Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Why do you think B&N is innocent when B&N is clearly in the wrong.
Let's say I go to Kobo.com and download a free eBook in ePub. The ADE setup I have works with that eBook that has DRM. So I know my setup is good to go. It works. I can read the eBook on my 505. I can buy ePub now. Then I go to B&N and find they have ePub. Great, I can buy from B&N too. So I buy and cannot use the eBook I just bought. B&N is at fault for not telling me up front that I cannot use any ePub eBooks from them with my 505.
The problem here is B&N's. No other eBook format has multiple DRM for the same format. So why would the average person have to research B&N's ePub first? They would not know there is a second DRM now for ePub. It's B&N's job to tell them in the eBook's listing that it uses a different DRM then what other DRMed ePub does. B&N didn't meet their obligations. B&N is the one who should be informing the public. It's not the public that has to research ePub just because of B&N. And in my sample above, what was done should have been enough research if B&N was upfront and honest.
|
Your logic is off - The first thing I check is if my device is listed as compatible. You said in another post that B&N would not list a competitors device - again I disagree. It would be to B&N benefit to sell books to more people regardless of what device they had. Had their intention been not to, then the would not have entered into an agreement with Adobe where their social DRM would be available to all.
B&N from the start has been looking to get its ereader application on more devices - this fact forced Kindle to open up some.
Knowing that B&N sells DRM'd books that use your name and CC number to open, if you download a book that does not prompt you for this information at least once then there is no DRM on the book.
I see your argument as the same as the McDonalds Hot Coffee claim - they never told me that hot coffee was hot!