×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

206 comments

If Everything was "security"? (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130862)

This seems more like a grab for money from book sales than anything technical. Has there really been security leaks coming from online readers?

Re:If Everything was "security"? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38130896)

All forms of DRM for ebooks will always be subject to pilfering. Such is the dirty secret of DRM and the built-in excuse for companies to yank their content whenever they feel like it suits their business agenda.

There needs to be a safe harbor for libraries where they can make an owned paper book accessible however they want, including digitally.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132276)

All forms of DRM for ebooks will always be subject to pilfering. Such is the dirty secret of DRM and the built-in excuse for companies to yank their content whenever they feel like it suits their business agenda.

Why do you hate America?

Re:If Everything was "security"? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132308)

Because the greedy fuckers running it hate me and everyone but themselves.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38130912)

Something starts leaking after I "yank the penguin" (I have a tux tatt on my pecker).

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131106)

Why would you ever get a tattoo on your pet woodpecker? Is that even legal?

Re:If Everything was "security"? (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131834)

Better to use a duck. Cheaper too because you can put in on their bill.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (4, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130916)

It's easy to strip the DRM out of the files.

Also, my local library supply audio books that you can download from home straight to your PC/Mac using Ebsco. You can take out the audio books for as short as one day. The software downloads the MP3 files to a hidden directory, I found they have no DRM attached. Copy paste to a new directory, you have the audiobook forever.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2, Interesting)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130956)

people who can strip the DRM from the books can get the books elsewhere. Those who can't most likely won't.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38130982)

I found they have no DRM attached. Copy paste to a new directory, you have the audiobook forever.

That is also known as stealing. And congratulations, you are fucking over libraries and everyone else (future versions will have ever more draconian DRM or simply not be available in libraries) for your own greed.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131066)

That is also known as stealing.

Bullshit. The files were returned in the exact same condition as he received them.

Now copyright violations OTOH...

Re:If Everything was "security"? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131298)

That is also known as stealing.

Bullshit. The files were returned in the exact same condition as he received them.

Now copyright violations OTOH...

You actually return the files? I have no experience with DRM, other than I have to use my pc speakers when I stream content to my HDTV.

One more example of DRM being about protecting business models
I like that thought, I hadn't considered it that way.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (4, Informative)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131104)

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0, Troll)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131294)

It's a kind of stealing though.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (5, Insightful)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131986)

The definition that Google has for "steal" is:

Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".

Copyright infringement doesn't deprive the owner of the song of their property. They still own the song. Copyright infringement is illegal, but calling it theft is an attempt to make it something it is not. If we want to have a reasonable discussion of the issue, we should start by being clear about what copyright infringement is and what it isn't.

Copyright Infringement =/= Stealing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132018)

Guess what the RIAA got for Christmas? ....... my bicycle!

Re:If Everything was "security"? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131324)

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.

And hackers just means people who use a keyboard...

Sorry. I'm not saying it's right, but the media war is pretty much won on this one--copyright violation is now normatively bad, and comparable to stealing, for the upper middle class.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (4, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132330)

Pretty sure they didn't, since the number of users doing it is ever-growing, and the only ones who ever even fire a synapse about the "morality" of the act are the two noisy sides who wank on about it on tech-and-game forums on the web (and the crybaby IP owners who equate not only downloading, but perfectly legitimate used sales as 'stealing'. The douche from the company that shat out 'Heavy Rain' being my recent favorite).

The media can say whatever they're paid to say. The zeitgeist isn't with them on this one, though.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (3, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132544)

The media don't get to charge people with crimes. The Media don't get to play judge, jury, and jailor. Shakespeare can say "Glamis hath Murdered Sleep" all he wants, but the courts are who decides what murder is. As long as there exists a Supreme Court decision that copyright violation is not theft (and yes, there is at least one to that effect), the media can call it 'high puppy mutilating pedo-treason' if they want, but guess what it is. That's right, it's Copyright Violation. How many legs does a dog have if the Media calls a tail a leg?

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131640)

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.

Yeah, and "hacker" refers to a "computer hobbyist."

Now, look *this* up: "Language Evolves."

"Stealing" and "Piracy" are both perfectly equivalent terms for "copyright infringement" as it applies to digital media. But don't take my word for it, you can witness the evolution in the hundreds of thousands of blogs, newspapers, and other online sources that now drive the changes in language.

