Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Depends on how many books you buy. You will save an average of $8-10 on new hardcover bestsellers. So if you plan to buy 30-40 books over the next couple of years, the Kindle will pay for itself, even if you discount the convenience factors.
Of course if you buy real books you can 1) buy used books and save 10% to 90% off new. You can also resell it when you are done for 90% to 10% of what it is worth new. You can't do that with a Kindle, because you never own the books you buy. You are just being allowed to view them. This make books a lot cheaper.
DRM, treats legal consumers like criminals; just say no.
The only reason to get a kindle is if you really need or want one of the Kindle only features.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
No, it does not make books "a lot cheaper." You can't buy new best sellers "used." Who want's the hassle of trying to find a way to "resell" books for 10% of what they are worth new?
And it certainly doesn't make big hardcover books any more convenient. Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces.
You don't have to buy DRM titles if you don't want to, you can load non-DRM books onto the Kindle.
P.S. Studies have shown that given the chance, 50% of employees will steal from their employers, which probably means most consumers ARE criminals. ;o}
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
"You can't buy new best sellers 'used.'" -- My wife does all the time. We haven't bought a new one in I can't remember how many years. Now granted we can't get them the day they come out, but they are available within weeks of release.
"Who wants the hassle of trying to find a way to 'resell' books for 10% of what they are worth new?" -- It's not much hassle. She lists what she is finished reading on half.com and just waits till someone buys it. The last book she sold was a medical info book that goes for about $80 new, she bought it for $1, and sold for $25 when she was done. (Now that isn't typical, but normally she just about breaks even. If it doesn’t sell she will donate it to one of the libraries, or give it to a friend.
"And it certainly doesn't make big hardcover books any more convenient. Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces." -- True, but how many people carry around 120 books (75lbs X 16 oz = 1200 oz/10 oz = 120) at the same time? If you do, then I'd call that one of the kindle features that could make it a good choice. I never take more than one or two books with me at a time.
"You don't have to buy DRM titles if you don't want to, you can load non-DRM books onto the Kindle." -- Of course you don't. But then you have limited what you can buy. Remember those new best sellers you where saying you can't buy used? Well you generally can't buy them DRM free either!
"P.S. Studies have shown that given the chance, 50% of employees will steal from their employers, which probably means most consumers ARE criminals. ;o}" -- Doesn't give them any reason to treat us like criminals. Doesn't give them the right to tell me that I can't resell something when I'm done with it. Doesn't give them the right to take way what I've purchased because they have decided it is too expensive to continue to support that old format and it’s DRM; and then they make you buy another copy in the new format also with DRM.
Of course they have the RIGHT to tell you you can't resell something that was licensed to you when you are done with it. That's what a "license" does... grants them (and you) a license. You didn't BUY the author's words. If you don't like it, don't agree to the license.
So when you buy a physical book, they should be able to tell you that you can't resell it? The physical book is also "the author's words" which you didn't buy. Why is that different?
When you buy a physical book you do not agree to the terms of a license agreement, which stipulate that you cannot transfer the book to someone else. But to your larger point, it's quite different because if I buy a physical book, then sure, I can resell the book I bought... but only once. If I bought a DRM free e-book, I could sell it 100,000 times.
My point is, that they have every "right" to license the content under whatever terms they (and the copyright holders) see fit, and to enforce the license that you agreed to. ;o)
So if I shrink-wrap my book in an EULA that say you can't resell it if opened, you would agree that your right to resell the property you bought and own is gone?
I'm not saying sell it 100,000 times. I'm saying resell the original once.
They will not even let you do that, because it really is only partly about limiting illegal copies. It is really about limiting you rights to your property and letting them sell more than they could otherwise. It turns the "play" button it to a "pay again" button.
It's not YOUR property. You are only purchasing a license. The license is for YOU. You can "play" it as often as you want without paying again. You do not have the right to transfer that license to someone else.
If I purchased it, it is my LICENSE. I can (or should be able to) sell or give away my LICENSE (the license that I paid for). Just like I bought a book, and the book is mine, the license is mine.
I cannot play it as often as I like. I can play it as long as they continue to support and validate my license. If 10 years from now I want to re-read a book, I know I can do that. With a DRMed book, I probably will not be able to do that.
