The Danger of E-books by RMS

[rogue_librarian]

Thus speaks Richard Stallman:

In an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws, every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us are used to chain us instead. With printed books,

• You can buy one with cash, anonymously.
• Then you own it.
• You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of it.
• The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read the book.
• You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it's sometimes lawful under copyright.
• Nobody has the power to destroy your book.

Contrast that with Amazon ebooks (fairly typical):

• Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an ebook.
• In some countries, Amazon says the user does not own the ebook.
• Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of the ebook.
• The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software can read it at all.
• To copy the ebook is impossible due to Digital Restrictions Management in the player and prohibited by the license, which is more restrictive than copyright law.
• Amazon can remotely delete the ebook using a back door. It used this back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George Orwell's 1984.

Even one of these infringements makes ebooks a step backward from printed books. We must reject ebooks until they respect our freedom. The ebook companies say denying our traditional freedoms is necessary to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system does a lousy job of that; it is much better suited to supporting those companies. We can support authors better n other ways that don't require curtailing our freedom, and even legalize sharing.

Two methods I've suggested are:

• To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each author's popularity.
• See http://stallman.org/articles/interne...icense.en.html
• To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments.

Ebooks need not attack our freedom, but they will if companies get to decide. It's up to us to stop them. The fight has already started.

---

He makes a few good points, I think, although he's a tad too radical for my taste (as always :-)

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

He makes a few good points, I think, although he's a tad too radical for my taste (as always :-)

Yep.. Richard is the Open Source version of Giggles...

[HarryT]

An extreme viewpoint from a well-known extremist.

[Giggleton]

I agree with most of what Stallman has to say, but I do not think we should reject ebooks. We should obtain our ebooks through indirect methods until the direct methods provide a more just method for supporting authors.

I do like this aspect of his internet sharing license,

"The most obvious method is to compute each artist's share in direct proportion to her work's popularity. (Popularity can be measured by inviting 100,000 randomly chosen people to provide the lists of the works they have played.) That's what "compensate the rights holders" proposals typically do. But that method of distribution is not very effective for promoting the arts, because a large fraction of the funds would go to the few superstars, who are already rich or at least comfortable, leaving little money to support all the artists who really need it."

I've advocated for randomized lists of content users to gauge what should be promoted on a content distribution system, it feels like it could work. He's talking about music here, and it seems that levy's could probably be more easily computed directly in the user's music player. Although the potential for abuse is still there as always(music player bots playing songs over and over) For that we would need an end to anonymity(one player per person), which goes against Stallman's first point I suppose. If everyone knows what everyone else is doing, I think we would be allright.

But for books it is a bit different. Sometimes we read a book and say that book was not good... Should the author still be compensated for such a book?

[speakingtohe]

But for books it is a bit different. Sometimes we read a book and say that book was not good... Should the author still be compensated for such a book?

An obvious benefit of the internet is that you can usually read a part of the book before buying.

I am not aware of any physical bookstores that refund your money if the book is not to your liking. Please enlighten me.

Helen

[AJ Starr]

We must reject ebooks until they respect our freedom

Easy..........don't buy from Amazon.........

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by AJ Starr

Quote:
We must reject ebooks until they respect our freedom
Easy..........don't buy from Amazon.........

It's not an Amazon issue, it's a DRM issue, as I suspect Stallman knows (note that he used Amazon as an example, and noted that they were "fairly typical")

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

An obvious benefit of the internet is that you can usually read a part of the book before buying.

A more obvious benefit of the internet is that you can read an entire book before buying and send that book to everyone you know so that they can read the entire book before buying.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An extreme viewpoint from a well-known extremist.

Fits in well around here.

[twowheels]

What makes his viewpoints extremist?

Perhaps during the times of women's suffrage it was a good thing that people could read books w/o fear of reprisal? Perhaps those reading books about the rights of blacks? Perhaps those reading books about atheism or Chrisitanity in radical Islamic countries would appreciate that anonymity today? We know that the Kindle keeps a lot of what we read, and we know/suspect that it's available to Amazon, and thus, with pressure, available to the authorities. While I currently have no fear of that information being misused, what's to protect me if the political climate changes?

As for the ownership issues... those are all valid concerns that have been discussed 100 times over around here. Until those are addressed or we accept that we're merely renting the book for a single user (or those in their family using the same account) then his points still have merit.

[OtterBooks]

"Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an ebook."

It's fairly typical to identify yourself when buying things online, yeah.

The points are mostly valid. Citing Amazon as the source/cause of those issues is misleading. Even just using them as an example, which he makes no real effort to reveal, is misleading since most of the issues stem from publisher rights.

[covingtoncat73]

Yeah, I love reading on my Kobo but I would feel that deleting an eBook would be akin to buring a pBook to get rid of it. As has been noted, you can donate an old pBook to your local friends of the library for their booksale, sell it yourself, or give it to a friend/family member. This is much more satisfactory.

Also, my eBooks aren't exactly going to be passed down to my nephew. However, I appreciate the light, one-handed nature of reading on the Kobo and being able to buy books instantly online. Not to mention the space-saving. As someone who will always live in a small house or apartment, I need to save the space. I have given pBooks to FOL, Goodwill, my cousins, my brother, etc. Sometimes I hate to do it is a necessity.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I agree with most of what Stallman has to say, but I do not think we should reject ebooks. We should obtain our ebooks through indirect methods until the direct methods provide a more just method for supporting authors.

Which is to say, you advocate theft. Nothing new there.

Stallman is a wingnut. He used to be relevant, to some degree, but he went off the rails some years ago, and no longer matters.

Half of his points are only vaguely true to begin with, and he, of course, ignores the things you can do with an ebook that you cannot do with a paper book, like store a thousand of them in your shirt pocket, do full text searches, and so on. He's right up your alley.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by twowheels

What makes his viewpoints extremist?

If you knew his views....

Generally speaking he believes all software and intellectual property should be free of all restrictions, and he carries this to a radical extreme. E.g. the FSF categorically refuses to use any proprietary software, except for the purpose of creating an open / free alternative.

The problem really isn't as much with the positions as with Stallman's attitude, e.g. insisting that he should get credit for Linux, refusal to compromise on any points, general lack of tact and political savvy etc.

In this particular case, it's just that he ignores the DRM-free commercial alternatives and offers a slightly wacky alternative and essentially unworkable concepts.

[Namekuseijin]

for a man of such importance and influence in the software world, Stallman is incredibly luddite. He doesn't use cell phones either. Here's how he reads web pages: he runs a script that fetches the page and mails it to him. That's paranoia, not sensible reasoning. I used to veneer the guy, now it just makes me sad to think of him.

I take it he tired of making actual contributions in software and now just tirades in his utopic crusade for freedom.