Cory Doctorow, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); When the Copyright Office Meets, the Future Needs a Seat at the Table
"Every three years, EFF's lawyers spend weeks huddling in their offices, composing carefully worded pleas we hope will persuade the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to grant Americans a modest, temporary permission to use our own property in ways that are already legal.
Yeah, we think that's weird, too. But it's been than way ever since 1998, when Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, whose Section 1201 established a ban on tampering with "access controls for copyrighted works" (also known as "Digital Rights Management" or "DRM"). It doesn't matter if you want to do something absolutely legitimate, something that there is no law against -- if you have to bypass DRM to do it, it's not allowed.
What's more, if someone wants to provide you with a tool to get around the DRM, they could face up to five years in prison and a $500,000 fine, for a first offense, even if the tool is only ever used to accomplish legal, legitimate ends."
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/27/15
Parker Higgins, Mitch Stoltz, Kit Walsh, Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses:
"The new rules for exemptions to copyright's DRM-circumvention laws were issued today, and the Librarian of Congress has granted much of what EFF asked for over the course of months of extensive briefs and hearings. The exemptions we requested—ripping DVDs and Blurays for making fair use remixes and analysis; preserving video games and running multiplayer servers after publishers have abandoned them; jailbreaking cell phones, tablets, and other portable computing devices to run third party software; and security research and modification and repairs on cars—have each been accepted, subject to some important caveats. The exemptions are needed thanks to a fundamentally flawed law that forbids users from breaking DRM, even if the purpose is a clearly lawful fair use. As software has become ubiquitous, so has DRM. Users often have to circumvent that DRM to make full use of their devices, from DVDs to games to smartphones and cars. The law allows users to request exemptions for such lawful uses—but it doesn’t make it easy. Exemptions are granted through an elaborate rulemaking process that takes place every three years and places a heavy burden on EFF and the many other requesters who take part."
Sunday, December 29, 2013
2013 in Review: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/28/13
Parker Higgins and Maira Sutton, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 2013 in Review: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:
"Negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) intensified in 2013, as trade delegates from the 12 participating countries aimed for (and ultimately missed) a year-end target for completing the sprawling agreement. Although the secretive nature of the negotiations means the public can't really know how far along it is, both leaked position documents and public statements indicate that there are still major unresolved areas of disagreement in the 29-chapter deal.
The biggest TPP story this year was the publication by WikiLeaks in November of the chapter titled "Intellectual Property." Unfortunately, its contents confirmed many of our worst fears: from ratcheting up copyright term lengths around the world, to boxing in fair use, to mandating a draconian legal regime around DRM software, section after section contained clauses plucked from corporate wishlists and snubbed the public interest altogether.
Against that backdrop, it makes sense that opposition to the agreement is mounting around the world."
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Leaked treaty draft shows US at loggerheads with Pacific states on copyright; PC World, 11/14/13
Peter Sayer IDG News Service via PC World; Leaked treaty draft shows US at loggerheads with Pacific states on copyright:
"A secretive international trade treaty up for discussion next week could have far-reaching effects on Internet services, copyright law and civil liberties, a draft of the treaty obtained by Wikileaks suggests.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement's 95-page draft chapter on intellectual property highlights disagreements between the negotiating parties, often pitting the U.S. and Australia on the one hand against Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam on the other...
The countries are fighting over rules that could extend the duration of copyright, limit exceptions to copyright, raise the level of damages for breaking technical protection measures such as digital rights management, and strengthen patents for drugs, medical procedures and living organisms."
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Bruce Willis dilemma? In the digital era, we own nothing; Guardian, 9/3/12
Dan Gillmor, Guardian; The Bruce Willis dilemma? In the digital era, we own nothing:
"The entertainment industry is rapidly steering us all toward a stream-from-the-cloud model, in which we buy the right to watch or listen or read, but where the rights are limited in time and device. This pay-per-view world would make even Willis's dilemma moot, because he'd never own anything – which makes it the most dangerous model of all for users of digital content. I use some cloud services, but I buy and back up (legally or not) the things I want to keep.
Since the publishers, record labels and movie studios are unlikely to permit sanity in the digital marketplace, and given lawmakers' propensity for following the industry's dictates in passing increasingly draconian copyright laws, it's up to the rest of us to come up with solutions."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Fury over 'stupid' restrictions to library ebook loans; Guardian, 3/1/11
Benedicte Page, Guardian; Fury over 'stupid' restrictions to library ebook loans:
"Furious librarians are calling for a boycott of publisher HarperCollins over its decision to put a limit on the number of times its ebooks can be loaned.
