Amazon dropping support for more Kindles

[Martinoptic]

It doesn't give me a choice, just 1click. Like Karellen.

Sorry a bit

[pdurrant]

I have no idea why my screen shot had a basket button. I haven't ever used one for Kindle books.

But I've just tried and yes, I could add that Kindle book to a basket.

[gbm]

Unless Amazon is buying the rights to the "IP content" then the only "content" Amazon can license is the formatting and format that they aply.

bernie

Originally Posted by pdurrant

UK:
Attachment 222827

Only if you follow the small print link do you eventually find out that

"Kindle Content is licensed, not sold, to you by Amazon."

Old publishing contracts used to have different terms for sales and licensing. I wonder if anyone's ever sued over this? (i.e. that an author isn't getting there correct share of ebook licensing fees.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gbm

Unless Amazon is buying the rights to the "IP content" then the only "content" Amazon can license is the formatting and format that they aply.

I know it's fun to imagine Amazon as the devil incarnate, but Amazon can only "sell" what the publisher allows them to in this regard. When it comes to mainstream publishing, it is the publisher that holds the rights. And they determine exactly what, and for how much, and under what terms, Amazon is allowed to license their property to customers (exceptions being where Amazon is the publisher/rightsholder).

Don't get me wrong... Amazon should certainly do better in advertising exactly WHAT is being sold in their store; but that's a separate issue. Amazon would be sued into oblivion by publishers AND authors alike if they (Amazon) tried to sell customers anything other than the limited use license to their content that their contracts with Amazon stipulate.

In the cases where publishers/authors have given express permission to "sell" copies of their work to customers, Amazon has now provided a mechanism for those publishers/authors to make sure users can download an unburdened copy of the work that they can use on any device they see fit.

[mitra1]

I think instead that government should make illegal the selling or rent of products with drm if there isn't the option to buy without drm. This because the actual practicies have demonstraded that damaged consumers.

[slm]

It has long been illegal to license a physical book in the US--the Supreme Court decided that regardless of the terms of the "contract" the buyer could resell the book.
How the ebook sellers convinced the courts that this was different, I don't know.

Perhaps Amazon and the rest of the publishers are in fact the devil incarnate.

[odamizu]

Y'all know that at Kobo, you are also just purchasing a content license, not the actual book, right?

So what is worse? Being up front about what you're buying, as Amazon does, or hiding the truth in the fine print, as Kobo does?

From Kobo Terms of Service (US):

All Digital Content is the exclusive property of the publisher or its licensors and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. The download of, and access to any Digital Content is available only to Customers and is intended only for such Customers’ personal and non-commercial use. Any other use of Digital Content downloaded or accessed from the Service is strictly prohibited. The access to Digital Content is provided by Kobo’s grant of licenses to Customers, the access being restricted and defined by the license parameters. Customers may not modify, transmit, publish, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the content of any Digital Content, in whole or in part. By downloading or otherwise accessing Digital Content from the Service, the Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees to these terms.

And let's not overlook:

If you do not comply with these Terms of Use at any time, Kobo reserves the right to immediately cancel, terminate, or suspend your access to the Service (or any part thereof) or your Kobo Account

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by slm

How the ebook sellers convinced the courts that this was different, I don't know.

Unless I missed the case(s) they didn't have to convince the courts. How anyone can still believe that it ISN'T different is beyond me.

Ebooks are different than physical books. Period. The same rules will never (and shouldn't) apply. Wanting them to be the same will never make it legally so.

Originally Posted by slm

Perhaps Amazon and the rest of the publishers are in fact the devil incarnate.

You forgot to include any retailer who sells ebooks. Because you're buying a content license everywhere you purchase ebooks (legitimately).

[slm]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Unless I missed the case(s) they didn't have to convince the courts. .

I didn't find any cases either. I did find three law review articles arguing the the "differences" do not justify overriding the First Sale doctrine. They date between 2012 and 2022. (None of them cited to cases on the point)

Slightly off topic: when I had to research whether a landlord could enforce the provision that required a tenant who broke a lease to pay all future rent, regardless of whether the landlord re-rented the apartment, I discovered that the last case in NY said this was enforceable--but the case was then 60 years old. No landlord had tried to enforce it in the meantime I guess.


