If you like the idea of owning e-books–yes, truly owning them, as opposed to being at the mercy of a subscription service and DRM and the rest–then you should worry about Google and Amazon.
A major game plan at both seems to be for you to buy online viewing privileges but not necessarily the books themselves. It’s as if the books will be in a glass case in a museum. You won’t necessarily be able to download the files.
Forget about the seamless transmission of culture from one generation to the next, if this model prevails and Washington officially encourages it. Someday will it be a crime to own files of e-book you didn’t write? That sounds like a variant of Richard Stallman’s nightmare or an updated Farenheit 451 scenario, and I doubt it will happen. But as with nuclear holocausts, we’d do well not to dismiss the possibility in full; and we should respond accordingly. Via a hypothetical letter written in the year 2106, I’ll show what the Googazon initiatives could mean if Washington caved in to the copyright extremists and actually banned personal ownership of e-book files. But first, here’s a little background.
A few words on copyright, Murphy’s Law and Hollywood-swayed pols
I know. Other alternatives to the museum approach will exist, even at Google and Amazon–it isn’t as if Amazon has said it will pull the plug on Mobipocket, which works with files you download to your computer. And maybe consumers will be smart enough to vote with their pocketbooks against the museum approach as the only one. In a friendly way, I’ll do what I can to discourage the companies from overemphasizing the museum model.
No, I’m not worried about the short term and even welcome the model as an option; I just don’t want it to be the only one in time. It’s the far-off future that bothers me. Google and Amazon can do their share by strongly encouraging publishers to let actual files be downloadable rather than just viewable. The clueful publishing houses will come around, hopefully, and set the tone for the rest of the industry.
The perils of a Valenti-esque approach to books
Copyright lobbyists of the Jack Valenti ilk hate the public domain, fair use and the like, whatever the medium; and our often-cowardly pols just might succumb in time and actually forbid the public from owning files of e-books. Murphy’s Law applies to politics. If anything can go wrong, it will. Thanks to proprietary formats and DRM, society could be in for a very hard time if copyright terms keep getting extended.
Valenti-type fanatics want terms to last forever short of a day, and the museum approach to e-books would almost surely suit them just fine. And Google, now publicly owned, may not always be as reader-friendly in copyright matters as it has been.
Mind you, I’m not anti-publisher or anti-writer–I’ve perped a half dozen books myself. In fact, as I’ll show, the general Valenti mindset of zealotry toward protection of “intellectual property” will hurt, not help, writers and even publishers. A recent lawsuit against the author of The Da Vinci Code reflects Valenti’s mindset at least in the extent of the copyright extremism.
A letter from 2106–when you can’t even pass on your books to your own children
So where might a mix of copyright fanaticism and the museum approach lead us? Well, with a generous dose of hyperbole thrown in, here’s that letter from 2106–written to accompany a will:
Dearest Daughter and Son,
I am pleased to pass on the majority of my assets to you. My biggest regret, however, knowing how much you both love books, is that I cannot bequeath viewing privileges at Googazon to my favorite titles.
You’ll recall I spent thousands of dollars on everything from David Copperfield to The Great Gatsby and had the technological capability and financial resources to make screenshots of all my books. And yet it was all to no avail.
I’ll forever remember the day I was arrested and put in handcuffs by the Copyright Branch of the Department of Homeland Security.
Just imagine the irony. CBDHS agents broke into my home while I was making a personal copy of The Complete Works of Cory Doctorow. Here the late Doctorow wanted his books spread around freely, regardless of the existence of near-eternal copyright. And yet, through DRM- and format-related changes in copyright law, along with other legal maneuvers, he was denied his wish. Today none other than Disney itself owns Down And Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Oh, to be alive and in the days of my youth! I remember when concepts like public domain and Creative Commons were not mere phrases in the history books. People took it for granted they would last. To my dying day, I’ve regretted they did not.
Your Father
Speaking of “intellectual property”
Totally impossible? Well, just remember that some nutty historians want to restrict the right of historical novelists even to rework ideas from nonfiction books.
Yes, I’m obviously against this sacrilege, which flouts the traditions of copyright law, at least the U.S. variety, even if the case is in the U.K. But then again, maybe I should root for the plaintiffs. A surprise decision in in their favor would wreak havoc on the lucrative business of historical best-sellers and help educate U.S. publishers about the follies of copyright extremism.
The same logic would apply to kooky efforts to ban unauthorized use of trademarked names in fiction. “Go for it!” I’m almost tempted to say. Another great way to educate lawyers that they’re “protecting” culture out of existence!
Similarly I’m almost delighted that the Chinese are now haunting an American company over patent matters. If memory serves, Valenti wanted the Chinese to take an American ‘tude toward intellectual property. Well, now they are.
Although the present case isn’t copyright-related, I’m sure that it’s a preview of the future–especially if Chinese entertainment someday prevails over Hollywood in the future. Perhaps the patent case against a U.S. firm is justified. I’m not sure if future copyright ones will be, or if the Chinese someday will not try to impose Washington-style copyright laws on the rest of the planet through trade agreements or otherwise. Someday will Americans have to pay the equivalent of $75 to see a popular Chinese film? Don’t dismiss that possibility. Love of a nation’s entertainment in part reflects admiration of its economic success, and with pathetic R&D budgets and many other mistakes, Washington is doing a great job of imperiling our long-term prosperity.
Let’s hope that the same short-term thinking won’t apply to copyright and books. The big question remains. Will copyright zealots seize on the museum approach as a way to fight the piracy problem–especially if e-books displace paper ones?
Related: Amazon’s forray into unlimited storage and update of BizWeek article (via MobileRead). The actual storage service is here.
Once again, a large Net company is asking for the world to trust its own servers, rather than retain control. I’m not saying to spurn the service. Just be very careful about lock-ins and possible privacy violations, whether from the feds or marketers, if Amazon tries this on consumers. Since Amazon is starting out with a focus on Web developers, I don’t see nearly as much of a privacy threat as there would be with direct services for consumers.
Hello. Great job. I did not expect to come across this on a Friday. This is a great story. Thanks!