And since writers are the ones who dictate language evolution to no small degree, and since they're the ones being stolen from in this case, there's a certain... poetic justice to the whole thing, doncha think?

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131686)

You're wasting your breath arguing with these idiots. They will never admit that 'stealing' is correct (my 1970s dictionary describes stealing as 'taking or using without permission') because stealing makes it sound like what they are doing is wrong, and they can't admit that to themselves.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131738)

Also, "jaywalking" is "rape of traffic."

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131890)

And yet, the files are neither taken nor used without their owner's permission. The content of the files may be, since the content owner and the file owner are different people, but that's covered under copyright infringement, not theft.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132500)

And yet, the writer does not OWN the "book", he only has monopoly for some short (originally) period of time. You need to read some history man, and then argue. And then try to find out why this monopoly was transfered to anyone but the author, and his family.....

Re:If Everything was "security"? (5, Insightful)

Clovert Agent (87154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132720)

Language evolves and drifts, but legal definitions do not.

Theft is a crime with a specific definition. Copyright violation is a different crime, with a different definition. They are both criminal actions, but they are _different_ types of crime. Trying to conflate the two is very successful PR by the media industry, since "theft" has negative connotations that "piracy" does not, but they are not the same.

For reference: try to find an instance of copyright violation which has been prosecuted (successfully or not) as theft. When copyright holders start charging violators with theft, I'll agree that the definition has shifted. Until then, they're not the same and should not be confused.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132536)

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Look it up sometime.

Fair enough:

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.

NET Act [wikipedia.org]

"Indentity Theft" has become a federal offense that can put you away for up to fifteen years.

When your bunk mate is a bruiser named Big Mike the particular sub-section of the criminal code which has you sharing a 6x8 cinderblock cell no longer matters very much.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131116)

Do not feed the Troll

Re:If Everything was "security"? (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131162)

That is also known as stealing

Only by people who have never looked up the definitions of "stealing" and "copying."

And congratulations, you are fucking over libraries and everyone else (future versions will have ever more draconian DRM or simply not be available in libraries) for your own greed.

DRM is always doomed to fail. It attempts to solve an unsolvable security engineering problem (the secure device in an insecure environment) and the security only needs to be broken once for the whole system to fall apart. For some reason, copyright-based industries have failed to grasp this fundamental truth, and their lobbyists have convinced governments to prop up their bad security systems with undemocratic laws and censorship. They have even convinced the public school system to spread their greed-driven propaganda to young children.

Yet you defend these people.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132000)

It attempts to solve an unsolvable security engineering problem (the secure device in an insecure environment) and the security only needs to be broken once for the whole system to fall apart. For some reason, copyright-based industries have failed to grasp this fundamental truth, and their lobbyists have convinced governments to prop up their bad security systems with undemocratic laws and censorship.

On the contrary, the fact that they've turned to legislation shows that do in fact recognize the truth of DRM's infeasibility. When their technical solutions failed, they bought legal ones.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132268)

off topic but the drm protection on a game called 'tom clancy's HAWX 2' was never cracked. Its been about 2 years since the release i think and it never will cracked either.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132696)

didn't that use ubisofts always need to be online protection? If so different groups have shown that this can be defeated (assassains creed II, settlers 7, that submarine game) maybe hawx2 slipped through the cracks.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132704)

Artificial scarcity is fundamentally a lie, and people can and do see through this lie, and hence feel completely justified in rejecting it.

The god-given right to be paid for one's work doesn't include the right to take control of everyone in the world.

Content producers need to innovate sustainable business models that aren't based on very transparent lies.

That is all.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131258)

The same thing is true for the MP3-based audio books from OverDrive. Overdrive has a nice little quirk in it though that you can't actually renew items - only delete them and check them out again. If downloading to a mobile device, this can be slow and also seems to delete any reference to where you left off in it.

I now just use OverDrive to download the books, but then open the MP3s in my phones native app to listen to them - which has a better interface when driving to. Now, is it still a violation of the rules if I don't re-open the OverDrive app to delete them until after I finished listening to it ... which may or may not be a few days past the original "due" date.

Of course, I haven't used the OverDrive system in a while now because it doesn't support DRM on Android, and the collection of non-DRMed audi-books is abysmally small . . .

