Classic The nook is bad for eBooks

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by kennyc

So there was nothing you disagreed with in what I said:

I don't think that we have to disagree in every conversation. I just wanted to point out clearly that the nook does support both Adept DRM schemes.

Basically the new DRM is better for us customers than the old one (because the new one is less restrictive) and imho it's wrong to blame the nook (it's just a device) for the current situation.

And last but not least i doubt that there is real confusion at all. During the whole thread i've never read something like "i bought an epub from B&N and now it's not working on my device xy". All i've read was "if i would buy then it would not work on the device xy".

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by netseeker

I don't think that we have to disagree in every conversation. I just wanted to point out clearly that the nook does support both Adept DRM schemes.

Basically the new DRM is better for us customers than the old one (because the new one is less restrictive) and imho it's wrong to blame the nook (it's just a device) for the current situation.

And last but not least i doubt that there is real confusion at all. During the whole thread i've never read something like "i bought an epub from B&N and now it's not working on my device xy". All i've read was "if i would buy then it would not work on the device xy".

I guess I misunderstood your point -- I thought you were disagreeing with what I'd said.

It did happen to at least one person who mentioned it on this forum (perhaps not in this thread) and I suspect has or will happen to many more.

I think the "social" drm aspect is so limited that it really is not much of an improvement. The real improvement would be to eliminate all the silly DRM altogether.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It doesn't say anything about filetypes or DRM. But it *does* say, in the "learn more" link next to the ebook note,

And under the product info, it says:
* Format: eBook, 464pp
* File Size: 502 KB

It doesn't promise you can read it on a Sony ebook reader. I do find it odd that it's got a page count, 'cos ereader format doesn't mesh well with "pages." I wonder what size screen & font they got that number from?

Anyway. B&N is not committing any fraud... just poor business practice & treating their customers like idiots.

It does have a tag that says "works with the eReader you already own"--but has a "learn more" button that indicates what they mean by that. (I suppose they might be able to argue they mean "works with the eReader program you already own.")

When you click learn more, you really don't learn more. It says nothing about ePub and nothing about the DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Interesting guess and it seems as if you're right: http://blogs.adobe.com/billmccoy/2009/10/index.html

From that blog post we get...

Instead, B&N is adopting the cross-platform Adobe solution that is already used by Sony, OverDrive, and nearly a hundred others.

B&N is not adopting the cross-platform solution as their platform is the only one that handles this new DRM. B&N should be using the current ePub DRM standard until CS5 and the SDK was available for other companies to take advantage of. Then that statement would be true.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

1) The word lie implies lack of truth when it is clearly opinion and therefore debatable and not true/false;
2) Actually yes Energizer would be at fault for providing a 'compatible' product which is actually not compatible. Not legally - morally.
This example is actually true of AA NiMH batteries in particular; the slightly lower voltage of such batteries prevents some older products from using such batteries. Example: older Gameboys do not work with AA NiMH batteries.

April, in your opinion, is it a lie to omit a very important piece of information to the customer that's needed to make an informed decision about a given product? The ePub sold by B&N does not state the the DRM is different then the ePub (with DRM) that anyone else is selling.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by netseeker

I don't think that we have to disagree in every conversation. I just wanted to point out clearly that the nook does support both Adept DRM schemes.

Basically the new DRM is better for us customers than the old one (because the new one is less restrictive) and imho it's wrong to blame the nook (it's just a device) for the current situation.

And last but not least i doubt that there is real confusion at all. During the whole thread i've never read something like "i bought an epub from B&N and now it's not working on my device xy". All i've read was "if i would buy then it would not work on the device xy".

Originally Posted by sunebird

I have been mislead. I have a Sony Reader. My fault for not doing my research. I downloaded a sample from B&N and it opened up no problem on the Sony Reader. So I bought a book and tried opening and I got the DRM message on the Sony Reader. B&N should warn people before they check out that even though the book is epub, It will not work on the Sony Reader. B&N refuses to refund my money, nor take away the DRM. I have legally purchased this book, so I should have the right to read it on the device of my choice.