Face it, DRM is a problem for consumers. It treats them like common criminals. And results in them having less rights than they would (or should) otherwise have. If you like giving up your fundamental property rights to some company via DRM, then that is your choice.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Irrelevant. The Amazon license agreement is what it is... not what some other company's agreement is. If you don't like it, don't buy the license. But don't bitch about how your "fundamental property rights" are being stolen from you. They are not.
You may think it's stupid... but that's the way it works. The owner of the content gets to decide how, when and where the content is licensed. You don't have any "fundamental property rights" when you license someone's content.
That is stupid. They are still the owner of the content of a book when I buy a book. They do not get to tell me what I can and can not do with that book once I have bought it.
Actually, they DO get to tell you what you can and can not do with that book once you have bought it. Try copying the book and selling copies to your friends. Try typing (or scanning) the book into a computer and selling it as an e-book. Let us know how that works out for you. ;o)
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
"Try copying the book and selling copies to your friends." – Straw man argument. What you are talking about is illegal. Just as coping a DRMed or non-DRMed book is. No difference other than they are preventing me from selling my property; the original that they sold me.
No, You just don't get it. You said they can't tell you what you can and can not do with the book. That is false. They can. That's why it is illegal.
What you are talking about is equally illegal, since it violates the license agreement you agreed to when you "bought" what they sold you.
THe difference is that it is not illegal (i.e., you have the right) to resell a physical book. Unlike the book, you never "bought" the right to resell your DRM protected e-book or music to someone else, because they did not sell you that right.
What they sold you is not YOUR property any more than the copy of Microsoft Word you license when you buy Office is YOUR property. You only get to do with it what the license allows you to do.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
So, if you are done reading the book but you can't sell it because Amazon owns the license, they should have to buy it back from you if you don't want it anymore, right?
If wrong, why would anyone want a Kindle when you can buy e-book readers up one side of the Internet and down the other and never have to worry about licenses?
Wrong. Amazon doesn't own the license. The content owner (read, publisher) does. Amazon licenses the content from the content owner to you under specific terms. If you chose not to read the book, that was your choice. If you read the book, then you received the value you paid for. Do you expect the record store to buy all your CDs back after you have listened to them and you don't want them anymore?
Again, you do not have to buy ANY content to use a Kindle. You can load unlicensed content on your Kindle till the cows come home. If you want new bestsellers, you have to buy them according to the publisher's terms... the same as if you bought the physical book.
Sorry... it's not YOUR license. It's their license that you agreed to. We've already discussed why it's NOT just like a book (since you could make unlimited copies).
Probably will not? Why is that? I still have (and play) DRM music that I bought from the iTunes Music Store 10 years ago.
Sorry, but you have no fundamental property rights to someone else's property. They didn't sell you those rights with the license.
"Probably will not? Why is that? I still have (and play) DRM music that I bought from the iTunes Music Store 10 years ago." -- Wal-Mart's DRM music. Gone. Microsoft's DRM music. Gone. Yahoo!'s DRM music. Gone. If you bought any of these, they are no longer authenticating you to play your licensed content.
"Sorry, but you have no fundamental property rights to someone else's property." -- I agree. They should have no fundamental property rights to my property. They should be able to prevent me from selling my property (the song or the license) I bought from them.
Read the license agreement you agreed to. it was never your property. They didn't sell you the song. They licensed YOU (and only you) to play the song on your device(s).
I think you are incorrect about Microsoft's (at least) DRM music. I can still play it on my laptop. I never bought music from Wal*Mart or Yahoo.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
I've never claimed they sold the rights to the song. They sold me a license. Just as when you buy a book or CD, you are getting a license to the intellectual content on the book or CD. When you sell the book or CD so too do you sell the license. Same thing with electronic media. I'm selling my one and only license to use the content.
Note I'm not arguing that they can't legally use DRM. That they can't say that I can't sell it. I'm saying that it is wrong!
Microsoft turns the DRM screw on MSN Music owners:
Oh okay. Sorry. I thought when you said "Doesn't give them the right to tell me that I can't resell something when I'm done with it." that you were arguing that they don't have a right to do that, not just that you think it's wrong.
Thanks for the link. Good thing I don't have much Microsoft music... that laptop is about to retire. ;o)
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
Yeah um actually... not so much. DRM may be lame, but the Kindle is decidedly not lame. You can also read non DRM books on the Kindle so while the Kindle Store may = DRM, Kindle <> DRM.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
Please read for comprehension. You do not have to read DRM books on the Kindle. You can read non-DRM books on the Kindle. At least half of the books on my Kindle are non-DRM.