Re:If Everything was "security"? (1, Redundant)

francium goes boom (1969836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130948)

It has been easy for quite a long time to turn a kindle (.azw) to any other format. All it takes to find free software to do it is a quick google serach. So coming out now and saying security concerns is just dumb.

Re:If Everything was "security"? (2)

jvin248 (1147821) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132280)

This is just another last gasp of the traditional publishers. Independents are scooping huge percentages of electronic sales, and electronic formats are growing while dead tree sales are falling. Check out Konrath jgordonsmith.com locke. The traditional publishers are afraid, but the writers who have all the content creation power, get a higher percentage of sales to go alone. The amazing thing is the writers are closer to the readers.

"Content" is a business model. (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130868)

n/t

Re:"Content" is a business model. (4, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130894)

No, it's not.

The content gives you something to sell, exactly what you do with it is the business model.

Re:"Content" is a business model. (2)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131600)

> The content gives you something to sell, exactly what you do with it is the business model.

Except for the fact that the pay-for-content copyright-based business model is often the best business model when measured in revenue (especially for high-development-cost content). Sure, you can give your content away for free and attach ads, but then you're often making pennies on the dollar. That's why ad-based content has the cheapest development costs - because the profits can't support expensive development costs. (Interesting aside: the original Battlestar Galactica TV show was cancelled despite being very popular because the profits couldn't cover the expensive costs of creating the show. Star Wars succeeded because they were charging money for tickets.)

In that context "protecting the business model" really means "protecting a good business model".

Content vs business model (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130892)

How do you separate 'selling content' from 'business model'? Content IS the business model.

Re:Content vs business model (3, Informative)

magnusrex1280 (1075361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130940)

Content is a thing that exists, whether you have a business model or not. Business model is the system or method you use to make money from a product or service, in this case the product/service is e-reader content.

Re:Content vs business model (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131476)

The point is that the 'drm is not about protecting content but business models' is stupid. There is no need to protect the content if it is not part of the business model.

I hate DRM, I swear I do (4, Insightful)

chispito (1870390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130962)

The editorializing in the summary, however, is so heavy-handed as to be absurd.

...citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content.

Re:I hate DRM, I swear I do (2)

JimMcc (31079) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131142)

It was a bit heavy handed, but if you read the article (Yeah, yeah. I know. Slashdot readers never....) you would fine the quote "...fueling speculation that Penguin’s actions may be directed at Amazon,"

But heavy handed or not, the point is a valid one.

What the Hell?! (4, Insightful)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130976)

"Penguin Group is removing Kindle ebooks from libraries using Overdrive citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content."

(Emphasis mine)
I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.

For shame.

Re:What the Hell?! (5, Insightful)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131002)

"Penguin Group is removing Kindle ebooks from libraries using Overdrive citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content."

(Emphasis mine)
I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.

Are you new here??

Re:What the Hell?! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131092)

Are you new here??

Not so new that I haven't seen that joke a hundred times or cracked it myself more than once. Just because it's been going on for a while doesn't make this sort of 'red top' reporting acceptable.

You must have skin much thicker than mine, honoured elder.

Re:What the Hell?! (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131080)

Question is, does the spin make the editorialized statement any less true?

I find it disturbing that the answer is, well, "no".

Editor shouldn't let commercial press releases... (2)

Burz (138833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131828)

...set the tone and scope of a posting when the subject is laden with conflict of interest. In this case it's DRM.

IMO Penguin's smokescreen deserved that backhanded comment and I do not consider it out of place on Slashdot.

Idiotic summary (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38130988)

How is it that we're still not clear on the idea that the content (creating it, using a publisher to find a market for it, charging for it, and making money from that process) is the business model. People who create content for the pleasure of doing so give their work away all the time. There's plenty where that came from. Mechanisms to prevent people from ripping off content don't matter to people who don't have an interest in the content-selling business model.

Creative people who deliberately join up with a publisher, label, studio or other partner to handle their business affairs while they go about continuing to write, record, film and whatnot - they have decided to embrace a particular business model: not doing it for free. Whether or not every or any DRM tool is ideal or practical is beside the point. The issue is that there are people who create things (books, games, movies, music) for a living if they can find an audience, and charging for copies of what they create is the business model. If they can't find anyone to buy it, that's too bad for them. They need to work harder or choose better partners. But if people simply rip them off because it's fairly easy to do so, that's not a comment on the creative people, it's a comment on the people who like to make little entertainment slaves out them.

