TechCrunch: Rampant Piracy Will Be The Kindle DX's Savior

[ProDigit]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That may not be true. In Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin ("The Wind Done Gone" case), Judge Marcus' opinion pointed out (pg 60):

The law grants copyright holders a powerful monopoly in their expressive
works. It should not also afford them windfall damages for the publication of the
sorts of works that they themselves would never publish, or worse, grant them a
power of indirect censorship.

There may not be a "right to not publish in formats I don't like." There's a right to exploit the market... but not a right to suppress it.

Though that may be true too; if I publish a book in large letter format, the customer is allowed to buy one, and convert it to a smaller format as he likes, just as you may buy a car and paint it in another color.
but noone can demand me to start making these books in smaller lettertype. And as long as I am the copyright holder, you can not publish smaller print versions for sale legally, apart from your own purchased copy; or if you stay within the licence or copyright agreement.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

Though that may be true too; if I publish a book in large letter format, the customer is allowed to buy one, and convert it to a smaller format as he likes, just as you may buy a car and paint it in another color.
but noone can demand me to start making these books in smaller lettertype. And as long as I am the copyright holder, you can not publish smaller print versions for sale legally, apart from your own purchased copy; or if you stay within the licence or copyright agreement.

There's no right for someone else to exploit the market. (Erm. Except for cases like parody.)

There may be a right for someone else to offer free versions that the copyright holder refuses to distribute. This includes versions like braille editions/audiobooks for the blind; it may come to include ebook versions of textbooks, especially for K-12 state-established schoolbooks, if the publisher declares a lack of interest in supporting ebooks.

It may include free digital copies of any book that don't have an ebook version, if a coherent argument can be made that they don't impact print sales. (I'll admit that's more than a bit of a stretch. But then, the RIAA wants me to believe that downloading a 3-minute MP3 of a song I own on vinyl is a $20,000 crime; my brain-stretching in regards to copyright is already well practiced.)

Publishers don't have to provide versions, or derivatives, they don't want to support... but that's not the same as a right to prevent those versions.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by tomsem

As long as they don't lose any money on the ones they sell, they win, because they will sell something from the Kindle Store at huge margins and discourage purchases from competing ebook retailers, since they are incompatible with DX.

And unless I'm missing something Amazon does not stand to make any money on sales of digital textbooks if they are PDF format.

I agree that the DX is an experiment, and it is one with almost no downside for Amazon. Part of the "experiment" is: will enough people buy a 9.7" device just for ebooks and PDFs? If not, then Amazon will sell more Kindle 2s.

I did have higher expectations for the PDF part of the device, I think Amazon may be loosing an opportunity to slam the door in its competitors faces. Amazon understands books, but not PDFs (e.g. scientific journals and work-related documents in general).

You might be missing something about PDFs. Amazon did not say they won't sell PDFs with DRM (or did they?). Adobe said that Amazon won't be using Adobe's ADEPT DRM, but Amazon can still encrypt PDFs if they want or sell them DRM-free. So far as I know, Amazon did not say they would sell PDFs either. It is still up in the air, and it may be that initially only the demo projects at Universities will get PDF textbooks.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

For those of you who do use p2p programs(for illegal purposes), that's your choice, but there's no reason you should spread names of programs arround just to sound like you know something!
If you really know something than you know it is better to not say anything about it. And though there's nothing wrong with naming a p2p program, generally this forum is against the distribution of illegal, copyrighted material, and would like your cooperation to not help the spreading of this illegal material by promoting other p2p programs.

If dc works for you, than stay with it, before legal authorities will come and chase after those networks and shut them down!
In the mean time you're doing book authors a favor, by allowing some people to buy their books.

That's about as ridiculous an ask as I've ever heard. All p2p programmes have legitimate purposes, there isn't a one out there that can't and isn't used for distribution of legal IP. The sharing of copyrighted material is only one facet of p2p (a big one, I'll grant you) but still not exclusive.

You may as well ask people not to mention 'Google' which plays as big a part in the indexing and making available of copyrighted works. While we're at it, nobody should mention 'Youtube' either. Have a look in the "What are you listening to right now" thread and you'll se a vast majority of the posted "Youtube" videos are infringing Intellectual Property rights on some level.

Bittorrent, Newsgroups, DC++, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Emule, Soulseek, even Limewire have been and will continue to be used to distribute legal IP from non-industry affiliated creators.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

For those of you who do use p2p programs(for illegal purposes), that's your choice, but there's no reason you should spread names of programs arround .... And though there's nothing wrong with naming a p2p program.....

This sounds much like "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named."

Voldemort, Voldemort, Voldemort....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

The author needs to change his light bulb.