You may view DRM as a fundamentally flawed distribution model, but that does not make the device fundamentally flawed (or useless).
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
I would agree that the Kindle is a pretty good idea. I like the idea. The problem is the DRM. The books I would WANT TO BUY are likely going to have DRM. I don't get to chose between a DRM and a non-DRM version of the same title. I have to chose titles that happen to not have DRM. I'm not going to buy an expensive reader when I can't buy the books I want because they are DRMed.
Just the same as I didn’t buy an iPod or use iTunes until they fixed their DRM problem.
So you personally have a thing against DRM. Okay... fine. Don't buy DRM titles if you don't want to. But that still doesn't make the device "fundamentally flawed" as a device.
I notice that Apple's iTunes Store also did pretty well in spite of your boycott. ;o)
If you didn't buy from them because they refused to sell it the way you wanted it, that's pretty much a boycott.
Whether it would have been a "waste" of money totally depends on how much you would like the convenience of easily being able to find and purchase music. I never found it a "waste" at all... since I got music I enjoyed without having to drive to the record store and hope they had what I wanted in stock (which they usually did not). I still have (and can listen to) everything I've ever purchased from the iTunes store.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
Okay, then by your definition I'm boycotting Kia because I've never bought a Kia because they have never offered a model of car I liked. I'm also boycotting several other car makers.
No... you said you didn't buy one "until" they "fixed the DRM problem." That implies that you wanted it all along, but refused to buy it because you perceived the DRM as problem that needed fixing.
Only if you tell us that the only reason you didn't buy a Kia before was because they had some feature you didn't like, and you bought one when they fixed that feature. ;o)
Okay, <hypothetical> so Kia didn't make a car with a double sun roof. That was a feature that was a strong requirement for me, and other than the lack of that feature that I wanted I would have bought the Kia. However, several other car makers made very similar cars but with the double sun roofs that I wanted. So I bought one of them even though I would have bought the Kia had it also had the double sun roof.
Now it is 2011 and I need another car. Kia now also has a model that does have a double sun roof. So this time I buy the Kia.
I was still was not boycotting them before. Go look up the definition of boycott.
Except you said you didn't buy an iPod "because" they had something you didn't like, not because they didn't have a double sun roof.
boycott: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.
Sounds to me like you refused to have dealings with them to express your disapproval of DRM.
Yes, the Kia had something I didn't like: a roof without two sun roofs. Any "have" or "don't have" is interchange able. What if CDs and Amazon had a feature I liked? Like no restriction on what I did with the media.
"boycott: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions." -- Okay, first is the word 'concerted'. concerted: mutually contrived or agreed on. My action was not concerted. Second, is "refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization)". I did not refuse to have dealings with Apple. I simply chose not to buy that one product. I did however by other Apple products. So you are now trying to tell me that I have to buy every model Kia that they make or I'm boycotting them? Third and last, "usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions." I didn't do it to express anything. I didn't tell Apple anything. I simply did not want the product as it was being offered. So again if I don't buy the Kia because it isn't being offered with a dual sun roof, I must be boycotting Kia.
Okay sorry... I read into your comment that you were specifically not buying an iPod or music from the iTunes music store in order to express your disapproval of DRM. But I agree that if you never discussed it with anyone else it was not a "concerted" refusal... so I withdraw the term boycott. Allow me to rephrase. I notice that Apple's iTunes Store also did pretty well in spite of your not dealing with them. ;o)
Steve Jobs was always against it. It was the content OWNERS who insisted. Jobs said Apple would “embrace (DRM-free) in a heartbeat if the big four would license their music (that way) ... because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.”
Straw man. Amazon has already publicly apologized and stated that in the future they will NOT delete the contents anytime they like.
Just out of curiosity, how would you "lose" your Amazon account?
You personally may think it's flawed... but there are (even going by the low estimates) about 350,000 people who disagree. It has an 86% positive rating on the reviews.
Sorry... I assumed that by "fundamentally flawed" you meant a model that was unsustainable because people would not buy into it and it would fail miserably.
