Do some publishers have any idea?

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I used to keep such records, when I read paper books. Now that my reading material is 90% digital and all my ebooks are in Calibre anyway, I don't bother with keeping several databases. I just mark the book as read in Calibre and give it a rating. When exactly I read it isn't particularly important for me.

Some of it is a leftover from the days I used to write and then type it up, and back then I printed the pages and kept them in a folder.

Some of it I do out of curiosity ... when I read a book and how long it took. It can be quite interesting to find out how long since I last read a book in a series for instance. The grading I give has meaning well past what I remember years later. Superb is my highest grading, and not too many get that. Unfinished is my lowest, and that rarely happens.

I take the concept of future proofing seriously too, so some elements are there just in case I might find a use for them later.

I also see it as a kind of diary. Just like you might remember something because of a movie or a song.

I expect you have backups of your calibre setup, as I would do in your scenario. I guess I find it easier to just continue how I have done, since before calibre came along, and easy to keep several backups of files.

Thank you for being a civil person.

Clearly some struggle to have a conversation without getting nasty.

P.S. I forgot to mention, I also have records going right back to my childhood, which are in another file, that is just me guessing at a year really. So the total number I have read by Terry Brooks for instance, is not including them in my current record. The beginning of the current record, is also guesswork, though based on approximate month and not year so much. I only back-dated for at most about two years ... got too hard after that to be precise enough, so started a different type of entry and file for earlier reads.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

People have been sharing pBooks for a very long time and nobody has called it piracy. This Kindle with DRMed eBooks on it is almost the same as sharing your pBooks. The only difference is that you either have a copy of these books or can download them if you want.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that we interpret the Kindle licence agreement differently, Shari. It says:

That seems pretty clear to me: it says, in the part I've highlighted, that it's licensed "solely for your personal use". Where does it say that it's Ok to let other people have access to it?

My wife and I share our eBooks and Kindle Prime through Amazon. So Amazon is allowing us to share the eBooks we each have on our account. We can each pick a book from Kindle First Reads. So what you've copied from Amazon is WRONG because Amazon is allowing me to access her eBooks and she mine even though what you've pasted says otherwise. Oh and those T&C are invalid because Amazon has not ever made me agree to them or tried to make me read them. So I've never agreed and Amazon still allows me to buy eBooks.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Tor's move was notable precisely BECAUSE, they weren't pressured into making it. No one is obligated to take the risk they did simply because they don't seem to have been financially dinged for making it.

Tor decided to give DRM free a try and it worked. They were not financially harmed. Tor proved that DRM is not needed.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Tor decided to give DRM free a try and it worked. They were not financially harmed. Tor proved that DRM is needed.

"Tor proved that DRM is needed."

A missing 'not' there, I think.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Tor decided to give DRM free a try and it worked. They were not financially harmed. Tor proved that DRM is needed.

If, as pdurrant suggested, you meant "DRM is not needed," then I would still argue that they proved nothing of the sort. They merely proved that going DRM-free didn't seem to harm the sales of their very narrow sales demographic. "Not financially harmed" isn't the smoking gun you seem to want it to be. It's certainly not the same thing as "prospered financially," now is it?

I suspect you may be right, but Tor's experiment hasn't come close to proving that industry-wide DRM-free sales wouldn't harm certain sectors. And the rest of the industry isn't likely to jump on the DRM-free bandwagon on the basis of "not financially harmed" alone. "We took a risk and achieved new heights of status quo" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

[HarryT]

One might very reasonably argue that Tor’s experiment demonstrated that DRM doesn’t put people off buying ebooks, given that sales didn’t significantly increase when they stopped doing so, and hence there’s no incentive for other publishers to stop using DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

"Tor proved that DRM is needed."

A missing 'not' there, I think.

You think correctly. I did miss out a not. I've edited my messages. Thanks for the catch.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If, as pdurrant suggested, you meant "DRM is not needed," then I would still argue that they proved nothing of the sort. They merely proved that going DRM-free didn't seem to harm the sales of their very narrow sales demographic. "Not financially harmed" isn't the smoking gun you seem to want it to be. It's certainly not the same thing as "prospered financially," now is it?

