Indie bookstores sue Amazon, Big 6, over e-book DRM

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by teh603

Given how many content channels are going to "worst business practices" as a first step instead of a last resort, I'd probably say neither.

How else do you explain Youtube channels who trick people into signing a lifetime contract giving the channel the rights to any content they might produce in any format known or as-yet unknown?

Darwin Award candidates one and all. A few winners, too...
(Reading Terms of Service is a survival trait.)
Hucksters are nothing new, they're just taking their scams online.
"A fool and his content are soon parted."

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

...and Amazon isn't stopping stores from doing this. Publishers can make their books DRM free at any time and this would be possible. Just like I can buy books from Baen and others and put them on a Kindle without going through Amazon.

Amazon is a publisher.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Amazon is a publisher.

This is true, but the publishers in question in the lawsuit here are the big six.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

This is true, but the publishers in question in the lawsuit here are the big six.

The same big six that illegally conspired to (allegedly) restrain Amazon in favor of Apple. Yup, they're all in cahoots to give Amazon a monopoly so they can keep "devaluing the perceived value of books".

They ought to give the case to Judge Cote. It'll save the plaintiffs a ton of legal fees.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Gudy

Open Source DRM would make the decryption algorithm public as well as show exactly how to retrieve the decryption key, thereby making DRM pointless.

This is completely untrue. Open source encryption/decryption algorithms don't mean that the encryption can be cracked. If you don't believe me, go and find any of the PGP source code that's available, and use it to crack a PGP-encypted message .

It's no secret how to decrypt Mobi or ePub files, anyway.

Almost all encryption/decryption algorithms are "public".

[AnemicOak]

--------

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by teh603

I'm pretty sure that being limited to a certain volume of non-Amazon content isn't exactly "free."

What are you referring to when you write: "limited to a certain volume of non-Amazon content"?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by teh603

I'm pretty sure that being limited to a certain volume of non-Amazon content isn't exactly "free."

Are you thinking of the Nook? The Kindle doesn't limit how much non-Amazon content you can put on it, all of the storage is available for whatever content you wish to put on it. The Nook (depending on model) limits the amount of storage for non-B&N content on it's internal memory (but doesn't limit stoage cards at all).

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is completely untrue. Open source encryption/decryption algorithms don't mean that the encryption can be cracked. If you don't believe me, go and find any of the PGP source code that's available, and use it to crack a PGP-encypted message .

It's no secret how to decrypt Mobi or ePub files, anyway.

Almost all encryption/decryption algorithms are "public".

You can't (in a reasonable timeframe) PGP encrypted massages without the key.
But you need the key to read a DRM'd ebook. That's like using PGP to encrypt an email and sending the key along as an attachment.

[Fbone]

So is this an indirect way of forcing the removal of DRM from all ebooks?

[charmian]

I suppose the reason why the bookstores are having this lawsuit is that they want to sell books to people who own Kindle e-ink readers (the problem doesn't exist with the Kindle Fire). But it seems to me you could go from the other direction and create an e-ink reader that runs the Kindle app as well as Adobe DRM. Then that way the customer loses nothing by switching (they can still easily access their Kindle books).

I am not sure in the long term it makes sense to encourage customers to continue to use a Kindle. The Kindle represents an advertising channel where Amazon can continue to tempt customers to their store. If it is possible to read DRMed epub books purchased elsewhere on the Kindle, won't that totally make the Nook and Kobo less appealing? Even if Amazon allowed them to put DRMed azw on them, I don't think they'd want to.

[fjtorres]

DRM is not the same thing as encryption.
DRM *can* use encryption or watermarks or other authorization mechanisms (Dongles, serial numbers, phone-home, etc) as authorization techniques.
Book publishers just happen to prefer encryption with internet-based authorization servers in their drm systems because they tie the content uniquely to the purchaser and/or their device(s).
Video disk systems, on the other hand, use generic embedded keys in the device itself to provide authorization and decryption. Which allows for lending and even resale of the content.
Under the listed terms and demands of the lawsuit, even watermark-DRM'ed content would be proscribed in whatever parallel universe it might prevail in.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by charmian

I suppose the reason why the bookstores are having this lawsuit is that they want to sell books to people who own Kindle e-ink readers (the problem doesn't exist with the Kindle Fire).

But they already can: as long as it's DRM-free.
What they appear to want is for the BPHs to let them sell DRM-free the exact same content that every other ebookstore sells but without the DRM.

Only problem (in this universe) is that even if they do, Amazon (and Apple and Nook and even Kobo) is *still* going to be more convenient, more accessible, and preferred by consumers. (Just ask BAEN.) And, compared to the plaintiffs, almost certainly cheaper.

So it's a braindead lawsuit that will never achieve its *stated* goals even in the impossible case it succeeded.

What they *really* want is to get a statement of antitrust violation so they can then sue the publishers and Amazon for "damages". It's a nuisance suit looking for a payoff settlement. Ambulance chaser fare.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

This is true, but the publishers in question in the lawsuit here are the big six.

You were ignoring the lawsuit in the previous post:

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

...and Amazon isn't stopping stores from doing this. Publishers can make their books DRM free at any time and this would be possible. Just like I can buy books from Baen and others and put them on a Kindle without going through Amazon.

The accusation in the lawsuit is that Amazon and the Big 6 entered contracts which "unreasonably restrain trade and commerce" and "have resulted in a monopoly in the market for e-books".

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The accusation in the lawsuit is that Amazon and the Big 6 entered contracts which "unreasonably restrain trade and commerce" and "have resulted in a monopoly in the market for e-books".

The answer to the second part is very simple: No they haven't.
Amazon do not have a monopoly over eBooks from the Big6 publishers.