So you see, because B&N's samples are DRM free (doesn't say so) and the full eBook is with the new DRM (doesn't say so), this ePub was purchased and now B&N will not refund the money when clearly it is B&N's fault.

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

April, in your opinion, is it a lie to omit a very important piece of information to the customer that's needed to make an informed decision about a given product? The ePub sold by B&N does not state the the DRM is different then the ePub (with DRM) that anyone else is selling.

Interesting Glad I can't buy it - B&N haven't expanded beyond the United States.
We're all moving into the 'many stores' pitch battles and it doesn't surprise me that they are trying to lock each other out.
But yes I'm not pleased when people are kept in the dark.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

From that blog post we get...

B&N is not adopting the cross-platform solution as their platform is the only one that handles this new DRM. B&N should be using the current ePub DRM standard until CS5 and the SDK was available for other companies to take advantage of. Then that statement would be true.

Bill also wrote in that blog post:

And, by adding support for password-based content protection for EPUB, Adobe is addressing the need to deliver a more lenient "social DRM" option as part of our solution.

It seems as if kennyc ist right and B&N was something like a "development partner" for the new DRM.

Anyway, i agree with you, that Adobe (or everyone who uses their DRM) should at least use other file extensions than "epub". But again, not the nook is "responsible" for that situation.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So you see, because B&N's samples are DRM free (doesn't say so) and the full eBook is with the new DRM (doesn't say so), this ePub was purchased and now B&N will not refund the money when clearly it is B&N's fault.

I missed that post by sunbird. Thanks for pointing it out. Day by day we are hearing about similiar cases when people bought epubs (the free samples worked fine for them too) and the reading device (eg. our sony prs-505) is not able to render the bought file because of the 400k limitation in the mobile reader sdk. Where is the difference? They bought an ePub which can't be used on their device. Different causes, same problem.
Again: Why is it the nooks fault that B&N offers content which isn't useable on other devices?

Btw. a lot of ePubs from other providers than B&N are not useable on the nook at the moment, which is a much more serious issue imho. (see the topic "Loading failures" in Liza's review: http://blog.threepress.org/2009/12/1...nderer-review/)

We are already talking about return policies and the responsibility of content providers for their offered content, which is different from what you wrote in the thread title.

[Musicman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Why do you think B&N is innocent when B&N is clearly in the wrong.

Let's say I go to Kobo.com and download a free eBook in ePub. The ADE setup I have works with that eBook that has DRM. So I know my setup is good to go. It works. I can read the eBook on my 505. I can buy ePub now. Then I go to B&N and find they have ePub. Great, I can buy from B&N too. So I buy and cannot use the eBook I just bought. B&N is at fault for not telling me up front that I cannot use any ePub eBooks from them with my 505.

The problem here is B&N's. No other eBook format has multiple DRM for the same format. So why would the average person have to research B&N's ePub first? They would not know there is a second DRM now for ePub. It's B&N's job to tell them in the eBook's listing that it uses a different DRM then what other DRMed ePub does. B&N didn't meet their obligations. B&N is the one who should be informing the public. It's not the public that has to research ePub just because of B&N. And in my sample above, what was done should have been enough research if B&N was upfront and honest.

Your logic is off - The first thing I check is if my device is listed as compatible. You said in another post that B&N would not list a competitors device - again I disagree. It would be to B&N benefit to sell books to more people regardless of what device they had. Had their intention been not to, then the would not have entered into an agreement with Adobe where their social DRM would be available to all.

B&N from the start has been looking to get its ereader application on more devices - this fact forced Kindle to open up some.

Knowing that B&N sells DRM'd books that use your name and CC number to open, if you download a book that does not prompt you for this information at least once then there is no DRM on the book.