Now I see that by "fundamentally flawed" you simply mean a model that you personally do not like. ;o)
[2 points]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
And I'm saying the fact that YOU don't like DRM does not make the device "fundamentally" flawed. That would be like saying iPods were "fundamentally flawed" because the iTunes Store used to use DRM.
The device itself does not require DRM to function... but you knew that. So now who's being hard to get along with?
Both translate and I have told you why we think DRM is "fundamentally flawed". We have given you reasons and cited examples. It is quite ironic that you claim that when we say "fundamentally flawed" we simply mean a model that we personally do not like. Especially after you have appealed to popularity to defend the Kindle and it is quite clear it is a product that you like.
To say that the device itself doesn't require DRM to function is irrelevant. You are not going to have all those "features" you have been claiming make it so great (like being able to instantly download the latest and greatest of any bestselling book you want without having to wait) if you don't use DRM. To say you don't need DRM to use the Kindle is like saying you don't need a drivers license to own a car. Technically true, practically worthless.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Nope. Translate has made it very clear that he is saying the DEVICE is fundamentally flawed, not the DRM model. But since they are making money hand over fist, I don't actually agree that either the device or the model are "fundamentally flawed." ;o)
Quite similar, actually. You could use the Kindle the same way you use your iPod. You can load things onto it via a USB cable and ignore Amazon if you so chose. I'm not sure they can brick it and keep you from loading your own content via the USB cable. Jailbreaking is another issue, since that is a 3rd party company subverting the manufacturer's device. If there were enough Kindles out there, maybe someone would jailbreak them, too.
Having said that, the reason it's quite similar is that the huge money maker for Apple has been the iTunes Music Store, not the iPod devices. And until very recently the iTunes store used DRM.
Just like an iPod. You can put any e-book title into the Kindle via the USB cable. If you turn off Whispernet, Amazon has no access to your kindle and is unable to "brick" the Kindle.
If any copyright holder wishes to make their current best-seller available in a non-DRM format, I can put a copy on my Kindle. So it's not the DEVICE that's the issue. it is Amazon's (and the publisher's) DRM policy.
That would be up to the publishers of the book. It would not be up to Amazon (or any other e-book manufacturer). I know how you feel about copyrights, but surely you're not suggesting they can make a model out of selling non-DRM best sellers in defiance of the publishers. ;o)
[2 points]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
Well they deactivated one person's account for "too many returns". Their Kindle was next to useless at that point. They did re-enable their account after the individual went public (and the individual may or may not have been abusing the return policy, I'm not commenting on that). The point is that Amazon has almost god like powers to make your kindle worthless. You may or may not get it back, but that would be after a lot of work and effort (possibly legal) that you shouldn't have had to go through.
If they stopped treating customers like criminals and dropped the DRM it would be pretty darn cool.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces. If I decide I want to read a new book that just came out, I don't have to put my name on a list... I can get it in about 90 seconds.
I have library cards to three systems, two county-wide and one state-wide. I can find any book in the systems and reserve it and have it sent to my local library. Hawaii's will even mail it to me. Those are real books or CD/DVDs. I can download ebooks and audio books easily on my computer. I can't read them on a Kindle (I don't have one), but it's all free (or $1 for videos in Hawaii.) The Kindle is great, and will likely improve. But a real book is better.
You missed the point. Let's say you want to read Dan Brown's new book "The Lost Symbol" when it comes out. So you put yourself on the list at the library. What number are you on that list? 38 maybe (and each of the people ahead of you gets to keep it for 7 days). I, on the other hand, will get the book about 90 seconds after it's released. For me, the Kindle book that I can read is "better" than the real book I have to wait weeks for. ;o)
[2 points]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
In addition, every library seems to have an area where they sell off their overstock and donations real cheaply. I've picked up many a hot paperback or $100 textbook for 25 cents, that way.
United States
Depends on how many books you buy. You will save an average of $8-10 on new hardcover bestsellers. So if you plan to buy 30-40 books over the next couple of years, the Kindle will pay for itself, even if you discount the convenience factors.
Of course if you buy real books you can 1) buy used books and save 10% to 90% off new. You can also resell it when you are done for 90% to 10% of what it is worth new. You can't do that with a Kindle, because you never own the books you buy. You are just being allowed to view them. This make books a lot cheaper.
DRM, treats legal consumers like criminals; just say no.
