B&N removed download option on all books in "My Nook" library

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Methinks they are secure from myriads of potential new customers now.






In other words: if the ask for a $h!tstorm give them their harvest.

Yep. We can't let them get away with this or others could follow like Kobo going all kepub again.

What's really hilarious is Amazon is introducing a feature to share accounts. Yes that's right we will be able to link accounts sharing content including Prime benefits on all 2014 Kindle devices.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Blossom

What's really hilarious is Amazon is introducing a feature to share accounts. Yes that's right we will be able to link accounts sharing content including Prime benefits on all 2014 Kindle devices.

I don't know how long Amazon thinks it can get away with adding user benefits instead of taking them away like they're supposed to be doing.

It's no excuse, of course (especially for the stealth implementation); but part of me wonders if B&N's hand wasn't forced by publishers in this regard. And rather than trying to explain to those idiots how easily these new "security" measures could be circumvented (since all present devices still NEED to be able to download the files--hence the reason for only removing the download links, and not the actual files being served), they chose to make the token effort to appease them.

They'd need to push firmware updates to all Nooks if they wanted to change the location or download method for those files. Not to say that they couldn't very well be heading down that path eventually, but... man! I just can't imagine anyone thinking this stealth-move made sense.

[rjbooks]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

There's an install button in the upper right. Or just swap userscripts-mirror for userscripts for the link:
http://userscripts-mirror.org/script...152985.user.js

Thank you, it's installed and working.

[Barcey]

Well the move is consistent with the brand recognition they started last year.


Both Amazon and Apple are moving to allow family sharing and from what I understand the way they are restricting how large a 'family' would be is by making them share a credit card. Ironically this is what B&N was already doing.

This sounds all to similar to the new Adobe DRM, right down to the 'security' reason. I suspect that one or more of the major publishers are cracking the whip on DRM that has known exploits and B&N management isn't smart enough to tell them that their buggy whip is obsolete.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't know how long Amazon thinks it can get away with adding user benefits instead of taking them away like they're supposed to be doing.

It's no excuse, of course (especially for the stealth implementation); but part of me wonders if B&N's hand wasn't forced by publishers in this regard. And rather than trying to explain to those idiots how easily these new "security" measures could be circumvented (since all present devices still NEED to be able to download the files--hence the reason for only removing the download links, and not the actual files being served), they chose to make the token effort to appease them.

They'd need to push firmware updates to all Nooks if they wanted to change the location or download method for those files. Not to say that they couldn't very well be heading down that path eventually, but... man! I just can't imagine anyone thinking this stealth-move made sense.

I was wondering (without any actual evidence, of course) if they might be trying to impress some investors as a way of selling off the Nook part of the business. As in, "See? It's more secure, now, so your money will be safe."

[Marcy]

I chatted support and said I don't have wi-fi so I no longer can access my books. Not really true as I do have wi-fi and already have them all alfed, but still there have to be people in that situation. Their solution was for me to drive to a B&N store whenever I want to add a book to my nook and use their wi-fi.

Even if they reverse this policy I will never, ever buy an ebook from B&N again since I don't trust them to not remove access to "my" book.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't know how long Amazon thinks it can get away with adding user benefits instead of taking them away like they're supposed to be doing.

It's no excuse, of course (especially for the stealth implementation); but part of me wonders if B&N's hand wasn't forced by publishers in this regard. And rather than trying to explain to those idiots how easily these new "security" measures could be circumvented (since all present devices still NEED to be able to download the files--hence the reason for only removing the download links, and not the actual files being served), they chose to make the token effort to appease them.

They'd need to push firmware updates to all Nooks if they wanted to change the location or download method for those files. Not to say that they couldn't very well be heading down that path eventually, but... man! I just can't imagine anyone thinking this stealth-move made sense.

I also think it was the publishers pushing them to do this.

I wonder how many people who buy at B&N don't own a Nook? Those people won't be buying at B&N anymore if it's made difficult for them. I wouldn't think they can afford to lose any customers even if it's not a large number.

