E-books are fast becoming tools of corporate surveillance

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by haertig

"But we have to snoop on you so we can pay our authors!" is not a compelling reason for me to open myself up to their monitoring and analyzing of what I read and how I read it. Because I have a feeling they are not doing this just for the altruistic purposes of paying authors. They are doing it to increase their profits with enhanced advertising and targeted marketing based on data they glean from me. I choose not to supply them with that data.

I agree.
Also Amazon decides the pot and decided the system, not authors or publishers. They could do a different system which would not snoop on readers, but they'd have to pay more. They should have to pay for rights per simultaneous loan and a small royalty per borrow, whether read or not.
The present system benefits the retailer and invades privacy and penalises authors compared to UK & Ireland libraries.
It's abuse of their monopoly position.

So I will buy ebooks from Kobo and Amazon, but only borrow (if at all) from the real Irish library system.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

"But we have to snoop on you so we can pay our authors!" is not a compelling reason for me to open myself up to their monitoring and analyzing of what I read and how I read it.

That wouldn't be a compelling reason for anyone; that's an absurd strawman. The compelling reason is that the combination of price plus offerings provides enough value to be worth getting. And most don't give a tinker's goldarn about data collection. Somewhere in the realm of "who cares?" and "since I don't live off the grid there's already an infinite amount of data out there about me anyway."

Because I have a feeling they are not doing this just for the altruistic purposes of paying authors. They are doing it to increase their profits with enhanced advertising and targeted marketing based on data they glean from me. I choose not to supply them with that data.

Who said anything about altruism? It's a business. Moreover, targeted marketing only works to the extent you actually fall for it. Why not show them and just not buy? I have to say it's stunning the number of cowboy romances I've not bought even though Goodreads has told me I'd like them.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The smell alone was enough to make them state that ebooks are not worth reading.

If there were an e-reader that could emit the scent of a paper book, I'd probably buy it.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

If there were an e-reader that could emit the scent of a paper book, I'd probably buy it.

The mere thought makes me want to puke. I'm extremely glad my ereaders have no smell whatsoever.

[DNSB]

In the case of Kobo Plus and Kindle Unlimited, you are trading sending them more information for lower costs on feeding our addiction for the printed word.

We each get to make our own decisions as to how paranoid we are feeling.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I agree.
Also Amazon decides the pot and decided the system, not authors or publishers. They could do a different system which would not snoop on readers, but they'd have to pay more. They should have to pay for rights per simultaneous loan and a small royalty per borrow, whether read or not.
The present system benefits the retailer and invades privacy and penalises authors compared to UK & Ireland libraries.
It's abuse of their monopoly position.

Sadly, if they did not snoop, an author could (and have in the past) very easily game the system. Put a book in KU and since your amigos don't have to actually read the book, get the same payment per loan as an author who is actually publishing books are being read.

One story from years back mentioned one author who published short stories that were utter garbage and managed to make a good living from KU for months before the algorithms caught up with his network of cybernetic buddies. So we get the present system where Amazon records and analyzes page turns just in case a "reader" is flipping 300 pages per minute, or spending the same time on every page in the book.

Going by several reports, even that is not sufficient since the bot programmers are getting better and Amazon is pretty much limited to being reactive.

[ownedbycats]

There was also, uh, Cockygate.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

And most don't give a tinker's goldarn about data collection. Somewhere in the realm of "who cares?"

Yes. These are the exact people who Amazon is targeting with their snooping. Those that don't care about, or maybe don't even realize, what might be going on at a more grand scale. These are also the same people who will be easiest to impersonate and target for identity theft - leveraging AI to pull together all these little pieces of "don't care" data being gathered about us.

But if you don't care, then you don't care. I am beholden to those who don't care. A good strategy is to surround yourself with people who are easier targets than yourself. "Don't cares" - Thank you for providing that service. Much appreciated!

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by haertig

But if you don't care, then you don't care. I am beholden to those who don't care. A good strategy is to surround yourself with people who are easier targets than yourself. "Don't cares" - Thank you for providing that service. Much appreciated!

You're welcome.

In fact, I'd like to see someone stealing my identity, just from curiosity. A fat lot of good it would do them.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In fact, I'd like to see someone stealing my identity, just from curiosity. A fat lot of good it would do them.

It's not the good that comes of it for them, it's the bad that comes of it for you.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by haertig

It's not the good that comes of it for them, it's the bad that comes of it for you.

There's nothing that can come of it for me as things stand now.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Sadly, if they did not snoop, an author could (and have in the past) very easily game the system. Put a book in KU and since your amigos don't have to actually read the book, get the same payment per loan as an author who is actually publishing books are being read.

That's a consequence of the payment system also being broken. Amazon should pay in advance (per number simultaneously lent, so nothing if no-one borrows), (a library has to buy the paper or ebooks) and then pay a small royalty per loan, even if it's not read (Like UK and Irish Libraries do).

[leebase]

The article was advocacy. Long on innuendo and short on facts. X exits there for Y could happen. OMG Y is happening, we must stop Y.

They provided no evidence that Amazon is selling it's data to anyone else.

They provided no evidence that libraries aren't selling data on the books and ebooks of their patrons.

Unless you are buying used books for cash at your local flee market, somebody knows what you bought.

[Quoth]

I'd actually suspect, like Apple, Amazon wants to keep all their gathered data to themselves. They also seem inept at using it.

Meta-Facebook, Alphabet-Google, X-Twitter and similar are not the same at all.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Quoth

That's a consequence of the payment system also being broken. Amazon should pay in advance (per number simultaneously lent, so nothing if no-one borrows), (a library has to buy the paper or ebooks) and then pay a small royalty per loan, even if it's not read (Like UK and Irish Libraries do).

Sadly, the first payment model for Kindle Unlimited was pretty much what you are advocating for. To put it mildly, it was a disaster for most authors. You might want to check articles such as A History of Kindle Unlimited for more on this.