Kindle bias on MobileRead?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by spec2

Just to clarify... True, music is being advertised as "No DRM" now, but it's not DRM-free. It's just gone from an active approach that locks the media to a specific computer, player, etc to a passive one that is open but leaves a "bread crumb trail" to identify the owner if a copy of the music ever hit the torrents or other P2P. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned the "invisible DRM" which I think is a much more palatable approach.

really ? who is using that ? how does it work ? i had not heard of it. very interesting if that is what is being done. as long as there is no restriction on how the file can be used it is already a step in the right direction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spec2

Just to clarify... True, music is being advertised as "No DRM" now, but it's not DRM-free. It's just gone from an active approach that locks the media to a specific computer, player, etc to a passive one that is open but leaves a "bread crumb trail" to identify the owner if a copy of the music ever hit the torrents or other P2P. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned the "invisible DRM" which I think is a much more palatable approach.

That sounds like an excellent approach, and one which no honest person could object to.

[Barcey]

Apple's iTunes contains the purchaser's email address in the "DRM Free" downloads. I would consider it social DRM. I personally have no problem with it.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Apple's iTunes contains the purchaser's email address in the "DRM Free" downloads. I would consider it social DRM. I personally have no problem with it.

hm. i'm not sure i see the point of it. it will deter honest people from sharing their music, but since they are honest they don't need a deterrent. it will clearly *not* deter people who want to share their music via p2p because there will always be some easy way around it ; either they will find a way to remove this information (it can't be too hard) or they will give a false email address or something...

and it is certainly costing money to personally encode each individual file served according to who purchases it, which i am quite sure is being charged to the customer.

so it might not be as evil as restrictive drm, but it seems pointless and wasteful to me nonetheless and i can't say i support that.

is amazon also using this system for their "drm-free" mp3 files ? and, is apple telling their customers clearly that this is what they are doing ? or are they just advertising "drm-free files" and slipping this social drm on silently ?

[Spartacus2112]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

was a no brainer for me, due to a promotion I was able to purchase the 505 for $199, half the cost of a Kindle at the time, and no interest for 12 months.

Is that $199 deal still available?

[MidknytOwl]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I think this has been mentioned before, but my only puzzlement is why this is in a Sony forum...

Sorry, been out of town and away from the internet for a couple of days.

I put it here because one, this is the only forum I check outside of the freebies one, but mostly because my thoughts were as a Sony owner, did it seem that the Kindle was getting more attention than, for example, the 700 release? Was there a Kindle bias or is it because I own a Sony that I feel that way? That's why I put it in this forum.

Well, that and I figured they'd lynch me if I put it over in the Kindle forum.

Anyway, I concede, it was just me, and what felt like a mass amount of Kindle news seemed to be brief. Let's chalk it up to it being the last couple weeks in the worst job I've ever had making me a bit more touchy than usual.

[Ervserver]

looking at this thread it appears that the deal is on for the 700
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39318

Originally Posted by Spartacus2112

Is that $199 deal still available?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

hm. i'm not sure i see the point of it. it will deter honest people from sharing their music, but since they are honest they don't need a deterrent. it will clearly *not* deter people who want to share their music via p2p because there will always be some easy way around it ; either they will find a way to remove this information (it can't be too hard) or they will give a false email address or something...

and it is certainly costing money to personally encode each individual file served according to who purchases it, which i am quite sure is being charged to the customer.

so it might not be as evil as restrictive drm, but it seems pointless and wasteful to me nonetheless and i can't say i support that.

is amazon also using this system for their "drm-free" mp3 files ? and, is apple telling their customers clearly that this is what they are doing ? or are they just advertising "drm-free files" and slipping this social drm on silently ?

I don't really know if it's Apple's design to have this or if it's just something they haven't yet removed.

I do understand why companies would want to experiment with Social DRM though. How successful it would be is all theory. The incremental cost to add it should be insignificant. It can be applied to every file like Apple currently has and them randomly applied in a different manner to every x number of files. This way you know it's there but you're not sure you've removed it all. At some point people should evaluate why they don't want to be identified with their behaviour.

I don't believe in binary honesty. All people make choices. Some people might decide to leave their music on their iPod when they sell it because maybe they'll get an extra $50 for it and heck it doesn't cost them anything. Maybe they'll have second thoughts about doing that if they know their email address is on the files. If a company can change the behaviour of 5% of the people selling their MP3 player then maybe it's worth it to them.

My fundamental problem with DRM is that it violates my fair use rights. Social DRM doesn't and if it influences more people to pay for what they consume that's good for everyone.

[Renaldo]

Heh, I was all set to buy a Kindle until the K2 came out. I ran through features and what features I actually needed, and decided the K2 was overkill and the 505 was actually the one for me. If K2 hadn't come out, I'd be buying the original Kindle.

So, all the whole Kindle buzz here and on some other forums... drove me to the Sony.

[Penforhire]

I'm a big Sony fan, owning two of those silly 505's. But the 700 really is a yawner for me. I think the K2 did more to advance the K1 than the 700 did for Sony. I do want text entry, at least for easy dictionary use, but not at the sacrifice of ANY screen quality. The current e-ink displays (K1/K2/505) are acceptible to me, but just barely. That's why I didn't buy a PRS-500. Built-in front lighting is a good idea but the light quality doesn't seem any improved over my Sony booklight/sleeve.

[BobLenx]

Interesting discussion.

I have been using a Sony-505 for over a year and love it. But when I decided I wanted a second eReader for the household, I looked at the Sony-700 and waited to see what the Kindle-2 would offer. After weighing the various features, I went with the Kindle-2 - ordered yeasterday afteroon and in transit to arrive sometime today. Now I have the best (and accordinng to some,the worst LOL) of both worlds.

The advantage to owning both a Sony and a Kindle is that I can praise and compalin on both forums. <Grin>

Bob