[Blossom]

Let's not point the finger at publishers without knowing all the facts. It's wrong to let B&N off the hook and try to justify why they did it. If I had a finger to point at someone other than them it would be Microsoft not the publishers but I truly believe this is a in house decision to try and stop sharing which is just silly and move to a cloud only system. I bet soon you will have to be online to read books through their apps.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Let's not point the finger at publishers without knowing all the facts. It's wrong to let B&N off the hook and try to justify why they did it. If I had a finger to point at someone other than them it would be Microsoft not the publishers but I truly believe this is a in house decision to try and stop sharing which is just silly and move to a cloud only system. I bet soon you will have to be online to read books through their apps.

I agree. Even if it should turn out to be a decision by the publishers B&N aren't lily white on the deal as they could have posted something to let their customers know what was coming up. A business depends on its customers and anything that causes customers to go elsewhere is something that a business should avoid.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Let's not point the finger at publishers without knowing all the facts. It's wrong to let B&N off the hook and try to justify why they did it.

That's why I started with; "It's no excuse, of course, but..."

If I had a finger to point at someone other than them it would be Microsoft not the publishers

I don't quite follow. If you mean because their server platform is Microsoft, that doesn't really make sense. The files are still there and accessible. Just as vulnerable to any perceived "security" risk as they ever were.

As I said, I've no intention of trying to absolve B&N of any wrong-doing, but we know that some publishers are pushing for stricter DRM and tighter control. It's not much of leap at all to think they might have a bit of a hand in this.

But fear not! I've posted my objections to their tactics (as well as my good-byes) on Nook's FB page and Twitter accounts. I wouldn't think to discourage anyone from doing the same.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Let's not point the finger at publishers without knowing all the facts. It's wrong to let B&N off the hook and try to justify why they did it. If I had a finger to point at someone other than them it would be Microsoft not the publishers but I truly believe this is a in house decision to try and stop sharing which is just silly and move to a cloud only system. I bet soon you will have to be online to read books through their apps.

Well put. I think that, given their history of bad decisions, there is no reason to look any further than their management. If any others were involved, it will no doubt come out in due course.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree. Even if it should turn out to be a decision by the publishers B&N aren't lily white on the deal as they could have posted something to let their customers know what was coming up. A business depends on its customers and anything that causes customers to go elsewhere is something that a business should avoid.

I remember when Harlequin converted to strictly epub. We was given a advance notice to download our books as before a deadline as some books may not change over. B&N did none of this they just stripped us of access without any warning. Even books stores that closed on us most gave us fair warning. I have a feeling when they do close it will be without any advance notice and millions will lose their books.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Let's not point the finger at publishers without knowing all the facts. It's wrong to let B&N off the hook and try to justify why they did it. If I had a finger to point at someone other than them it would be Microsoft not the publishers but I truly believe this is a in house decision to try and stop sharing which is just silly and move to a cloud only system. I bet soon you will have to be online to read books through their apps.

I just downloaded Kobo Desktop to see if I could get my kepub book and convert to epub. Syncing showed 147 titles. Good except they aren't in the Kobo folder. A search party was sent out and activity was discovered in the AppData folder (never a good sign) and there were my books wrapped up in 147 SQlite databases. Essentially useless.

When Kobo/Rakuten said my book was only available on a Kobo device or Android/iOS app, they meant it.

[oj829]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I just downloaded Kobo Desktop

Which version? I'm at 3.8.0 on WinXP which does not have the \AppData\ tree structure of your OS (I presume Win7). But I see a bunch of entries in

\Local Settings\Application Data\Kobo\Kobo Desktop Edition\kepub

not updated since June. It seems familiar to what you have found. But [deleted] works with this reality, IIRC. It trawls the SQLlite db and displays (and numbers) found titles.

I only ask because Kobo is kind of diligent with forced desktop upgrades but I have a firewall which informs me of potentially unwanted activity from the Kobo app. Today I denied an https connection, and the desktop would not display one of the few true kepubs I bought there (and which I apparently left open in a tab).

(Edit: actually, forbidding the https request from akamaitechnologies has locked all my titles...)

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree. Even if it should turn out to be a decision by the publishers B&N aren't lily white on the deal as they could have posted something to let their customers know what was coming up. A business depends on its customers and anything that causes customers to go elsewhere is something that a business should avoid.

The whole point is to keep customers from downloading and stripping the DRM. It would defeat the purpose if they gave everyone advanced notice and a chance to download and strip first.