I suspect you may be right, but Tor's experiment hasn't come close to proving that industry-wide DRM-free sales wouldn't harm certain sectors. And the rest of the industry isn't likely to jump on the DRM-free bandwagon on the basis of "not financially harmed" alone. "We took a risk and achieved new heights of status quo" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

The thing is, you don't have to go to new heights in sales. You just have to not drop sales. And you do make more money per eBook sold as you no longer have to pay for the DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One might very reasonably argue that Tor’s experiment demonstrated that DRM doesn’t put people off buying ebooks, given that sales didn’t significantly increase when they stopped doing so, and hence there’s no incentive for other publishers to stop using DRM.

But you will make more money per eBook as you don't have to pay for the DRM.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But you will make more money per eBook as you don't have to pay for the DRM.

Do Amazon charge publishers extra for using DRM? I know Adobe do, but Amazon sell far more books.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I'm angry at myself that I'm drawn into commenting on this, but really? You're a "goodist?" A self-appointed arbiter of what's GOOD? YOU get to decide what that is? What's "good" and what isn't? How the hell would YOU know what's good for anyone else? You've already amply demonstrated that your understanding of business is completely non-existent, and your concepts of what's "good" would result in innumerable people losing their jobs. How good would that be, then?

What total and utter presumptuous, twaddling bollocks. It's right up there with your pontificating about how your post is to "make people think." Really? Because nobody else can think, without YOUR prompting?

Wow, just WOW.

Hitch

Well, it certainly made you think, but not in a good way.

For starters, you need to get a funny backbone.

I made Goodist and Goodism up, basically on the spot. I was chatting with an online friend and we joked about it, and at a whim I put it in my post. Really, I was just indicating that I am not totally against Capitalism, and I am not a Socialist or a Communist. I am a bit of a lot of things, and while i don't like labels, it was fun to apply one in this instance.

So your interpretation and that of at least one other, is all your own.

It did occur to me a bit later, that some of you might take it too seriously, but it was too late by then ... I was in bed and wanting to sleep.

Angry ... now that's subjective. Funny how a bunch of you cannot handle someone not agreeing with you ... and some get nasty, act a bully, etc etc.

Accuse me of all sorts of things, but character assassination is just fine behavior for some it seems. Fine to be rude to me too.

I'm only responding to you, because at least you weren't nasty, just misguided and irrationally angry.

By the way, I never said what was good for anyone or claimed any such super power. Like everyone though, I know when something is bad.

What a ridiculous claim about prompting ... no-one ever thinks of it all. I suggested things to think about. How the hell would I know what you have thought about or not. You could be one of those who just hasn't thought about some of the things I have mentioned. And by the way, it is a two-way street, and I have indeed thought about some of the responses, including yours ... though I haven't responded at this point in time. Sometimes I want a break, especially to mull over things. An awful lot of assumptions have been aired about me and things I apparently said. Sometimes I just get peeved at the negativity, and poor reading comprehension skills ... or bias/agendas.

So much of this is just childish behavior, so I am going to respond with a good old child chant - Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

I honestly don't know why I bother to respond to some posts, except my natural inclination for justice and setting the record straight.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do Amazon charge publishers extra for using DRM? I know Adobe do, but Amazon sell far more books.

I don't know if Amazon charges for the DRM. Does Amazon sell more eBooks world wide then eBooks in ePub? I am not sure Amazon does.

[barryem]

I just got into a chat with Amazon's Kindle support and told him I've occasionally lent a Kindle to a friend with a book he wants to read on it, as well as any other books which might already be on that Kindle. I explained that someone said that it was wrong to do that and I wanted to find out if Amazon has any issues with it.

He cautioned me that the person I lent it to had access to my account, gave me a couple of ways to avoid that, and then said Amazon had no issue with me doing that.

So while the lawyers and philosophers and judges among us may see issues with this, Amazon doesn't. By the way I made a similar check when this came up on either this or another forum a couple of years ago and got the same answer.

If this doesn't settle this issue I plan to consult a priest, a rabbi and various others from on high. If even that doesn't settle it I may give up.

Barry

[Timboli]

Good on ya Barry.

--------------------------------------------------------

Okay, here's my definition of Goodist and Goodism, especially for those who only seem to be able to see things one way, a negative way.

How I envisaged it, on the spur of the moment, is a Goodist is someone doing stuff and having policies, that is not detrimental to others, so someone doing good.

It is NOT someone saying anything like - here take this medicine, it is good for you.

The ridiculous over-reaction to me, one person and his views, by some, is totally out of all proportion.

The aggressive attack on me by some, is completely unjustified, and just really shows the true nature of those individuals.