maevele | (no subject)

(no subject)

okay, i can not articulate a post about the new fucking headesploding amazon fail that is so big i need a word bigger than fail to describe it. cataclysm? I JUST I DONT EVEN FUCKING KNOW.

I've been really WTFAMAZON since the damn kindle, which seemed like a great idea done horribly wrong, yay ebooks, boo proprietary drm bullshit. I do nnot understand paying more money to have access only to what the manufacturer wants you to have when my netbook was cheaper than a kindle and can handle multiple ebook files, just not kindle files.

but i stil gave amazon my money from time to time, in areas unrelated to books. just yesterday i paid amazon for a downloaded album, even. but no fricking more.

if you haven't seen here
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/17/amazon-zaps-purchase.html#comments

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Y'know, I have to say, since it was two Orwell books...kinda figures, don't it? XDD

This so outraged us that it was the subject of Da List's entry for today.

We've just been reading aloud Homage to Catalonia too ....

Love, C.

Shouldn't people be pissed off at the publisher, moreso than Amazon? I mean, yeah, Amazon should have explained to people when they deleted the book, but it's the frigging PUBLISHER who demanded they do it. Not a ton Amazon can do there--hell, if a publisher tells them to yank a paper book from the site, they have to. This is just the way it translated into new media, of which I Am No Fan.

Really, I understand the disquiet, but much like the last kerfuffle involving Amazon, I think the majority of the anger is severely misdirected.

no, because if a publisher pulls a printed book, only the copies up for sale would be yanked, not the ones already sold and in possession of the consumer.

Also, an author friend of mine just signed her Kindle contract, and is super not amused and suspicious of this, because it seems there is not anything in their contract actually permitting them to do what they did.

Well, it exposes an inherent problem with the Kindle that people fail to realize until they have an example of the actual meaning of the proprietary, closed system of Amazon's device.

They failed to notice that Amazon's use of conditional licenses on content and operating software mean they don't really own anything except a box which can be rendered useless at whim. It's like giving up a DVD of your favorite movie to watch it via cable subscription.

And while yes, it is obvious if you take the time to understand such things, the Kindle is sold as if it were an mp3 player for books, in which you own the content and use the tool for viewing.

How perfect is it that this happened over digital copies of '1984'?

That was my thought. I mean, the jokes just write themselves. (And did, all over BoingBoing.)

The Kindle has been deemed a bad deal by the tech savvy because it involves a ridiculous level of DRM and control.

Prior to this incident, blogs revealed if a user's Amazon account is shut down - for dubious TOS violations such as returning "too many" books - this will remove access to ALL content purchased from Amazon. Essentially, you're paying hundreds of dollars for a device you never own, because it can be bricked by the seller. Any time the Kindle goes online, it's through the Amazon server giving them complete access to the device. It's why the Kindle - and specifically Amazon's attempt to monopolize e-books with it - needs to fail. It's trying to create a world where you never own content, just license it.

The reason the iPod isn't as evil is not that Apple is benign, but that mp3 technology is less proprietary and the device is a stand alone tool. You don't need to buy any music from Apple to use the iPod and if Apple tried to use the iTunes to remotely erase iPod files, not only would people flee to other players, they'd use "unauthorized" programs to operate their iPod.

Unless the Kindle becomes something which can be used without any direct Amazon involvement, it's a monopoly scam.

This said, Amazon sells mp3s without DRM and Apple doesn't, so it's not that the entire company is horrible, just this one business plan.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only