Amazon, B&N, Kobo: iOS aps to be pulled in June

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is immoral. And it is like theft from the author since you avoid re-buying the book for another device.

Yeah, but you're allowed 5 or 6 devices on most DRM schemes.

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Nobody has directly mentioned the real reason one cannot read DRM EPUB and DRM MOBI/Amazon on the same dedicated reader device. It is the owners of the DRM scheme used that prevent devices from supporting multiple DRM schemes. Adobe and the old MOBI were both at fault for this situation. MOBI would not allow a device maker to license their DRM unless it was exclusive and Adobe took the same position with their DRM, ADE which is currently used in a HUGE number of titles.

As far as I know, it all boils down to Mobi doing that. From what I remember, Mobi's Terms of use prevents this from happening, not ADE's. Also, Amazon has been the owner of Mobipocket since 2005. Point the finger at Amazon.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, yes. But I actually think it is more immoral to buy ebooks and remove DRM than downloading a "problematic" copy. It is like accepting and supporting a corrupt and immoral system. But that is just my opinons and I am aware that most people do not share these opinions.

If it's not too off topic, compared to the two options above, where on your own morality spectrum would you place working to get the policies and/or laws involved changed and simply not consuming the book in question until you succeed?

Also, how can you be sure the "problematic" copy you downlaoded was not orginally sourced from that same immoral system?

ApK

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Yeah, but you're allowed 5 or 6 devices on most DRM schemes.

I did not know the other schemes were the same, basically, as Amazon's. That's nice.

As an OT note, when I had my Touch 4, they limit the total number of Audible accounts you can have activated in iTunes or was it on your device? Maybe it was on the device itself. So you can only have content from 2-accounts on any one of your devices at any given time. We have either four or five accounts and share content via our MP3 players. Don't know if it's an Audible limit or Apple but it is an example of a very frustrating effect from DRM. Of course Audible needs to rework their whole site and system, again, to something closer to how Amazon has the "Manage your Kindle" section. At least now we can link our Audible and Amazon accounts which is nice.

As far as I know, it all boils down to Mobi doing that. From what I remember, Mobi's Terms of use prevents this from happening, not ADE's. Also, Amazon has been the owner of Mobipocket since 2005. Point the finger at Amazon.

did I botch that memory? Could be that was the case. I din't verify the issue when I posted but I do seem to recall that Adobe has the same or at least similar policy. Yet oddly enough no matter what the DRM in question, it's only for dedicated reading devices not general purpose devices. I suppose that part was or still is about, oh heck who knows anymore.

I will try and dig into that later today because I wanna know for sure don't know why but just do is all.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, yes. But I actually think it is more immoral to buy ebooks and remove DRM than downloading a "problematic" copy. It is like accepting and supporting a corrupt and immoral system. But that is just my opinons and I am aware that most people do not share these opinions.

I agree with you on this point. If you purchase a DRM infected book you are contributing to travesty.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I agree with you on this point. If you purchase a DRM infected book you are contributing to travesty.

Personally, if we were talking about necessity items produced in child-labor sweatshops, I'd agree, but IMO an inconvenient business policy limiting ones luxury media consumption does not morally justify civil disobedience.

ApK

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, yes. But I actually think it is more immoral to buy ebooks and remove DRM than downloading a "problematic" copy. It is like accepting and supporting a corrupt and immoral system.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I agree with you on this point. If you purchase a DRM infected book you are contributing to travesty.

The problem is that DRM is not illegal so you have to bend over backwards to justify that downloading "problematic" copies is moral. Even if the usage of DRM is unethical. The really moral approach - if one is not satisfied with the current situation - would be to form interest group for e-book customers and confront booksellers and lobby for rendering DRM illegal.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ApK

Personally, if we were talking about necessity items produced in child-labor sweatshops, I'd agree, but IMO an inconvenient business policy limiting ones luxury media consumption does not morally justify civil disobedience.

I don't see DRM removal as civil disobedience; I see it as merely using the product you bought in the way you paid for.

But I also see it as voting with my wallet in favor of DRM-locked ebooks. A publisher would just know that I'm buying them, not what I'm doing afterwards. From a publisher's standpoint, they look at the numbers: "We sold 1234 DRM-locked copies of such-and-such a book this quarter." I'm not going to make that 1235.

To some extent, this means I still buy pbooks when I could have bought ebooks of certain titles. But then again, I'm a cheapskate anyway, and when faced with $7.99 for a pbook or $10+ for an ebook, I'll find the shelf space. Mostly, though, it's led to a shift in reading: I'm buying more books from DRM-free publishers like Baen, I'm finding more interesting authors whose books I hadn't read before on Smashwords, BeWrite, etc., and I'm catching up on classics I've always meant to read.