The submitter's silly implication - that DRM is ever used for any reason other than because being ripped off isn't part of the business model - is, well, silly.

Re:Idiotic summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131112)

Creating content is not the business model, distributing it is.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131312)

Creating content is not the business model, distributing it is.

No, creating content for distribution is the business model. Being hired to do the distribution is secondary to that. Without people choosing to create things that they are seeking to sell, there would be no need for publishers to do the legwork.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131474)

No, creating content for distribution is the business model.

If that were true, the business model would pay out based on how much is created. Instead, it is based on how much is distributed.
Or, put more simply: nobody makes money creating something. The only time that you make money on content is if you distribute it to someone.

Why do you think copyright keeps getting extended? Once you get past a certain point, longer copyright protection reduces the incentive to create something.

Re:Idiotic summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132468)

No, that would imply the lack of a free market, if more people want it the higher the price, same with properties etc, you are assuming an inherent value

Re:Idiotic summary (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131208)

Value is created by scarcity, and there is simply no natural scarcity of books in this century. We are trying to build walls into our technology so that we can pretend that we still live in a previous century, which is just absurd. We no longer buy stamps to do things like pay our bills or send personal letters, so why are we so worried about whether or not the book publishing system remains relevant?

Sorry, but if people want to make a living writing books, they will need to find a new way to monetize that. We cannot allow the Internet to become a maze of walls and restrictions, we cannot have our computers monitor what we do, all for the sake of keeping an old business model alive. Sorry if you are an author who is not creative enough to monetize your work in this century without tricking everyone into ceding control of their computers to you.

At one time we had people whose job was to tell stories around the campfire; then we discovered that stories could be written down, and storytellers who failed to adapt had to find new lines of work. Now selling books is an obsolete business model, because we have computer networks that can make nearly unlimited copies of any written work at high speed; writers who fail to adapt will have to find new lines of work.

Re:Idiotic summary (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131420)

The scarcity is works worth reading, not the number of copies of books. Copyright was created to help eliminate that scarcity. Authors who write for money (which no doubt includes many very respected and/or popular authors) will just find something else to do if they can't make money off their writings. And that will be a loss for all of us.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

ocratato (2501012) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131914)

Copyrights were originally to stop publishers from making unauthorised copies, and was really a form of censorship.

We need a mechanism where authors can get rewarded for their work. The best time to do this is when the work transitions from private to public. The cost of trying to control a work once it has been released to the public is too high. It will either result in locked down equipment, or draconian laws - neither should be acceptable.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131952)

And that is exactly what the pirates are: unauthorized publishers making unauthorized copies. And since no-one has as of yet offered a workable solution for your 'best' situation, we are stuck with something that is not the best, but is workable.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131990)

How about authors refuse to publish their books until they have raised enough money? A well known author could publish a suspenseful preview or a first chapter, and then request $5 from each reader until some amount is raised, at which point the book will be published. There is no need for a publishing industry to even exist under such a system, the authors could just use the Internet and encourage, rather than attack, the copying of their books.

Is there some reason to think that such a thing would not work? We could build a payment system into tablet computers to ease such a process, along with a system of sharing books to help authors build a reputation.

we are stuck with something that is not the best, but is workable.

Sorry, but this is not a workable solution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html [nytimes.com]

Re:Idiotic summary (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132118)

I see nothing in there that is even marginally better for either authors or readers. It is totally unworkable. Do you really think the general public is going to shell out money for an as-yet-unwritten book? What is the magic amount that must be raised? How much time can elapse to raise the magic amount? What about people who didn't pay? I guess since you are so anti-copyright even people who didn't pay would be allowed to have a copy. What incentive is there for anyone to pay anything under those circumstances? Why would an author encourage the copying of their book by people who didn't pay?

Furthermore, anyone who wants to try such a system is perfectly free to do it today. The fact that by far most authors don't choose such a method says volumes about what they think of such an idea.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132296)

Do you really think the general public is going to shell out money for an as-yet-unwritten book?