The only reason to get a kindle is if you really need or want one of the Kindle only features.
No, it does not make books "a lot cheaper." You can't buy new best sellers "used." Who want's the hassle of trying to find a way to "resell" books for 10% of what they are worth new?
And it certainly doesn't make big hardcover books any more convenient. Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces.
You don't have to buy DRM titles if you don't want to, you can load non-DRM books onto the Kindle.
P.S. Studies have shown that given the chance, 50% of employees will steal from their employers, which probably means most consumers ARE criminals. ;o}
"You can't buy new best sellers 'used.'" -- My wife does all the time. We haven't bought a new one in I can't remember how many years. Now granted we can't get them the day they come out, but they are available within weeks of release.
"Who wants the hassle of trying to find a way to 'resell' books for 10% of what they are worth new?" -- It's not much hassle. She lists what she is finished reading on half.com and just waits till someone buys it. The last book she sold was a medical info book that goes for about $80 new, she bought it for $1, and sold for $25 when she was done. (Now that isn't typical, but normally she just about breaks even. If it doesn’t sell she will donate it to one of the libraries, or give it to a friend.
"And it certainly doesn't make big hardcover books any more convenient. Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces." -- True, but how many people carry around 120 books (75lbs X 16 oz = 1200 oz/10 oz = 120) at the same time? If you do, then I'd call that one of the kindle features that could make it a good choice. I never take more than one or two books with me at a time.
"You don't have to buy DRM titles if you don't want to, you can load non-DRM books onto the Kindle." -- Of course you don't. But then you have limited what you can buy. Remember those new best sellers you where saying you can't buy used? Well you generally can't buy them DRM free either!
"P.S. Studies have shown that given the chance, 50% of employees will steal from their employers, which probably means most consumers ARE criminals. ;o}" -- Doesn't give them any reason to treat us like criminals. Doesn't give them the right to tell me that I can't resell something when I'm done with it. Doesn't give them the right to take way what I've purchased because they have decided it is too expensive to continue to support that old format and it’s DRM; and then they make you buy another copy in the new format also with DRM.
Of course they have the RIGHT to tell you you can't resell something that was licensed to you when you are done with it. That's what a "license" does... grants them (and you) a license. You didn't BUY the author's words. If you don't like it, don't agree to the license.
So when you buy a physical book, they should be able to tell you that you can't resell it? The physical book is also "the author's words" which you didn't buy. Why is that different?
When you buy a physical book you do not agree to the terms of a license agreement, which stipulate that you cannot transfer the book to someone else. But to your larger point, it's quite different because if I buy a physical book, then sure, I can resell the book I bought... but only once. If I bought a DRM free e-book, I could sell it 100,000 times.
My point is, that they have every "right" to license the content under whatever terms they (and the copyright holders) see fit, and to enforce the license that you agreed to. ;o)
So if I shrink-wrap my book in an EULA that say you can't resell it if opened, you would agree that your right to resell the property you bought and own is gone?
I'm not saying sell it 100,000 times. I'm saying resell the original once.
They will not even let you do that, because it really is only partly about limiting illegal copies. It is really about limiting you rights to your property and letting them sell more than they could otherwise. It turns the "play" button it to a "pay again" button.
It's not YOUR property. You are only purchasing a license. The license is for YOU. You can "play" it as often as you want without paying again. You do not have the right to transfer that license to someone else.
If I purchased it, it is my LICENSE. I can (or should be able to) sell or give away my LICENSE (the license that I paid for). Just like I bought a book, and the book is mine, the license is mine.
I cannot play it as often as I like. I can play it as long as they continue to support and validate my license. If 10 years from now I want to re-read a book, I know I can do that. With a DRMed book, I probably will not be able to do that.
Face it, DRM is a problem for consumers. It treats them like common criminals. And results in them having less rights than they would (or should) otherwise have. If you like giving up your fundamental property rights to some company via DRM, then that is your choice.
I agree. Even Microsoft will allow you to sell your license to use Win 7 as long as you sell both the CD and the registration key.
Irrelevant. The Amazon license agreement is what it is... not what some other company's agreement is. If you don't like it, don't buy the license. But don't bitch about how your "fundamental property rights" are being stolen from you. They are not.
That is just stupid.
You may think it's stupid... but that's the way it works. The owner of the content gets to decide how, when and where the content is licensed. You don't have any "fundamental property rights" when you license someone's content.