Under the new policy, announced by distributor Overdrive in a letter to customers last week, libraries will only be able to lend out each purchased ebook published by HarperCollins a total of 26 times before the book's lifetime expires.
The development has led to an explosion of anger among librarians, who up until now have been able to lend any ebook as often as they like – just as they do with print copies. Loans are generally made via the library's website, with users gaining access via a PIN number, and downloaded ebooks remaining live for a two-week loan period."
"Furious librarians are calling for a boycott of publisher HarperCollins over its decision to put a limit on the number of times its ebooks can be loaned.
Under the new policy, announced by distributor Overdrive in a letter to customers last week, libraries will only be able to lend out each purchased ebook published by HarperCollins a total of 26 times before the book's lifetime expires.
The development has led to an explosion of anger among librarians, who up until now have been able to lend any ebook as often as they like – just as they do with print copies. Loans are generally made via the library's website, with users gaining access via a PIN number, and downloaded ebooks remaining live for a two-week loan period."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations; Library Journal, 2/25/11
Josh Hadro, Library Journal; HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations:
"In the first significant revision to lending terms for ebook circulation, HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires."
"In the first significant revision to lending terms for ebook circulation, HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires."
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Looking at the cloud from both sides now; Los Angeles Times, 12/28/10
Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times; Looking at the cloud from both sides now:
"I recognize that one can't "own" a Kindle book any more than one can own a cat. One can only "license" the book — on terms that are part of a 2,000-word user agreement. The agreement allows a licensee to keep a permanent copy of the book and view it an unlimited number of times. But it also encrusts every book with restrictions on what else can be done with it, including how many reading devices it can be installed on at a time.
These restrictions only proliferate. In a famous example, the terms of use of a digital version of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" included: "This book cannot be read aloud." The digital publisher also tried to limit how many pages of the text a user could print in a given time period. The author's copyright on "Alice," it should be noted, expired in 1907."
"I recognize that one can't "own" a Kindle book any more than one can own a cat. One can only "license" the book — on terms that are part of a 2,000-word user agreement. The agreement allows a licensee to keep a permanent copy of the book and view it an unlimited number of times. But it also encrusts every book with restrictions on what else can be done with it, including how many reading devices it can be installed on at a time.
These restrictions only proliferate. In a famous example, the terms of use of a digital version of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" included: "This book cannot be read aloud." The digital publisher also tried to limit how many pages of the text a user could print in a given time period. The author's copyright on "Alice," it should be noted, expired in 1907."
Friday, July 9, 2010
US could learn from Brazilian penalty for hindering fair use; ArsTechnica.com, 7/9/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; US could learn from Brazilian penalty for hindering fair use:
"Brazil has proposed a broad update to its copyright law (Portuguese) and it contains a surprising idea: penalize anyone who "hinders or impedes" fair use rights or obstructs the use of work that has already fallen into the public domain.
A huge win for consumers? Sure, but it gets better. A moment's thought reminds us that most DRM schemes will eventually run afoul the above provisions, since they apply in perpetuity. That DRMed music file will still be DRMed even after the song has fallen into the public domain.
So Brazil wants to ensure that DRM "has time-limited effects that correspond to the period of the economic rights over the work, performance, phonogram or broadcast." Once copyright has expired, DRM should, too.
As if that's not enough, Brazil says that DRM can be bypassed in order to make any "fair" use of the work or in cases where the copyright has expired but the DRM has not.
Contrast this with the US approach to copyright in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which said nothing about time-limited DRM and made circumvention illegal in nearly all cases, even when the intended use of the material would be legal.
Brazil's proposal could be spun as something hostile to rightsholders, but it's not that simple. The law does provide protection for DRM; in general, it is illegal to remove, modify, bypass, or impair such anti-copying technology. It's just that rightsholders can't use DRM as a digital lock to give themselves more control over a work through technology than they have under the law.
Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor who highlighted the new proposal, sums it up as a properly balanced approach that doesn't buy into the "more is better" approach to copyright protections. "In other words, the Brazilian proposals recognizes what the Supreme Court of Canada stated several years ago," he writes, "over-protection is just as harmful as under-protection."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/us-could-learn-from-brazilian-penalty-for-hindering-fair-use.ars
"Brazil has proposed a broad update to its copyright law (Portuguese) and it contains a surprising idea: penalize anyone who "hinders or impedes" fair use rights or obstructs the use of work that has already fallen into the public domain.
A huge win for consumers? Sure, but it gets better. A moment's thought reminds us that most DRM schemes will eventually run afoul the above provisions, since they apply in perpetuity. That DRMed music file will still be DRMed even after the song has fallen into the public domain.
So Brazil wants to ensure that DRM "has time-limited effects that correspond to the period of the economic rights over the work, performance, phonogram or broadcast." Once copyright has expired, DRM should, too.
As if that's not enough, Brazil says that DRM can be bypassed in order to make any "fair" use of the work or in cases where the copyright has expired but the DRM has not.
Contrast this with the US approach to copyright in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which said nothing about time-limited DRM and made circumvention illegal in nearly all cases, even when the intended use of the material would be legal.
Brazil's proposal could be spun as something hostile to rightsholders, but it's not that simple. The law does provide protection for DRM; in general, it is illegal to remove, modify, bypass, or impair such anti-copying technology. It's just that rightsholders can't use DRM as a digital lock to give themselves more control over a work through technology than they have under the law.
Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor who highlighted the new proposal, sums it up as a properly balanced approach that doesn't buy into the "more is better" approach to copyright protections. "In other words, the Brazilian proposals recognizes what the Supreme Court of Canada stated several years ago," he writes, "over-protection is just as harmful as under-protection."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/us-could-learn-from-brazilian-penalty-for-hindering-fair-use.ars
Monday, December 21, 2009
Should e-Books Be Copy Protected?; New York Times, Personal Tech Blog, 12/17/09
David Pogue, New York Times, Personal Tech Blog; Should e-Books Be Copy Protected?:
"The issues involved with copy protection haven't changed. They're the same on e-books as they are with everything else. Namely:
* Publishers are terrified of piracy, whether it involves music, movies, software programs or books. Everyone remembers how Napster made music easy to duplicate and freely share. Publishers argue that the music industry was badly hurt, and never really recovered.
* Their first reaction, therefore, was to install nasty copy protection of the type you describe, with limits on which brand of player would play a song and how many gadgets you could copy it to.
* In time, everyone realized the silliness of this exercise. It inconvenienced only the law-abiders; the software pirates had plenty of simple, convenient ways to duplicate the songs anyway. So eventually, the music publishers agreed to let Apple, Amazon and others sell non-protected versions of their songs. (That's a reversal that I still find mind-boggling, although of course I'm thrilled.)...
In other words, I'm torn right down the middle. On one hand, yes, copy protection hurts consumers.
On the other hand, yes, unprotected books at this stage would be easily and wildly pirated -- the barriers to staying ethical would be so low, people would pass around books like they forward e-mail jokes -- and it would cost the book industry dearly.
On the other other hand, music files are no longer copy protected, and the music companies haven't gone out of business.
Maybe, then, the publishers should try an experiment like mine. Maybe they should release a couple of Kindle or Nook books without copy protection and track the results. Maybe that way, we could bring this discussion out of the hypothetical and into the real world."
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/12/17/technology/circuitsemail/index.html?8cir&emc=cir#continue
"The issues involved with copy protection haven't changed. They're the same on e-books as they are with everything else. Namely:
* Publishers are terrified of piracy, whether it involves music, movies, software programs or books. Everyone remembers how Napster made music easy to duplicate and freely share. Publishers argue that the music industry was badly hurt, and never really recovered.
* Their first reaction, therefore, was to install nasty copy protection of the type you describe, with limits on which brand of player would play a song and how many gadgets you could copy it to.
* In time, everyone realized the silliness of this exercise. It inconvenienced only the law-abiders; the software pirates had plenty of simple, convenient ways to duplicate the songs anyway. So eventually, the music publishers agreed to let Apple, Amazon and others sell non-protected versions of their songs. (That's a reversal that I still find mind-boggling, although of course I'm thrilled.)...
In other words, I'm torn right down the middle. On one hand, yes, copy protection hurts consumers.