Did I say unwritten? No, I did not. People have been known to shell out money for unpublished books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html [nytimes.com]

I guess since you are so anti-copyright even people who didn't pay would be allowed to have a copy.

Yeah, and so what? The age of copyrights is over, it is time to grow up and move on with your life.

What incentive is there for anyone to pay anything under those circumstances?

If nobody pays, the book does not get published; people who want the book will pay for it.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to try such a system is perfectly free to do it today. The fact that by far most authors don't choose such a method says volumes about what they think of such an idea.

Or that there is still a substantial market for dead tree books, and that the penetration of tablets has not yet reached a level that would make such a system attractive. We also have a system of ever-more-draconian copyright laws that are propping up old publishing models and businesses, which removes any incentive to develop a new system. I really do not think that the lack of a new system is evidence that there could be no workable alternative to what we have today.

Re:Idiotic summary (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132332)

I think the idea is that authors start out giving their works away for free, to build a fanbase, and asking for donations. Then, they start putting more pressure for donations: "give more money and my next book will be available sooner". Just look at the free TV show "Pioneer One", which is basically being financed by public donations. I haven't checked, but I imagine it's getting more donations as it's put out more episodes: once people see something they like, they want more.

Obviously, a totally unknown author isn't going to get anything; he'll have to put out something for free to get people interested. But after he's built up his name, he can start getting money from name recognition.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132528)

How about authors refuse to publish their books until they have raised enough money? A well known author could publish a suspenseful preview or a first chapter, and then request $5 from each reader until some amount is raised, at which point the book will be published. There is no need for a publishing industry to even exist under such a system, the authors could just use the Internet and encourage, rather than attack, the copying of their books.

It's already been tried... and failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plant [wikipedia.org]

I think a better model is charging a reasonable price for ebooks and giving authors a bigger cut to reflect the nearly non-existent printing and distribution costs:

http://www.smashwords.com/ [smashwords.com]

Re:Idiotic summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131488)

Value is created by scarcity, and there is simply no natural scarcity of books in this century

A ridiculous statement that essentially labels storytelling as a commodity, where every story is as good as every other story just as a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat. We certainly have more choices in books that at any time in history, but that does not mean that every story is equal.

You don't want to buy stuff because it's DRM'd? Totally legit. But don't denigrate people with respected talent because they don't want to give you free shit.

Re:Idiotic summary (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131212)

Funny thing about parenting... children tend to live up to the expectations put on them. Same goes for people.

Expect everyone out there to be conniving thieves, and set things up that way to "prevent" that? Well, they'll act like...conniving thieves.

The business model by the content creators is to have someone else deal with the business, aka, The Publishers.

The business model of the publishers, however, does not seem to be "let's adapt to the marketplace", but to try as hard as possible to get the marketplace to conform to the publishers' illusion of reality, including treating other authors (you know, the actual content creators) who realize that maybe they can do better off by themselves due to the variety of self-publishing models available now, and fighting anyone else trying to start new publishing models (e.g., Amazon.com).

The Publishers think they're the gatekeeper between the marketplace and the authors. Well, they're more and more really just coming off like Tom Smykowski from Office Space: "We take the manuscripts from the writers and give them to the Customers. You don't want the Authors giving the manuscripts directly to the Customers! We have PEOPLE SKILLS!!!" ...while most of us here on /. are snarkily like the Two Bobs, with the dubious/skeptical faces on... "So, what exactly do you do here, uh...Tom?"

Wrong (4, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132010)

they have decided to embrace a particular business model: not doing it for free.

You are soft-pedaling a profit motive that prefers to monopolize markets. We have seen for-profit publishers associations attack people who create and use public domain, GPL and creative commons works - even attacking the very idea of the public domain in legislation and insisting that the tech sector is “mobilizing to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright.’”.

Bodies like MPAA, RIAA, Sound Exchange, ASCAP, GEMA have taken an increasingly hostile stance toward any author who is not under contract with established publishing corps even when the content is being offered for free. People who publish under CC and public domain are being DOS'ed with undeserved DMCA and 'three strikes' notices.

It is your mamby-pamby presentation of for-profit publishing that is idiotic.

Oh, well. Whatever. (5, Interesting)

Turmoyl (958221) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131004)

Who cares? There is plenty of content, including new material, from more user-friendly publishers out there. Let Penguin learn from what I hope is an expensive lesson.