That is stupid. They are still the owner of the content of a book when I buy a book. They do not get to tell me what I can and can not do with that book once I have bought it.
Actually, they DO get to tell you what you can and can not do with that book once you have bought it. Try copying the book and selling copies to your friends. Try typing (or scanning) the book into a computer and selling it as an e-book. Let us know how that works out for you. ;o)
You just don't get it.
"Try copying the book and selling copies to your friends." – Straw man argument. What you are talking about is illegal. Just as coping a DRMed or non-DRMed book is. No difference other than they are preventing me from selling my property; the original that they sold me.
No, You just don't get it. You said they can't tell you what you can and can not do with the book. That is false. They can. That's why it is illegal.
What you are talking about is equally illegal, since it violates the license agreement you agreed to when you "bought" what they sold you.
THe difference is that it is not illegal (i.e., you have the right) to resell a physical book. Unlike the book, you never "bought" the right to resell your DRM protected e-book or music to someone else, because they did not sell you that right.
What they sold you is not YOUR property any more than the copy of Microsoft Word you license when you buy Office is YOUR property. You only get to do with it what the license allows you to do.
So, if you are done reading the book but you can't sell it because Amazon owns the license, they should have to buy it back from you if you don't want it anymore, right?
If wrong, why would anyone want a Kindle when you can buy e-book readers up one side of the Internet and down the other and never have to worry about licenses?
Wrong. Amazon doesn't own the license. The content owner (read, publisher) does. Amazon licenses the content from the content owner to you under specific terms. If you chose not to read the book, that was your choice. If you read the book, then you received the value you paid for. Do you expect the record store to buy all your CDs back after you have listened to them and you don't want them anymore?
Again, you do not have to buy ANY content to use a Kindle. You can load unlicensed content on your Kindle till the cows come home. If you want new bestsellers, you have to buy them according to the publisher's terms... the same as if you bought the physical book.
Sorry... it's not YOUR license. It's their license that you agreed to. We've already discussed why it's NOT just like a book (since you could make unlimited copies).
Probably will not? Why is that? I still have (and play) DRM music that I bought from the iTunes Music Store 10 years ago.
Sorry, but you have no fundamental property rights to someone else's property. They didn't sell you those rights with the license.
"Probably will not? Why is that? I still have (and play) DRM music that I bought from the iTunes Music Store 10 years ago." -- Wal-Mart's DRM music. Gone. Microsoft's DRM music. Gone. Yahoo!'s DRM music. Gone. If you bought any of these, they are no longer authenticating you to play your licensed content.
"Sorry, but you have no fundamental property rights to someone else's property." -- I agree. They should have no fundamental property rights to my property. They should be able to prevent me from selling my property (the song or the license) I bought from them.
Read the license agreement you agreed to. it was never your property. They didn't sell you the song. They licensed YOU (and only you) to play the song on your device(s).
I think you are incorrect about Microsoft's (at least) DRM music. I can still play it on my laptop. I never bought music from Wal*Mart or Yahoo.
I've never claimed they sold the rights to the song. They sold me a license. Just as when you buy a book or CD, you are getting a license to the intellectual content on the book or CD. When you sell the book or CD so too do you sell the license. Same thing with electronic media. I'm selling my one and only license to use the content.
Note I'm not arguing that they can't legally use DRM. That they can't say that I can't sell it. I'm saying that it is wrong!
Microsoft turns the DRM screw on MSN Music owners:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/microsoft-turns-the-drm-screw-on-msn-music-owners/
Oh okay. Sorry. I thought when you said "Doesn't give them the right to tell me that I can't resell something when I'm done with it." that you were arguing that they don't have a right to do that, not just that you think it's wrong.
Thanks for the link. Good thing I don't have much Microsoft music... that laptop is about to retire. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah um actually... not so much. DRM may be lame, but the Kindle is decidedly not lame. You can also read non DRM books on the Kindle so while the Kindle Store may = DRM, Kindle <> DRM.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyPlease read for comprehension. You do not have to read DRM books on the Kindle. You can read non-DRM books on the Kindle. At least half of the books on my Kindle are non-DRM.
You may view DRM as a fundamentally flawed distribution model, but that does not make the device fundamentally flawed (or useless).