On the other hand, yes, unprotected books at this stage would be easily and wildly pirated -- the barriers to staying ethical would be so low, people would pass around books like they forward e-mail jokes -- and it would cost the book industry dearly.
On the other other hand, music files are no longer copy protected, and the music companies haven't gone out of business.
Maybe, then, the publishers should try an experiment like mine. Maybe they should release a couple of Kindle or Nook books without copy protection and track the results. Maybe that way, we could bring this discussion out of the hypothetical and into the real world."
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/12/17/technology/circuitsemail/index.html?8cir&emc=cir#continue
Sunday, December 20, 2009
More and more e-books being stored on the 'cloud'; San Jose Mercury News, 12/20/09
Mike Swift, San Jose Mercury News; More and more e-books being stored on the 'cloud':
"From his home office on a Los Gatos cul-de-sac, Mark Coker is part of a digital movement ruffling the pages of the publishing industry, helping to speed readers' transition from words in print to words on a screen.
The founder of Smashwords, an electronic book publishing platform for self-published authors and small publishers, Coker thinks the transition from print to electronic books, for many readers, is inevitable.
Less clear, he says, is where readers will store the e-books they buy. Will those virtual libraries live on a personal device, such as Amazon's Kindle? Or will people choose to store their e-books on the Internet "cloud," on networks accessible through any computer or smart-phone? And how portable will readers' digital libraries be? Will readers be able to share their e-books the way you pass a treasured paper book on to a good friend?
The publishing world is going through rapid change, which is clear this holiday season as large numbers of consumers embrace electronic books available for download to devices such as the Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook and Sony's Reader.
The change has been so tumultuous that several New York publishing houses have decided to delay releasing books in their electronic format for months, concerned that the availability of $9.99 e-books will slice into the sales of traditional hardcover editions that may sell for three times that price.
Already, many readers are using public libraries as a kind of e-book "cloud." The library e-book distributor OverDrive predicts downloads of e-books and other library content will hit 19 million in 2009 — roughly the volume for the years 2003-08 combined.
"We've really hit a tipping point," Coker says. "Once people try an e-book, it's a 'wow' experience."
Starting in 2010, however, anybody who wants to read an e-book will have to choose more than just which reader they buy. Increasingly, consumers will have an array of e-book access choices, such as buying perpetual access to a book stored on the Internet, downloading a book to a personal device or perhaps some other model...
By next holiday season, Google plans to offer an online retail service for e-books that will allow readers to buy access, in perpetuity, to any e-book stored on Google's network.
"Our vision is basically to provide a great consumer model for buying digital books, using the browser in a sort of device-agnostic way," said Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker. "It could be on a Web-enabled laptop, a desktop or a phone, a tablet — any of those things. Our vision of it is to provide an open platform for reading and accessing books."
The retail service, to be called Google Editions, will be only for newly published books and is separate from the Internet giant's highly controversial plan to scan existing out-of-print books, splitting the proceeds with any rights-holders it can locate. Google won't say how much a newly published e-book will cost on Editions, but it has tried to steer speculation away from talk of the service being an "Amazon-killer" that uses Google's dominant search engine to siphon book-buying traffic from the e-retailer...
There are pros and cons to storing a book or a song online rather than on a device. If you lose your iPod or Kindle, the content is gone, too, although Amazon allows readers to access their entire library of previously purchased Kindle books at no charge if something happens to the device. There would be no limit to how many books or songs could be stored on the cloud.
On the other hand, if you are on a trek in the Yosemite high country and suddenly decide you want to reread the copy of "Freakonomics" you bought last month from Google Editions, you'll be out of luck, because you can't access the cloud without an Internet connection. That said, you could have cached the book on your smartphone before you set off into the woods.
A bigger issue for e-book readers may be the different proprietary formats that govern the Kindle, the Reader and the Nook. That would prevent a reader who wants to switch, say, from using Amazon's Kindle to Sony's Reader from transporting her e-books to the other device.
The Kindle's format also does not support downloads of e-books in the format used by many public libraries, although Amazon counters that thousands of public-domain books are available in the Kindle store, including many free classics. Customers can use sites such as Gutenberg.org, Google and Internet Archive to access other e-books.
Coker predicts that consumers won't be pleased when they realize the differing formats and copy-protection code called Digital Rights Management (DRM) is like a fence around their e-book collections, one that publishers say is necessary to protect them from e-book piracy.