Re:Oh, well. Whatever. (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131098)

Let Penguin learn from what I hope is an expensive lesson.

Agreed. In fact I would rephrase this sentence to say:

Penguin will soon be drawing valuable insights from what I hope will eventually become a very expensive lesson.

Congratulations on the FUD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38131006)

Proof of the fact that people think that the Penguin group isn't really worried about security? A rant by Richard Stallman (there's no discounting the man is a genius, but he has never been able to grasp the idea that the real world marketplace works differently than the artificially supported one that runs acadamia).

Proof that DRM is about business models, not content? I link to an opinion piece the Inquirer.

I'm sorry, but making incendiary claims backed by flimsy logic is what we complain about from the MPAA/RIAA. WE SHOULDN'T DO THE SAME THING! There may well be legitimate security concerns with the kindle format right now, or the way that Overdrive handles that format, or...

While I don't think "security" should give companies a free pass to do whatever they want, we should probably give them enough rope to hang themselves before we string them up. If we don't, we can look forward to a lot more Sony-level breaches.

Re:Congratulations on the FUD (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131198)

the real world marketplace works differently than the artificially supported one that runs acadamia

Ironically, music, movie, software, and book distribution are all artificially supported markets, propped up by increasingly draconian copyright laws, and academia is becoming more and more profit-oriented.

DRM = bad (2, Interesting)

slazzy (864185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131044)

This is why I refuse to ever buy ANYTHING with drm, music, software or ebooks.

Re:DRM = bad (2)

Forbman (794277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131576)

I'm not that far. I'm perfectly happy buying electronic versions of books from Pragmatic Programmers - they come watermarked with my info. At this point, it does feel like mine, and there is no value-add for me to share it randomly, nor to look into ways to strip that watermark that consists of "from the library of..." on each page. I can run it through a PDF-to-Kindle app, if I really want it on my Kindle.

But, the key concept from PragProg is that it feels like mine. There's no other DRM in their eBooks that prevents me from copying the PDF to all my computers (work, laptop, desktop), or, more onerously, to only the One Device that has been blessed by the Publisher as being worthy of me using it on (like plugging your iWhatever into another computer, and it wants to wipe out any content files you may have already installed?), and that I should suffer blindness (e.g., deleting files) if I worship at another altar...

Re:DRM = bad (1)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132586)

If I followed that philosophy I'd be stuck fixing my fucking printer issues and sound cutting out in Linux, compared to the glorious "it works flawlessly" experience with Windows 7. If I followed that philosophy I'd be stuck playing crap little "old-school" styled indie games instead of something immersive and deep like Deus Ex: Human Revolution (which is only available on Steam, which of course uses DRM).

Perhaps less troll-like, if I followed that philosophy I'd miss out on a great number of wonderful things and my computing life would be less fun and somewhat more stressful (or put another way, the things I'd miss out on would reduce the pleasure I get from computers). Sometimes we have to compromise to get what we want.

When was DRM not about business models? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131172)

When was DRM not about protecting business models? The book and movie industries apparently think they are different from the music industry who has (mostly) learned that if they sell content in a form people want and at a reasonable price, people will buy it. Charge too much or make it too hard to get and people will find other ways to get it. I bought a lot of CD's through the original mp3.com, then after the music industry shut it down, I stopped buying music and have never bought a single DRM protected song... but have picked up a few mp3 albums after non-DRM music started becoming available. But sadly, it's still often cheaper to buy a used (or sometimes new) physical CD and rip it myself than to purchase an electronic album.

Re:When was DRM not about business models? (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131426)

Makes sense. I used to buy all of my music from emusic until Amazon started selling MP3s. While I was getting my music fix from emusic the big guys where losing out on selling me music. I don't think most people want to deal with the hassle of DRM, and in most cases it does make things more complicated for the user.

Um... (1)

jeremiahstanley (473105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131384)

Was DRM ever about protecting content and not business models? The whole point of copyright in general is to create artificial monopoly...

Is it just me... (3, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131458)

or does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.

I guess what I'm ticked off about is, I'm watching our civilization regress to pre-Renaissance levels of wealth inequality and all anybody cares about is the Beatles...

