

Quite probably something to do with them making very little money on the Kindles themselves and far more from content sales

[HarryT]

The author of this piece appears to be astoundingly ignorant of what boilerplate contracts actually are.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Quite probably something to do with them making very little money on the Kindles themselves and far more from content sales

I suspect that is exactly why :-)

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Even though that contract was specifically made so that I would go over to that second company, it still stated that the first company also had to agree. So, I think it's just a standard way to put such choices in a contract.

Yeah - it's just a thing with me and contracts. Having had to be part of several contract negotiations as an IT supplier I tend to zoom in on wording like that even though I know it's pretty common type of contract language.

I always get worried that somewhere down the track the laid back language turns into the hammer with which a client bludgeons you to death.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Of course Bezos insisted on DRM. He doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from his site and use them with another device not made by his company. And he doesn't want anybody to buy ebooks from another company and use them with device made by his company. He wants a closed system in which he can control everything.

He does this by first insisting on DRM and second by insisting on a proprietary format no other company uses.

This is why I refuse to buy Kindle Fire or any other tablets that use closed system in which one must buy apps from the device manufacturer in order to use them with the device. We are losing control with Kindle e-reader already and I don't want to buy another device where Amazon or Apple can pull the string on me.

He Doesn't insist on DRM. I've bought a lot of ebooks from Amazon without DRM and not just public domain books.

I've also bought a lot of ebooks from other sites like Baen that work just fine on all my kindles.

I don't even need a Amazon device to read them. There are a lot of free apps for computers, phones and non-amazon tablets that I can read them with.

It's hard to see how he could get more open as long as the publishers insist on DRM before they will allow him to sell their books. The publishers are the only ones that prevent an open system. Well if all DRM was removed by the publishers device makers would still have to program the ability to read Mobi files on their devices as well as epub and txt, ect. Easy enough to do if they wanted. Or people could just use calibre to convert formats, also easy.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

All those other devices I can buy from amazon and install a kindle app on, you mean?

Yes, and also all those other devices that you can buy from other places and install a kindle app on. I don't think I've ever bought a device from Amazon (certainly not a device on which I read) yet I have the Kindle app on all my devices (on which I read).

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by latepaul

You write a boilerplate for the most common case, saving time, that's its purpose. One can be agnostic about something that nevertheless has a prevailing opinion e.g. publishers wanting DRM.

Personally I'm agnostic on Bezos' agnosticism on this!

Or sometimes you write boilerplate for the most comprehensive case. Of course my assumption is that if DRM isn't specified in the contract then DRM won't be applied to the book. Maybe I'm wrong. If that's the case (non-specification means Amazon uses DRM) then DRM is the default. Otherwise the default is no DRM & the most comprehensive case specifies that it will be used, hence its inclusion in the boilerplate contract.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by alansplace

You're, IMHO, paraphrasing Jeff Bezos inaccurately. He (according to the article) actually says:

“If the rights owner wants DRM, we do DRM. If the rights owner doesn’t want DRM, we don’t do DRM.”

Which leaves out what they do when the rights holder doesn't care. In which case, based on the boiler plate, they take a pro DRM stance.

Allowing the publisher to have the final say in DRM or not is perfectly fine, but when the publisher doesn't care, it'd be much better for consumers if Amazon didn't apply DRM. Their current drm as the default, is not a pro-consumer stance and they've been quite careful whenever they discuss DRM to not mention their default stance is pro DRM unless the publisher requests a non-drm contract.

IMHO, a person could legitimately imply from the above quote that the "rights owner" is assumed to "want DRM" if they don't state that they don't want DRM.

Or that they want drm free if they don't state that they want drm

What the publisher asks for isn't really the issue, Amazon's default stance when the publisher doesn't care, is. However, it's not really a big problem, as long as publisher that don't want DRM can sell their books as easily as those who do on Amazon, then it's a case of pressuring individual publishers.

The most annoying issue imo is when Amazon removed the ability to see which books were DRM free.

[TheSFReader]

Actually, we don't know how it relates to a publisher's wishes to have (or have no) DRMs, since this contract is not between a publisher and Amazon, but between a distributor and Amazon.

This contract's specifies in no way that the publisher gets a say on DRMs, nor that the distributor gets what he asks for if he asks against DRMs.

Moreso, the Publisher has NO way to know, if DRMs are put, where they come from, since the Distributor may not tell him about the contract's content.


I'd say (but I'm quite partial on the subject) that this almost guarantees ebooks managed by this distributor, to be sold with DRMs.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by l_macd

At least you are willing to admit you might have called it wrong and aren't continuing to argue black is white immaterial of what everyone else thinks! That's quite refreshing.

I don't have a principle to defend and I don't have an example to point at so i don't really have much of a case.