"Over the long haul," Coker predicts, "customers are not going to want to have their library in the cloud fractured across 20 different retailers."
Smashwords does not wrap its text with DRM coding, and it allows readers to use both a device model or a cloud model to access their e-books. With more than 5,000 e-books for sale at smashwords.com, the company has deals that allows readers to download to the Kindle, the Reader or the Nook. But the company also allows customers to buy permanent access to any e-book stored on Smashwords' network, allowing them to read it at any time from any smartphone or computer with a Web browser.
"It's your book — that's our approach to it," Coker said."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14021253?nclick_check=1
"From his home office on a Los Gatos cul-de-sac, Mark Coker is part of a digital movement ruffling the pages of the publishing industry, helping to speed readers' transition from words in print to words on a screen.
The founder of Smashwords, an electronic book publishing platform for self-published authors and small publishers, Coker thinks the transition from print to electronic books, for many readers, is inevitable.
Less clear, he says, is where readers will store the e-books they buy. Will those virtual libraries live on a personal device, such as Amazon's Kindle? Or will people choose to store their e-books on the Internet "cloud," on networks accessible through any computer or smart-phone? And how portable will readers' digital libraries be? Will readers be able to share their e-books the way you pass a treasured paper book on to a good friend?
The publishing world is going through rapid change, which is clear this holiday season as large numbers of consumers embrace electronic books available for download to devices such as the Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook and Sony's Reader.
The change has been so tumultuous that several New York publishing houses have decided to delay releasing books in their electronic format for months, concerned that the availability of $9.99 e-books will slice into the sales of traditional hardcover editions that may sell for three times that price.
Already, many readers are using public libraries as a kind of e-book "cloud." The library e-book distributor OverDrive predicts downloads of e-books and other library content will hit 19 million in 2009 — roughly the volume for the years 2003-08 combined.
"We've really hit a tipping point," Coker says. "Once people try an e-book, it's a 'wow' experience."
Starting in 2010, however, anybody who wants to read an e-book will have to choose more than just which reader they buy. Increasingly, consumers will have an array of e-book access choices, such as buying perpetual access to a book stored on the Internet, downloading a book to a personal device or perhaps some other model...
By next holiday season, Google plans to offer an online retail service for e-books that will allow readers to buy access, in perpetuity, to any e-book stored on Google's network.
"Our vision is basically to provide a great consumer model for buying digital books, using the browser in a sort of device-agnostic way," said Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker. "It could be on a Web-enabled laptop, a desktop or a phone, a tablet — any of those things. Our vision of it is to provide an open platform for reading and accessing books."
The retail service, to be called Google Editions, will be only for newly published books and is separate from the Internet giant's highly controversial plan to scan existing out-of-print books, splitting the proceeds with any rights-holders it can locate. Google won't say how much a newly published e-book will cost on Editions, but it has tried to steer speculation away from talk of the service being an "Amazon-killer" that uses Google's dominant search engine to siphon book-buying traffic from the e-retailer...
There are pros and cons to storing a book or a song online rather than on a device. If you lose your iPod or Kindle, the content is gone, too, although Amazon allows readers to access their entire library of previously purchased Kindle books at no charge if something happens to the device. There would be no limit to how many books or songs could be stored on the cloud.
On the other hand, if you are on a trek in the Yosemite high country and suddenly decide you want to reread the copy of "Freakonomics" you bought last month from Google Editions, you'll be out of luck, because you can't access the cloud without an Internet connection. That said, you could have cached the book on your smartphone before you set off into the woods.
A bigger issue for e-book readers may be the different proprietary formats that govern the Kindle, the Reader and the Nook. That would prevent a reader who wants to switch, say, from using Amazon's Kindle to Sony's Reader from transporting her e-books to the other device.
The Kindle's format also does not support downloads of e-books in the format used by many public libraries, although Amazon counters that thousands of public-domain books are available in the Kindle store, including many free classics. Customers can use sites such as Gutenberg.org, Google and Internet Archive to access other e-books.
Coker predicts that consumers won't be pleased when they realize the differing formats and copy-protection code called Digital Rights Management (DRM) is like a fence around their e-book collections, one that publishers say is necessary to protect them from e-book piracy.
"Over the long haul," Coker predicts, "customers are not going to want to have their library in the cloud fractured across 20 different retailers."