Re:Is it just me... (4, Insightful)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131650)

And I'm sure those /.ers are just as frustrated when you act as if information is a form of property subject to the same rules as physical goods.

What's the difference? (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131918)

If you can sell it, it's property. You can sell copyright, so it's property. You own what you can sell. You can disagree over whether it's a valid property right, whether it's good for society. But if you can sell it, it's a property right.

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132172)

To the right buyer, someone could probably sell you.

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132214)

You can sell anything if there's a law saying you can. I can sell you the right to get out of bed in the morning.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

TwilightXaos (860408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132226)

If you can sell it, it's property.

That is an interesting conclusion. How did you arrive at it?

Re:What's the difference? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132598)

I guess it just goes back to the old phrase, 'if it quacks like a duck'. I've become very practical minded these last few years. Ideals piss me off. People ignore the way things really happen when they don't mesh with their ideals. However else we want the world to be, copyrights are just as much a salable asset as land. Hell, if Apple computer was sold today, wouldn't their copyrights be a big part of their value.

Basically I'm a socialist. I got this way because I saw how much power large corporations wield, and I realized the only thing that had any hope of standing up to an international corporation was a strong centralized government. This is where my hatred of ideals comes into play. People are terrified of strong central governments. Their ideals tell them that strong central gov'ts are bad. But from a practical stand point, what the hell difference does it make if I'm being oppressed by my gov't or if I'm being oppressed by a corporation. Do you think the union reps murdered by Coke [killercoke.org] somehow care that they were killed out of profit motive instead of broad political ideals? And honestly, if you strip away the rhetoric ever single dictatorship that's ever been has always been about money. Ghaddafi wasn't ousted because he was brutal (he was, but that's a coincidence). He was ousted because he kept too much of the oil profits for himself. Slavery in Southern America? It had nothing to do with that State's rights clap trap, and everything to do with wealthy slave owners with a lot of money invested in slaves and a desire to use the slaves as a social buffer to keep poor white people in their place. I guess the point is, at least with the gov't I've got a fighting chance.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131718)

I'm curious - who is it that's saying that Apple shouldn't spend their own money any way they like? This is a viewpoint I'm unfamiliar with and I would like some education.

Re:Is it just me... (5, Insightful)

proxima (165692) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131872)

does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital

First of all, slashdot is not a monolith. Different people will pipe up in different conversations to say their bit.

Second, there is a fundamental difference between physical property rights and intellectual property rights. The former is inherently scarce (e.g. if you force Apple to do X with its money, it can't do Y with the same money, in general). The latter is not (e.g. my copy of an ebook did not prohibit anyone else from having a copy of an ebook).

This is why some people (I'm not necessarily among them) object to using the word "stealing" to refer to copyright infringement. A copyright holder doesn't "lose" money when someone downloads content illegally, but they do, potentially, lose a sale. For some industries this distinction is important (various professional-level software packages don't bother pursuing pirates, because they know that it will increase its market share to sell to their real customers, the businesses which will pay hundreds for a software package).

Keep in mind that the purpose of intellectual property laws (patents and copyrights) is to encourage innovation. A temporary monopoly gives people a (greater) incentive to create original works, knowing that they can try to extract value from their creations. This inherently limits the rights of others, who would otherwise be able to use and build upon works in the public domain.

The trouble is that this model has been breaking down on a few levels from its original intent. The first is that copyright extensions have kept works from entering the public domain for quite some time. The second is that patents on some inventions, especially software, are/were often granted with too little deference (one can argue) to prior art and "obviousness". Instead of encouraging innovation by small players, big companies amass patents in a kind of cold war against other big companies, and keep small businesses from being able to enter (because in many industries it's basically impossible not to be sued for patent infringement for something). You see entire company purchases made just for the building up of patent portfolios (arguably a large part of Google acquiring Motorola, for example). This isn't innovation, it's a new cost to doing business in these industries.

Do I subscribe to all of the above? No. But it's not inconsistent to strongly believe in physical property rights but think that intellectual property rights have gone too far.

Finally, it's fine to argue that wealth inequality is not an ideal outcome. To describe it as "pre Renaissance" is to imply heading into the dark ages. Within the western world, even fairly poor people live much better than the richest of that era, by most reasonable measures. To say that "all anybody cares about is the Beatles" when the news is plastered with the Occupy Wall Street protests rings pretty hollow to my ears.