I see your argument as the same as the McDonalds Hot Coffee claim - they never told me that hot coffee was hot!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Musicman

Knowing that B&N sells DRM'd books that use your name and CC number to open, if you download a book that does not prompt you for this information at least once then there is no DRM on the book.

B&N doesn't tell you they sell DRM'd books that use your CC number; they just tell you that you need their software. They don't clarify which books are DRM'd and which aren't; they don't say "if you didn't need to verify your account number, this is a non-DRM'd ebook."

I don't think they're committing outright fraud (although I think it's possible, and that'd be for lawyers to sort out), but they are refusing to offer information customers need to make informed decisions. And their refusal to take returns may bite them.

I see your argument as the same as the McDonalds Hot Coffee claim - they never told me that hot coffee was hot!

It wasn't, "they didn't say it was hot." It was both, "they didn't say it was hotter than boiling water, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns--which is unreasonable in a food product--and they'd received multiple complaints before and ignored them."

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Bill also wrote in that blog post:

It seems as if kennyc ist right and B&N was something like a "development partner" for the new DRM.

Anyway, i agree with you, that Adobe (or everyone who uses their DRM) should at least use other file extensions than "epub". But again, not the nook is "responsible" for that situation.

I think B&N came up with the idea for this new DRM and then convinced Adobe to go along with it. And if there was no nook, we'd not have this new DRM. At the very least, B&N should not be selling ePub with this new DRM until CS5 and the SDK are both out so other companies can take advantage of it should they choose to.

I missed that post by sunbird. Thanks for pointing it out. Day by day we are hearing about similiar cases when people bought epubs (the free samples worked fine for them too) and the reading device (eg. our sony prs-505) is not able to render the bought file because of the 400k limitation in the mobile reader sdk. Where is the difference? They bought an ePub which can't be used on their device. Different causes, same problem.
Again: Why is it the nooks fault that B&N offers content which isn't useable on other devices?

B&N is at fault for selling ePub that doesn't work on anyone else's hardware/software because they don't tell you up front this is the case. You find me one listing that says that the ePub B&N is selling has a different DRM and I'll say B&N is not that bad. If I was to have bought an ePub from BooksOnBoard that did not work with my 505, BooksOnBoard would have refunded the money I paid. B&N will not refund the money.

Btw. a lot of ePubs from other providers than B&N are not useable on the nook at the moment, which is a much more serious issue imho. (see the topic "Loading failures" in Liza's review: http://blog.threepress.org/2009/12/1...nderer-review/)

As for the nook having trouble with some ePub, I am thinking that could be due to rushed firmware to try to get the nook out in time for Christmas. We'll find out what's what when the supposed new firmware will be out sometime in January.

We are already talking about return policies and the responsibility of content providers for their offered content, which is different from what you wrote in the thread title.

Do you think an ePub that doesn't work on the nook should be allowed to be returned?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Musicman

Your logic is off - The first thing I check is if my device is listed as compatible. You said in another post that B&N would not list a competitors device - again I disagree. It would be to B&N benefit to sell books to more people regardless of what device they had. Had their intention been not to, then the would not have entered into an agreement with Adobe where their social DRM would be available to all.

Sony doesn't say their ePub are compatible with anyone's device other then Sony's. But we know any reader that supports ADE is compatible.

B&N from the start has been looking to get its ereader application on more devices - this fact forced Kindle to open up some.

One other problem B&N has is they don't mention ePub when you buy an ePub from them. So if you are trying to buy an eReader eBook and end up with ePub, according to B&N, touch luck.

Knowing that B&N sells DRM'd books that use your name and CC number to open, if you download a book that does not prompt you for this information at least once then there is no DRM on the book.

B&N's social DRM on ePub does not prompt me for a UN/PW and yes, the full eBook does have the social DRM. I think it's auto-applied based on your information. I have tried a free eBook (that is in ePub and does have DRM) using B&N reader program. It did not work in Reader Library or ADE.