Smashwords does not wrap its text with DRM coding, and it allows readers to use both a device model or a cloud model to access their e-books. With more than 5,000 e-books for sale at smashwords.com, the company has deals that allows readers to download to the Kindle, the Reader or the Nook. But the company also allows customers to buy permanent access to any e-book stored on Smashwords' network, allowing them to read it at any time from any smartphone or computer with a Web browser.
"It's your book — that's our approach to it," Coker said."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14021253?nclick_check=1
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Not Yet the Season for a Nook; New York Times, 12/10/09
David Pogue, New York Times; Not Yet the Season for a Nook:
"“Well, here comes the hotly awaited Nook from Barnes & Noble: an electronic book reader in the style of the Amazon Kindle...
Over one million titles?” Yes, but well over half of those are junky Google scans of free, obscure, pre-1923 out-of-copyright books, filled with typos. (They’re also available for the Kindle, but Amazon doesn’t even count them).
Fact is, Amazon’s e-book store is still much better. Of the current 175 New York Times best sellers, 12 of them aren’t available for Kindle; 21 are unavailable for the Nook...
And the “loan e-books to friends?” part? You can’t lend a book unless its publisher has O.K.’ed this feature. And so far, B&N says, only half of its books are available for lending — only one-third of the current best sellers. (A LendMe icon on the B&N Web site lets you know when a book is lendable.) Furthermore, the book is gone from your own Nook during the loan period (a maximum of two weeks). And each book can be lent only once, ever...
So O.K., the Nook is a mess, clearly rushed out the door in hopes of stealing some of the Kindle’s holiday cheer. “We want to optimize everything quite a bit,” a product manager concedes. The first of many software fixes, B&N says, will arrive wirelessly on Nooks next week. The company also says that it’s working to bring the selection and pricing of its e-book catalog more in line with Amazon’s."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
"“Well, here comes the hotly awaited Nook from Barnes & Noble: an electronic book reader in the style of the Amazon Kindle...
Over one million titles?” Yes, but well over half of those are junky Google scans of free, obscure, pre-1923 out-of-copyright books, filled with typos. (They’re also available for the Kindle, but Amazon doesn’t even count them).
Fact is, Amazon’s e-book store is still much better. Of the current 175 New York Times best sellers, 12 of them aren’t available for Kindle; 21 are unavailable for the Nook...
And the “loan e-books to friends?” part? You can’t lend a book unless its publisher has O.K.’ed this feature. And so far, B&N says, only half of its books are available for lending — only one-third of the current best sellers. (A LendMe icon on the B&N Web site lets you know when a book is lendable.) Furthermore, the book is gone from your own Nook during the loan period (a maximum of two weeks). And each book can be lent only once, ever...
So O.K., the Nook is a mess, clearly rushed out the door in hopes of stealing some of the Kindle’s holiday cheer. “We want to optimize everything quite a bit,” a product manager concedes. The first of many software fixes, B&N says, will arrive wirelessly on Nooks next week. The company also says that it’s working to bring the selection and pricing of its e-book catalog more in line with Amazon’s."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]; New York Times, 12/6/09
Deborah Solomon, New York Times; Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]:
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws; Ars Technica, 11/30/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws:
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy; Tech Dirt, 11/24/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy:
"Well, you just knew this was going to happen eventually. Suddenly publishers are starting to freak out over "ebook piracy," claiming (totally inaccurately) that they've lost $600 million to it. Of course, as some are noting the real problem isn't "piracy" but the industry's response to it".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/0256097067.shtml
"Well, you just knew this was going to happen eventually. Suddenly publishers are starting to freak out over "ebook piracy," claiming (totally inaccurately) that they've lost $600 million to it. Of course, as some are noting the real problem isn't "piracy" but the industry's response to it".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091124/0256097067.shtml
Monday, November 16, 2009
Viacom's top lawyer: suing P2P users "felt like terrorism"; Ars Technica, 11/16/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Viacom's top lawyer: suing P2P users "felt like terrorism":
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, tells a group of Yale Law students that he's a huge fan of fair use, doesn't want to take down your YouTube mashup, and has no plans to start suing P2P users in federal courts—but he still loves DRM and "three strikes" laws.
"Michael Fricklas is Viacom's general counsel, and it's his job to oversee the company's legal efforts, including its $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. When people talk about Big Content, they're talking about people like Fricklas.