Re:Is it just me... (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38131970)

or does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.

No, those two views are perfectly harmonious.
"It's THEIR money (they earnt it), let them spend it however they want" = "It's MY content (I bought it), let me use it however I want"

which titles? (1)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132042)

I guess the impact of this hinges on which titles are referred to by penguin books' "latest titles". I always thought of penguin as a reprinter of Dickens and the like. Are there any new and relevant authors with Penguin now?

Re:which titles? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132556)

Actually yes, i am big fan of sci-fiction, and it hearts me to just look at all these amazing titles that i want to buy, only if they are under $10. E-book only. Last time i relocated, i had to leave 2 box of books (50-100 books), which is the reason why i only buy e-books. Anyway, shame on you Penguin, shame.

SALE NBA JERSEY (1)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132092)

NEW YORK MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] -- The Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant has retained the top atom on the NBA's Best Accustomed Jerseys list, the baronial they has captivated NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] aback the alpha of the 2008-09 season. The NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] rankings are based on sales at the NBA Affluence in New York City & NBAStore.com aback Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] the alpha of the 2009-10 NBA season.

A silly point from AC Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132224)

Everyone always talks about failed business models. The "business model" had been around since the 1800s. What changed is it's easier than ever for people to copy the work and give it to everyone with a computer and an internet connection. What kept it under control in the past was for music you had expensive reel to reel or crappy quality Cassette tape knock offs and for books yeah you could Xerox them but it'd cost more than a publisher version. Then the internet and digital ripping and copying came along and people realized they didn't have to pay. Suddenly profits drop like a rock. The business model didn't change people just figured out a way to avoid paying. What has been hurt most of all is the quality of the work being produced. I have maybe 2 or 3 songs, all purchased, from the last 12 years. The rest break down as some from the 90s, a moderate amount from the 80s, the bulk from the 70s and some from the 60s. Music and books have been getting steadily worse. Even with books the bulk I read were published before 2000 and piracy only got to be a problem as eBook readers got popular. Kind of the iPod effect.

Penguin Yanking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132286)

Penguin Yanking is not a passtime I would like to try, but I guess there are some people that might enjoy it. (Probably in The South Island where sheep shagging is popular)

I agree that books on the subject should not be in public libraries.

Fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132302)

I would be more against this if Amazon hasn't been using anti-competitive tactics, ie signing authors so Amazon is the only place you can buy their books. Hate DRM, hate businesses getting too large just as much.

Huhuhuhhh huh heh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132424)

Penguin Yanking. . . . . .

Where's the evidence? (3, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132478)

The summary declares, without any evidence whatsoever, that Penguin's motives are not what they say, and furthermore that this is "One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content." If the examples are evidentially supported to the same degree as this one, then exactly how sure can we be about the trend? How much evidence do we have, in total, towards the hypothesis that companies do not use DRM to protect their content?

I'm not trying to take the companies' side here. It just frightens me that the standard of evidence required to become slashdot fact is so very low. Once you believe something to be fact, it will influence your beliefs, and what you believe to be fact in the future. If one starts accepting facts with such a low standard of evidence, the bullshit can snowball until the most tenuous of hypotheses can seem so sure that one will defend it against anything but the most blatant of contradictions. I've seen it many times, and I've had it happen to me before.

Here's another topic to think about. Everyone knows that the government is simply eating out of Big Corporation's wallet, right? How do they know this? Think back to all the times you think you've seen examples of this, and really consider the following questions: "Is this the only explanation that this at all likely? Can you find some kind of contradiction in the version of events that they offer? Did you even listen to their version of the events?". While seemingly disproportionate mistrust of government is vital to democracy, it doesn't hurt to fact check once and a while!

Thank you for reading. I hope you take some of this on board.

Re:Where's the evidence? (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132538)

Actually, your argument has one BIG fault. Let me explain it you. The question is not whether i have evidence that the government is corrupted by the Big Corporation, but the opposite, where is the evidence that they DON"T eat???? WHERE? These kind of bullshit arguments like yours could only work for 1st grade kids, not for slashdoters, so please go to your local bar and try to read some classic books about dialogue, argument, and who Aristotel is. Please.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...