Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty1024
Amazon? Amazon doesn't own the content: the Right's Holder's do. Amazon is undoubtably acting due to contractual obligations they took upon themselves when they agreed to distribute and collect money for the digital works.
As with iTunes: Apple was not the enemy, DRM came off when the Rights Holders allowed it to happen.
Bashing Amazon here accomplishes nothing except releasing useless heat and light. Tor, Doubleday, Random House... please take the battle to the real supporters of DRM.
|
Too often being critical is equated to 'bashing' or some equivalent. Folks here are being critical of Amazon's action in this regard, as is their right, and in fact, their responsibility if they're concerned consumers.
Apple isn't the best example, primarily because they were about the only company that was providing a DRM-based music product. When Amazon provided DRM-free versions of the same songs being sold with DRM on iTunes, we saw that the decision wasn't solely based on the music producers.
Even then, you could make versions of the iTunes DRM-music for playing on any device, and rip CDs, legally, to put on iTunes.
In this case, what Amazon is saying, in effect, is that the company is not allowing DRM-protected books purchased elsewhere on the Kindle. If we're using an Apple analogy, it would be same as saying you can only use Apple created software on a Mac. Now, does that sound reasonable to you?
The tool does not crack or remove the DRM. It does not violate copyright. It allows owners of legally purchased books to read those books on their legally purchased reading devices. No where does it enable one to make DRM-free versions of the book for streaming on Pirate Bay.
It's really equivalent to being able to buy MP3 music at Amazon, and be able to load it into itunes, and hence to our iPods. If Steve Jobs came out with his lawyers and told people no, you can't play your Amazon purchased music on our music devices, would you be as quick to defend Apple?