I would agree that the Kindle is a pretty good idea. I like the idea. The problem is the DRM. The books I would WANT TO BUY are likely going to have DRM. I don't get to chose between a DRM and a non-DRM version of the same title. I have to chose titles that happen to not have DRM. I'm not going to buy an expensive reader when I can't buy the books I want because they are DRMed.
Just the same as I didn’t buy an iPod or use iTunes until they fixed their DRM problem.
So you personally have a thing against DRM. Okay... fine. Don't buy DRM titles if you don't want to. But that still doesn't make the device "fundamentally flawed" as a device.
I notice that Apple's iTunes Store also did pretty well in spite of your boycott. ;o)
Wasn't a boycott. I simply didn't wast my money there.
If you didn't buy from them because they refused to sell it the way you wanted it, that's pretty much a boycott.
Whether it would have been a "waste" of money totally depends on how much you would like the convenience of easily being able to find and purchase music. I never found it a "waste" at all... since I got music I enjoyed without having to drive to the record store and hope they had what I wanted in stock (which they usually did not). I still have (and can listen to) everything I've ever purchased from the iTunes store.
Okay, then by your definition I'm boycotting Kia because I've never bought a Kia because they have never offered a model of car I liked. I'm also boycotting several other car makers.
No... you said you didn't buy one "until" they "fixed the DRM problem." That implies that you wanted it all along, but refused to buy it because you perceived the DRM as problem that needed fixing.
So if Kia makes a car I like in 2011 and I buy it, that implies that I have been boycotting them until now?
Only if you tell us that the only reason you didn't buy a Kia before was because they had some feature you didn't like, and you bought one when they fixed that feature. ;o)
Okay, <hypothetical> so Kia didn't make a car with a double sun roof. That was a feature that was a strong requirement for me, and other than the lack of that feature that I wanted I would have bought the Kia. However, several other car makers made very similar cars but with the double sun roofs that I wanted. So I bought one of them even though I would have bought the Kia had it also had the double sun roof.
Now it is 2011 and I need another car. Kia now also has a model that does have a double sun roof. So this time I buy the Kia.
I was still was not boycotting them before. Go look up the definition of boycott.
Except you said you didn't buy an iPod "because" they had something you didn't like, not because they didn't have a double sun roof.
boycott: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.
Sounds to me like you refused to have dealings with them to express your disapproval of DRM.
Yes, the Kia had something I didn't like: a roof without two sun roofs. Any "have" or "don't have" is interchange able. What if CDs and Amazon had a feature I liked? Like no restriction on what I did with the media.
"boycott: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions." -- Okay, first is the word 'concerted'. concerted: mutually contrived or agreed on. My action was not concerted. Second, is "refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization)". I did not refuse to have dealings with Apple. I simply chose not to buy that one product. I did however by other Apple products. So you are now trying to tell me that I have to buy every model Kia that they make or I'm boycotting them? Third and last, "usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions." I didn't do it to express anything. I didn't tell Apple anything. I simply did not want the product as it was being offered. So again if I don't buy the Kia because it isn't being offered with a dual sun roof, I must be boycotting Kia.
Okay sorry... I read into your comment that you were specifically not buying an iPod or music from the iTunes music store in order to express your disapproval of DRM. But I agree that if you never discussed it with anyone else it was not a "concerted" refusal... so I withdraw the term boycott. Allow me to rephrase. I notice that Apple's iTunes Store also did pretty well in spite of your not dealing with them. ;o)
Fair enough. But may I also note that they did eventually get ride of it, and worked hard against the music industry to do so. Wonder why?
Steve Jobs was always against it. It was the content OWNERS who insisted. Jobs said Apple would “embrace (DRM-free) in a heartbeat if the big four would license their music (that way) ... because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.”
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyStraw man. Amazon has already publicly apologized and stated that in the future they will NOT delete the contents anytime they like.
Just out of curiosity, how would you "lose" your Amazon account?
You personally may think it's flawed... but there are (even going by the low estimates) about 350,000 people who disagree. It has an 86% positive rating on the reviews.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI'm allowed to appeal to popularity to demonstrate that something is popular. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySorry... I assumed that by "fundamentally flawed" you meant a model that was unsustainable because people would not buy into it and it would fail miserably.