I see your argument as the same as the McDonalds Hot Coffee claim - they never told me that hot coffee was hot!

So if I change the DRM on say MS Reader eBooks and sell it to you without telling you I've done so and thus you cannot use it, you would say it's my fault for not mentioning it. And it would be my fault. It's B&N's fault for not mentioning the DRM is different. And coffee is supposed to be hot unless it's sold as iced coffee. ePub (with DRM) is supposed to be the original Adept unless it's said so.

[JSWolf]

I think what is going on is that B&N wanted this "lend a book" feature on the nook. My guess is that because of this, they found that this feature did not work with the ID based DRM with ePub. So they invented this new social DRM for ePub that does work with the "lend a book" feature.

And if it wasn't for this "lend a book" feature, we may not have two different DRM schemes for the same format. Even Amazon wasn't dumb enough to say eBooks for the Kindle are Mobipocket. B&N should have changed the file extension for their new ePub so we know they are different.

B&N started off selling eReader format only. Then they slipped in ePub without telling anyone. They only way to know ahead of time is to download the sample. Then they don't tell you that the ePub they are selling have a different DRM.

It is because of the nook that B&N is doing thing that are bad for customers and bad for eBooks. And on top of that, if you purchase an ePub from B&N without knowing of the DRM issue, B&N will not return your money.

Who really thinks the consumer is at fault and not B&N?

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you think an ePub that doesn't work on the nook should be allowed to be returned?

Regardless of the nook: If the ePub is faulty (not conform to the OPS/OCF & OEB specifications) then yes. If the ePub is fine but the ePub renderer on the device isn't able to render that ePub, then no. I can imagine only one exception: If the content provider had stated explicitly that the ePub will work on the specific device, then the ePub should be allowed to be returned even if it's conform to the ePub-specifications.

B&N is making one mistake: Their samples of DRMed ePubs are DRM-free. In this regard i do completely agree with you.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think B&N came up with the idea for this new DRM and then convinced Adobe to go along with it. And if there was no nook, we'd not have this new DRM. At the very least, B&N should not be selling ePub with this new DRM until CS5 and the SDK are both out so other companies can take advantage of it should they choose to.

I'd maybe half-agree with this assessment. Problem is that B&N and eReader format books have been using this style DRM for awhile now. In the lead up to getting the nook ready for launch, I'd expect they wanted to keep the DRM they have been using for years supported.

Approaching it from that standpoint, B&N had two options if they wanted to go with ADE-style ePub distribution going forward:

1) Do what Sony did and encourage everyone to redownload books in a 'big conversion' and accept new restrictions that they didn't have before on the redownloaded books. (Sony's restrictions were similar to ADE's so it wasn't really anything new for customers)

2) Convince Adobe to take on the existing DRM for PDB as an extension to the ADE SDK so that B&N can still 'get with the program' without leaving everyone in the cold or requiring B&N customers to change what they expect to get from their e-book stores.

#1 gets B&N blasted for forcing new restrictions on customers. #2 gets B&N blasted for the short-term pain of them being the first having this second form of ADE DRM (despite the more lax restrictions).

A secret option #3 of selling in both PDB and ePub with each having different restrictions is also possible, but has the downside of being just as confusing to the buyer, if not more.

Yes, I would say B&N has done a poor job communicating the issues of their DRM policies. You have to delve into their FAQ to get the full details, and the FAQ in question isn't exactly linked from any of the books themselves to discuss it (not in any intuitive manner anyways).

However, from an engineering standpoint, and from considering it from more angles, I'd say the path they picked is the best option. The average customer going by what B&N puts up on the page (and not trying to figure out how to stretch their dollar by being a tech-saavy buyer reading between the lines) will pretty much be fine and not even notice the conversion, and within a year it'll be possible to take more and more of their content to devices beyond what they list without having to strip the DRM.