Study: As E-Readers Increase, So Does Resistance

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

No, it's the purchase of license. Don't confuse one misleading idea with another misleading idea.

Fine. And is it in any way fair that DRM makes that license dependent on the continued existence of the bookseller?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Fine. And is it in any way fair that DRM makes that license dependent on the continued existence of the bookseller?

Not at all. It's one of the big reasons I'm against it. But it irks me when people make a big issue of the word 'buy' as if changing the word would fix the problems, and then use another incorrect word in it's place. It misdirects from the real issue.

[QuantumIguana]

That people aren't buying an e-reader doesn't mean that they are resisting e-readers. It simply means that they aren't buying them. I don't have a tablet computer, but that doesn't mean I am resisting them: I'm not an opponent of tablet computers.

I have a Kindle, but I don't really care if people have a Kindle vs. some other reader, I don't care if people read e-books or paper books, I don't care of people read at all. I don't want to get caught up in "team Kindle", or "team e-book". Other readers may work as well, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both paper books and e-books, and it isn't for me to decide for anyone else.

That DRM doesn't bother you doesn't make it a red herring. Buying a second reader to get around DRM doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by carld

I agree, DRM is a red herring, as are a lot of other complaints about the "complications" of ereaders. Buy a Kindle or a Nook, buy your books from Amazon or B&N, the way most of the general public does, and you'll hardly ever think about DRM or ebook "complications" again.

If you want to make things more complicated than that, well that's up to you.

*sigh* DRM is not a red herring.

DRM is an infestation that corrupts my ebook files.

Once you know something, you cannot un-know it. I already know that DRM is bothersome to me and is a pretty effective pair of golden handcuffs.

[QuantumIguana]

Saying that DRM is a red herring indicates a couple things: 1) that someone can't understand that something that isn't a problem to them might be to someone else and 2) a lack of understanding of what the term 'red herring' means.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by =X=

That and addition to the schools resistance to accept electronic gadgets--up until recently teachers did not allow kindles/nooks in class.

This drives me nuts... I bought a K3 for my daughter, and she carried it to school every day through sixth grade. Then, with the school change that goes along with 7th grade she's no longer allowed to take it to school -- they're explicitly forbidden. It sits almost completely unused now because she doesn't want to be constrained -- if she starts a book at home and wants to continue, she wants to be able to take it to school. Stupid schools.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

No, it's the purchase of license. Don't confuse one misleading idea with another misleading idea.

I'm unwilling to substitute my rights to own property for a "license". Pretty soon a DVD will have a disclaimer on it that says "this is only a license". Or a car - "You don't own this car, but only a limited license in which to operate this vehicle as GM sees fit". All because of a shrink-wrapped EULA or something. This methodology is being used to undermine our property ownership rights.

Maybe it's because I am a history geek. Maybe I've had too many American history classes. But giving up my right to own property and to have rights associated with that cannot be removed just by calling everything a "license".

Pretending everything is just a limited "license" and restricting our right to use our property is a key part of how they keep getting away with DRM.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I'm unwilling to substitute my rights to own property for a "license". Pretty soon a DVD will have a disclaimer on it that says "this is only a license". Or a car - "You don't own this car, but only a limited license in which to operate this vehicle as GM sees fit". All because of a shrink-wrapped EULA or something. This methodology is being used to undermine our property ownership rights.

Maybe it's because I am a history geek. Maybe I've had too many American history classes. But giving up my right to own property and to have rights associated with that cannot be removed just by calling everything a "license".

Pretending everything is just a limited "license" and restricting our right to use our property is a key part of how they keep getting away with DRM.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Karma inbound. I find it very disturbing how many people misunderstand something so simple.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I'm unwilling to substitute my rights to own property for a "license".

You never had any rights to any ebook, any movie, any IP, other than what the creator and the law gave you. Having someone make content for you to consume is not a natural right.

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Pretty soon a DVD will have a disclaimer on it that says "this is only a license".

They ALREADY DO SAY THAT! Always have. You're not buying the movie or the software on that DVD! You're licensing the right to use it privately with many restrictions. You own the piece of polycarbonate, you don't own the content.

Or a car - "You don't own this car

By your logic, you don't. Once all the oil is gone and there is no more gas, that care is useless to you, unless you hack it...so you must be "renting it from the oil companies" right?

Nonsense.

There are terms and restrictions and limits of some kind on almost everything. Don't try to redefine reality just because you happen to dislike the particular terms on a particular kind of thing. Just work to get the terms fixed.

Maybe it's because I am a history geek. Maybe I've had too many American history classes. But giving up my right to own property and to have rights associated with that cannot be removed just by calling everything a "license".

Pretending everything is just a limited "license" and restricting our right to use our property is a key part of how they keep getting away with DRM.

Should have worked some civics and law classes in between your history classes. IP laws are here because we want them to be. Like with many things, some forces have swung the pendulum way too far (I think) to one side's favor in those laws, and we need to swing it back, but not by acting like we're suddenly surprised that we license IP.

ApK

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Pretending everything is just a limited "license" and restricting our right to use our property is a key part of how they keep getting away with DRM.

Massive karma for you on that one.

[QuantumIguana]

You aren't talking about reality, you are talking about an artificial construct.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I used to feel that way Catlady, but I have changed my mind. I want the books that I want to read, and I want them free & clear of drm. The add-ons to Calibre make it so simple, that I don't mind spending an hour or so de-infecting them up and converting them if needed so that I can put them in my Elibrary forever!

Quite frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ about the legality of the removal of drm. 1. No one is going to know about it. 2. I don't care what they say, if I paid for it, it is MINE! Since I'm not going to sell it, upload it, or even give it away. I will do whatever I have to to make sure it's stays in my possession!

Well said; I agree wholeheartedly. I don't pirate, but the books I've paid for are mine, to read on whatever reader I've bought in the past or will choose to buy in the future. And I don't want my library tied to the fortunes of any one company. DRM only hurts the legal consumer, not the pirates.

[CazMar]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I'm unwilling to substitute my rights to own property for a "license". Pretty soon a DVD will have a disclaimer on it that says "this is only a license". Or a car - "You don't own this car, but only a limited license in which to operate this vehicle as GM sees fit". All because of a shrink-wrapped EULA or something. This methodology is being used to undermine our property ownership rights.

.....

Pretending everything is just a limited "license" and restricting our right to use our property is a key part of how they keep getting away with DRM.

Yep - if I wanted to buy a "license" then I would do so. I buy, I own. So why do Amazon etc say "buy a book"? Surely this is misleading advertising, they should say "buy a book license".

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by CazMar

Yep - if I wanted to buy a "license" then I would do so. I buy, I own. So why do Amazon etc say "buy a book"? Surely this is misleading advertising, they should say "buy a book license".

Good point.

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yeah, life is never complicated for sheep. Just follow along with the herd ...

I'm sorry to say this, but that is one of the most insulting posts I've seen here at Mobileread. If you disagree with a post, disagree on substance.