For what it may be worth: when the publishers first took this position, many of the relevant companies were closely held and characterizing the income from the "licences" as royalties would have had very adverse tax consequences for those companies. Of course, none of them did report this income from "licenses" as royalties. And--as far as I know--the IRS did not contest this treatment. Seems like the hand of the devil to me.

[haertig]

They say you own the "content". OK. So what do you actually "own"? Tell me the definition of "own the content"?

You don't "own" anything. You are merely "renting" or "leasing" something at best.

To anyone who would argue that you do indeed "own" something, please describe what it is that you own. If you want to use the answer, "you own the content", tell me what "the content" is.

Maybe they say you own "a license"? Since they don't specify an end date, that would mean the license is perpetual. But it isn't, since Amazon can revoke your license unilaterally (by removing your Amazon account, as one example of this). So what do you actually "own"?

It appears ... nothing.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

They say you own the "content". OK. So what do you actually "own"? Tell me the definition of "own the content"?

Who, exactly, is saying you "own the content?? Because I'm not getting that interpretation from anything I've read/heard.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I know it's fun to imagine Amazon as the devil incarnate, but Amazon can only "sell" what the publisher allows them to in this regard. When it comes to mainstream publishing, it is the publisher that holds the rights. And they determine exactly what, and for how much, and under what terms, Amazon is allowed to license their property to customers (exceptions being where Amazon is the publisher/rightsholder).

Don't get me wrong... Amazon should certainly do better in advertising exactly WHAT is being sold in their store; but that's a separate issue. Amazon would be sued into oblivion by publishers AND authors alike if they (Amazon) tried to sell customers anything other than the limited use license to their content that their contracts with Amazon stipulate.

In the cases where publishers/authors have given express permission to "sell" copies of their work to customers, Amazon has now provided a mechanism for those publishers/authors to make sure users can download an unburdened copy of the work that they can use on any device they see fit.

They have a lot of power, similar to what Apple had with iTunes and the iPod when they shifted to DRM free. Maybe more since they also control a large percentage of physical book sales too while also competing with products like Kindle Unlimited. Could they force publishers to adopt a DRM free stance? Maybe. Do I think they would? No. They want DRM too, for multiple reasons.

[DiapDealer]

People keep saying things that ALL ebook retailers are doing. Why single out Amazon? Wherever you buy ebooks from (legitimately) you are buying a restricted license, and you are getting a DRMed copy (where required by the publisher). Amazon, Kobo, B&N, Google, Apple--all of them. They all want to protect their walled garden.

I''m fine with people bitching about Amazon, but let's do it for the things they're doing differently from every other ebook retailer out there. Rather than holding them to a different standard than everyone else.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Rather than holding them to a different standard than everyone else.

Is it then okay to criticize Amazon for their endless DRM changes? For pushing hidden updates to older devices to enable those DRM changes?

Apple implemented their DRM quite a while back and so far, no one has taken the time and trouble to try breaking it.

Kobo is currently using three versions of DRM. Adobe ADEPT which has been broken for quite a while since very few implementations of Adobe's hardened DRM are to be found in the wild, KDRM which has been broken for a few years, while in Europe, LCP DRM seems to be a choice.

Some ebook vendors have switched to LCP which is being protected by DCMA takedown notices which, not very surprisingly, have not been very effective for sites outside the USA.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

People keep saying things that ALL ebook retailers are doing. Why single out Amazon? Wherever you buy ebooks from (legitimately) you are buying a restricted license, and you are getting a DRMed copy (where required by the publisher). Amazon, Kobo, B&N, Google, Apple--all of them. They all want to protect their walled garden.

I''m fine with people bitching about Amazon, but let's do it for the things they're doing differently from every other ebook retailer out there. Rather than holding them to a different standard than everyone else.

One thing Amazon is doing differently is changing the DRM such that it may be impossible to remove the DRM. And if it is possible, it would most likely take a jailbroken Kindle.