And for the people who say "if readers can get books without DRM, they'll just copy them and never buy another book" ... well, I'm fond of Robert E. Howard. I have several of his novels in the illustrated Zebra editions. I also have the Cosmos collection, because the paperbacks are a handy size. And I've been lovingly collecting the Del Rey trade paperbacks -- the latest one just hit the bookstores a couple of weeks ago -- of his complete works. Plus, of course, I have electronic versions on my ebook reader, conveniently available from ManyBooks. (and there's a nice all-in-one-volume Conan collection I've had to force myself not to buy, because it's big, and I can't justify expending shelf space on a book I have at least twice in paper already) No, I don't claim most people do things that way. I'm not entirely sane when it comes to collectible books. But it does happen.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I don't see DRM removal as civil disobedience; I see it as merely using the product you bought in the way you paid for.

I was referring to the "downloading a 'problematic' copy'" as civil disobedience.
I couldn't see DRM removal for space-shifting as civil disobedience because I don't see it as illegal at all, and recent court decisions are supporting that. But that is a topic for another thread. Dozens of them actually.

ApK

[snipenekkid]

I don't give a crap about DRM one way or another. What should matter to everyone is actually interoperability. That is the true issue with DRM. I have zero issue with publishers wanting to protect, however misguided it might be, their product and revenue. Yes, I get it, DRM really is pointless, fine I don't flipping care. But it does matter that DRM can and is currently used in several cases to lock people into a platform for reading.

One thing that made the iPad, Touch and even iPhone very attractive to us readers is the ability to read everything on one device or on all the devices a person wants to use daily. But if that is taken out of play on the iOS platform then it's just not of interest to many readers who used that very logic to buy into the platform.

Now comes Apple into the mix looking very much like they are considering a power play to use the iOS platform to steal customers from other companies using what amounts to a bait-n-switch. And they seem to be attempting to use the claim the clause was always there even if they did approve apps and did not enforce that particular clause (the in-app thing) so it was at Apple's pleasure the other suddenly non-complying apps are likely to be considered non-compliant and either must pay or be gone. But now Apple is looking to do what Apple does and that is lock their customers into ONLY their platform for content with yet another platform locked DRM scheme.

I do not see how anyone can defend Apple in the whole cash grab while claiming other platforms are locking them out in the face of Apple's own DRM that can ONLY be read in iBooks.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ApK

I was referring to the "downloading a 'problematic' copy'" as civil disobedience.
I couldn't see DRM removal for space-shifting as civil disobedience because I don't see it as illegal at all, and recent court decisions are supporting that. But that is a topic for another thread. Dozens of them actually.

ApK

Exactly. I'm allowed to make whatever copies I want for my personal use completely legally. Removing the DRM impediment allows me to do that.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is that Apple (and Android) allow the booksellers to access the books on those platforms (Not sure about Blackberry).
Amazon, Kobo, B&N do not allow Ibooks on their devices. Dunno why that is, but there is an imbalance there.
Despite that , there are a lot of iOS devices out there. I would agree that Apple is not dominant now, but it is a major player.
AS is clear (except to those who don't want to admit), iOS is in a sense a more open platform than the one most favored here.

This argument is completely spurious for a few reasons, firstly those devices are being sold as a single-function device and not using a wide range of apps as a prominent advertising feature.

Secondly there is nothing stopping apple doing a version of ibooks for any other multifunction device such as android, playbook, webos or even a desktop version and they have chosen not to do so. They haven't even got a version for osx so they clearly have no interest in ibooks being more open and any claim otherwise is simply laughable.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Yeah, but you're allowed 5 or 6 devices on most DRM schemes.

I was more thinking about when the DRM-provider disappear which have happened regularly and no new devices can be registered.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ApK

If it's not too off topic, compared to the two options above, where on your own morality spectrum would you place working to get the policies and/or laws involved changed and simply not consuming the book in question until you succeed?

Working to get laws changed are not morally problematic at all. So it does not fall under the same scale.

Also, how can you be sure the "problematic" copy you downlaoded was not orginally sourced from that same immoral system?

You can never know but you have not contributed any money in support of the system and hopefully just one person have bought the book.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ApK

Personally, if we were talking about necessity items produced in child-labor sweatshops, I'd agree, but IMO an inconvenient business policy limiting ones luxury media consumption does not morally justify civil disobedience.

I am not sure about that. I think that accepting DRM and thinking in these kind of terms can lead to very bad consequences. Child-labour is a more local problem and have no great potential for globally bad consequences.

I believe accepting DRM is just one step on the slippery slope to loosing net neutrality and so on.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by tompe

Working to get laws changed are not morally problematic at all.

I think this is exactly what was meant.

I think too that the relevant laws should be changed. I wonder why a strong initiative to represent the interests of e-book customers does not exist.