@Pond: I love the idea of an exemption. I just don’t know if the good guys have the clout for it to become reality, and you yourself seem to wonder about that. But we’ve got to start somewhere. So keep dreamin’! I like that.

@Steve: The commonsense of consumers will ideally prevail. Improved newspaper coverage of course could speed up the process.

@Mags: Thanks for the suggestion. The NYT and other major publications know of TeleRead—Age Age quoted me just days ago—and perhaps something positive can happen. I will be following through. Your thoughts expressed above can only help.

Thanks,
David

Complaining in a blog won’t make anyone write the article you want. They need to have it put under their noses. I would like to read such an article.

The sooner everyone understands the true nature of e-books, therefore, the sooner we can stop wasting so much time with argument and semantics and get around to building an industry as healthy as the TV or music industries (or at least as lucrative).

E-books are quite literally a new medium, or package, for literature, and as a medium, have more in common with other electronic media (like music, television programs, etc) than with printed matter. Electronic media have developed forms of delivery, pricing structures, and yes, DRM, that reflect the realities of that media… and they actually work. E-books have not, because everyone in the biz continues to try to fit round electronic pegs into square paper holes.

I agree with Rob P: Consumers buy, and own, a package. But they have limited options as far as how they can use the content in that package… the actual literature. In the case of Amazon (or with any dedicated e-book reader), the device itself is the package, and one of the downsides of the Kindle system is that it can exercise control over the content. Don’t like that? Use a device, or package, that will not take your content away without your say-so.

The fact that the “Orwellian Kindle Fiasco” (as it will probably go down in history) happened is not an indictment of the e-book industry… it is a warning about one of the biggest potential downsides of a particular package. As long as everyone obsesses over that one package, no use will come of this fiasco. But if consumers, publishers, and the press, take advantage of this to alert everyone to the other packages out there, and their options to avoid undesirable e-book packaging, they will be doing a service to the industry.

Subscription models are well and good for most library users and textbook users. I fully expect this will be a flourishing business model pretty soon, as it allows publishers and ‘rights holders’ to collect money every time a text is read. But it still suffers from the Big Brother problems of texts being changed and censored — and the original editions simply vanishing.

I’d like to call for a simple solution (at least in the USA): for the Library of Congress to grant exemptions for all ‘device-shifting’ use and programs. This would make legal all the ‘cracking’ software people could use to overcome the barriers of DRM, convert one format of eBabel to another, read on any device they have (including new devices and formats as they arise, thus ensuring the possibility of reading the etexts going forward, even when the last Kindle made breaks and nothing reads the proprietary Amazon format anymore), and preserve and ‘own’ their books.

It would be a sword that cuts to the heart of DRM, encouraging publishers to look for other answers to their problems, as well as the heart of eBabel, since over time ‘the best or most popular format would win,’ and device manufacturers would cluster around that format, and publishers would be encouraged to save costs and release in this best-liked format.

And it would be up to the Librarian, whose position (we may hope) is less influenced by lobbyists, and more by considerations of the public good.

Well, it won’t happen, but I like to dream at times.

Thanks,
David

Do we? The very existence of libraries tells me that many, many folks don’t have a compulsion to own the books they read.

Some folks want to own DVD’s. Others are content to rent them. Some folks need to own a house, car, or tux. Others are quite content to rent.

My personal position on ebooks is that my concern for “ownership” rights are sort of on a sliding scale related to the price of the title. The cheaper the title the more tolerant I’ll be of publisher shenanigans regarding DRM. The more expensive the price the less I’ll tolerate DRM (Note to publishers: if you really want to try and charge me anywhere near the same price for an ebook as a pbook it damn well better be sans DRM!!)

Actually, I hope the market evolves towards a monthly subscriber service a la Rhapsody or Netflix.

What if Amazon were to offer a subscription service similar to Rhapsody? For a fixed monthly fee you step up to the book buffet and “eat” all you want. You keep the titles you want as long as you continue your subscription. However, when you stop your subscription Amazon will delete all the titles you might still have on your Kindle. Could that be a possible reason Amazon implemented the “reach out and delete from your Kindle” functionality that has gained notoriety of late?

People will make purchase decisions based upon their own particular needs. If YOU feel that you need clear title (so to speak) to the titles you buy that’s your decision. Just don’t assume that everyone else shares the same belief and sense of outrage over “just leasing” in this matter.

Tell the reader he doesn’t own his books. Tell the book collector he doesn’t own his books.

Your point may be valid, we just own the paper we can’t redistribute (of course tell that to libraries), but if you ignore that feeling of ownership your business will suffer. You come off as tone deaf.

Because books are a physical manifestation of intellectual property (sorry to those of you who don’t like that word), ownership rights over them will always be limited as long as copyright is in force, regardless of whether they’re physical books or eBooks.

Rob Preece
Publisher