Now I see that by "fundamentally flawed" you simply mean a model that you personally do not like. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAnd I'm saying the fact that YOU don't like DRM does not make the device "fundamentally" flawed. That would be like saying iPods were "fundamentally flawed" because the iTunes Store used to use DRM.
The device itself does not require DRM to function... but you knew that. So now who's being hard to get along with?
Both translate and I have told you why we think DRM is "fundamentally flawed". We have given you reasons and cited examples. It is quite ironic that you claim that when we say "fundamentally flawed" we simply mean a model that we personally do not like. Especially after you have appealed to popularity to defend the Kindle and it is quite clear it is a product that you like.
To say that the device itself doesn't require DRM to function is irrelevant. You are not going to have all those "features" you have been claiming make it so great (like being able to instantly download the latest and greatest of any bestselling book you want without having to wait) if you don't use DRM. To say you don't need DRM to use the Kindle is like saying you don't need a drivers license to own a car. Technically true, practically worthless.
Nope. Translate has made it very clear that he is saying the DEVICE is fundamentally flawed, not the DRM model. But since they are making money hand over fist, I don't actually agree that either the device or the model are "fundamentally flawed." ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyQuite similar, actually. You could use the Kindle the same way you use your iPod. You can load things onto it via a USB cable and ignore Amazon if you so chose. I'm not sure they can brick it and keep you from loading your own content via the USB cable. Jailbreaking is another issue, since that is a 3rd party company subverting the manufacturer's device. If there were enough Kindles out there, maybe someone would jailbreak them, too.
Having said that, the reason it's quite similar is that the huge money maker for Apple has been the iTunes Music Store, not the iPod devices. And until very recently the iTunes store used DRM.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyJust like an iPod. You can put any e-book title into the Kindle via the USB cable. If you turn off Whispernet, Amazon has no access to your kindle and is unable to "brick" the Kindle.
If any copyright holder wishes to make their current best-seller available in a non-DRM format, I can put a copy on my Kindle. So it's not the DEVICE that's the issue. it is Amazon's (and the publisher's) DRM policy.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThat would be up to the publishers of the book. It would not be up to Amazon (or any other e-book manufacturer). I know how you feel about copyrights, but surely you're not suggesting they can make a model out of selling non-DRM best sellers in defiance of the publishers. ;o)
Well they deactivated one person's account for "too many returns". Their Kindle was next to useless at that point. They did re-enable their account after the individual went public (and the individual may or may not have been abusing the return policy, I'm not commenting on that). The point is that Amazon has almost god like powers to make your kindle worthless. You may or may not get it back, but that would be after a lot of work and effort (possibly legal) that you shouldn't have had to go through.
If they stopped treating customers like criminals and dropped the DRM it would be pretty darn cool.
Not a problem. You just keep paying more for books and killing trees while basking in your morally superior position that DRM totally sucks.
I guess I'm just a sellout for opting for convenience, cost savings and environmental responsibility. ;o)
Get a library card, and use it.
Right now I'm carrying about 75 pounds of books in my bag, and they only weigh 10 ounces. If I decide I want to read a new book that just came out, I don't have to put my name on a list... I can get it in about 90 seconds.
Let's see you do that with your library card. ;o)
I have library cards to three systems, two county-wide and one state-wide. I can find any book in the systems and reserve it and have it sent to my local library. Hawaii's will even mail it to me. Those are real books or CD/DVDs. I can download ebooks and audio books easily on my computer. I can't read them on a Kindle (I don't have one), but it's all free (or $1 for videos in Hawaii.) The Kindle is great, and will likely improve. But a real book is better.
You missed the point. Let's say you want to read Dan Brown's new book "The Lost Symbol" when it comes out. So you put yourself on the list at the library. What number are you on that list? 38 maybe (and each of the people ahead of you gets to keep it for 7 days). I, on the other hand, will get the book about 90 seconds after it's released. For me, the Kindle book that I can read is "better" than the real book I have to wait weeks for. ;o)
In addition, every library seems to have an area where they sell off their overstock and donations real cheaply. I've picked up many a hot paperback or $100 textbook for 25 cents, that way.
Almost by definition a "hot" paperback is already a more than one year old title. ;o)
Well, OK, a Kindle has the edge for instant gratification. I hear you can read the NYTimes on it, too. Can you do the crossword?
Just go on Amazon and read the reviews. You will know what to do.
http://www.buyingkindle.com/