Piracy won't save the Kindle, because anyone who goes through the trouble of piracy of an e-text isn't going to pony up $500 for an e-book reader, when they can read it on the device they likely already have: Their laptop.

[sirbruce]

Strangely, despite the fact they can also use their laptop to listen to music and make phone calls, students still buy portable music players and cell phones.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The author needs to change his light bulb.

Piracy won't save the Kindle, because anyone who goes through the trouble of piracy of an e-text isn't going to pony up $500 for an e-book reader, when they can read it on the device they likely already have: Their laptop.

1. What trouble?
2. Why not expand the library you have on the device you already bought when you can do it "for free"?
I have a desktop machine that works mighty fine for PDFs, but so does my iLiad (and more comfortably so in most conditions). In fact, I like using both in conjunction. I cannot carry this PC with me, nor do I want some underpowered laptop to carry around. I have my iLiad for that.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The author needs to change his light bulb.

Piracy won't save the Kindle, because anyone who goes through the trouble of piracy of an e-text isn't going to pony up $500 for an e-book reader, when they can read it on the device they likely already have: Their laptop.

then why does anybody buy E-Ink devices? Don't they own laptops? Or do only pirates own laptops? It would seem that if a pirate wants to read an ebook they would be just as likely to want an e-Ink device as anyone else for the same reasons. portability, good reading experience, long battery life. Am I missing something here? Of course a pirate might be more likely to steal one I suppose.

Dale

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

For those of you who do use p2p programs(for illegal purposes), that's your choice, but there's no reason you should spread names of programs arround just to sound like you know something!
If you really know something than you know it is better to not say anything about it. And though there's nothing wrong with naming a p2p program, generally this forum is against the distribution of illegal, copyrighted material, and would like your cooperation to not help the spreading of this illegal material by promoting other p2p programs.

If dc works for you, than stay with it, before legal authorities will come and chase after those networks and shut them down!
In the mean time you're doing book authors a favor, by allowing some people to buy their books.

Of course, I'm dropping program names bc I'm a big shot, especially since im trying to show off with kazaa (which is older than stone). Reallly?! reaaally?! lol. If you see it that way I dig it.
The main idea behind the campus' DC++ was for students to have a way of sharing/sending files that might be too big for email. Obv that is not its main use nowadays.

If I have cause you any distress by publicly naming programs that have been in circulation since the inception of the internet then I extend my deepest apologies. However I highly doubt that after that I referred to "those programs" now the illegal downloading activity on the internet has increased in the slightest.

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The author needs to change his light bulb.

Piracy won't save the Kindle, because anyone who goes through the trouble of piracy of an e-text isn't going to pony up $500 for an e-book reader, when they can read it on the device they likely already have: Their laptop.

I purchased my ereader bc of all the books that are available to me on the pd. The way I saw it my initial investment was high; but I saved on a lifetime (theoretically) of leisure reading, which was about 24 dollars a month. So in a year plus I will get my money back, but now it turns out i am reading more than I used to so I will be in the green in no time.

So for studetnts it is the same logic, if their upfront cost of the ereader is $500 but in the long run they save money on 8 semesters of textbooks, plus a possible lifetime of leisure reading.

[Jaime_Astorga]

I think that much like music piracy pushed the sales of iPods in the past and present, book piracy will push Kindle sales in the future (not that I like the Kindle, mind you, but it seems to be the device that has created the most brand awareness in the eBook world). I am glad this is the case; I support piracy in general, but I specially support piracy against the price gouging college textbook companies who take advantage of the inelastic demand for their products by overcharging and releasing new editions every few years.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/09...le-dxs-savior/

it's more like because of the pirates....the hardware maker is the only one that makes any money. so, the entire pie is smaller and the hardware makers get a larger percentage slice....however the absolute size of the slice is smaller than if there were no piracy.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

[SNIP] I am glad this is the case; I support piracy in general, but I specially support piracy against the price gouging college textbook companies who take advantage of the inelastic demand for their products by overcharging and releasing new editions every few years.

I agree that some of the textbook companies are engaged in sleazy practices. But when you talk about "piracy in general," do you really mean that you believe that authors should not be paid for their work? That the only authors we should have are those who are financially independent and so can afford to write for love?

So... Larry Niven would be the only full-time SF-writer in the world! All the rest would be part-time (and that part would be much smaller than it is now). And similar changes in other genres as well? Really???

Please think a bit about the implications of your statement.

Xenophon

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I agree that some of the textbook companies are engaged in sleazy practices. But when you talk about "piracy in general," do you really mean that you believe that authors should not be paid for their work? That the only authors we should have are those who are financially independent and so can afford to write for love?

That does not follow at all. There are alternative business models. Please think better on the implications of statements!