So it might be surprising to watch him tell a class of Yale law students this month that suing end users for online copyright infringement is "expensive, and it's painful, and it feels like bullying." While the recording industry was big on this approach for a while, Fricklas certainly understands the way it came across to the public when some college student went up against "very expensive lawyers and unlimited resources and it felt like terrorism."
Customers "need to be treated with respect," he added, and that respect extends even to DRM—much of which has been "really bad."...
Kinder, gentler, but still lovin' DRM
Part of the answer is that "Big Content" is of course a convenient fiction; every creator and company has a different outlook, is staffed by different individuals, and relies more or less heavily on exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
Viacom, for instance, creates copyrighted works every day, but it's also a heavy "fair user." Consider The Daily Show, for instance, and think about just how much of its daily show relies on video footage from other organizations. Fricklas even showed a spoof movie poster that Viacom had done years ago—for which it was sued by famous photographer Annie Leibowitz—and with which it eventually prevailed in court, claiming parodic fair use...
DRM
While bashing the experience of many earlier DRM schemes, Fricklas is a firm believe in the basic concept, saying that it allows consumers to have experiences they could not have without DRM (or not at the same prices)...
Graduated response
Another area of tension between consumers and rightsholders is graduated response, sometimes referred to as "three-strikes" policies that sanction those accused of repeat copyright infringement online. While the content industries like to tout graduated response as a kinder, gentler way to handle these issues, the worldwide public hasn't been sold on the plan. The European Parliament voted several times to ban such schemes unless they had judicial oversight, while France's attempt at passing a graduated response law was defeated once in the legislature and once by the Constitutional Council before finally being passed. New Zealand had to scrap its three-strikes plan and start over after resistance from users and ISPs, and the UK is in the midst of a furious row over the idea. Graduated response has never been introduced in Congress, and no major ISP has agreed to adopt the approach voluntarily.
Still, Fricklas is big on the idea. It's definitely a saner solution to the issue than hauling college kids into federal court, and feature sanctions "more proportional to the harm." (This is certainly debatable when it comes to France-style disconnections and blacklists, however, especially on family accounts.)
And Fricklas wants to make sure that there are rights of appeal, since the process can sometimes be a bit too "guilty until proven innocent."
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, tells a group of Yale Law students that he's a huge fan of fair use, doesn't want to take down your YouTube mashup, and has no plans to start suing P2P users in federal courts—but he still loves DRM and "three strikes" laws.
"Michael Fricklas is Viacom's general counsel, and it's his job to oversee the company's legal efforts, including its $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. When people talk about Big Content, they're talking about people like Fricklas.
So it might be surprising to watch him tell a class of Yale law students this month that suing end users for online copyright infringement is "expensive, and it's painful, and it feels like bullying." While the recording industry was big on this approach for a while, Fricklas certainly understands the way it came across to the public when some college student went up against "very expensive lawyers and unlimited resources and it felt like terrorism."
Customers "need to be treated with respect," he added, and that respect extends even to DRM—much of which has been "really bad."...
Kinder, gentler, but still lovin' DRM
Part of the answer is that "Big Content" is of course a convenient fiction; every creator and company has a different outlook, is staffed by different individuals, and relies more or less heavily on exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
Viacom, for instance, creates copyrighted works every day, but it's also a heavy "fair user." Consider The Daily Show, for instance, and think about just how much of its daily show relies on video footage from other organizations. Fricklas even showed a spoof movie poster that Viacom had done years ago—for which it was sued by famous photographer Annie Leibowitz—and with which it eventually prevailed in court, claiming parodic fair use...
DRM
While bashing the experience of many earlier DRM schemes, Fricklas is a firm believe in the basic concept, saying that it allows consumers to have experiences they could not have without DRM (or not at the same prices)...
Graduated response
Another area of tension between consumers and rightsholders is graduated response, sometimes referred to as "three-strikes" policies that sanction those accused of repeat copyright infringement online. While the content industries like to tout graduated response as a kinder, gentler way to handle these issues, the worldwide public hasn't been sold on the plan. The European Parliament voted several times to ban such schemes unless they had judicial oversight, while France's attempt at passing a graduated response law was defeated once in the legislature and once by the Constitutional Council before finally being passed. New Zealand had to scrap its three-strikes plan and start over after resistance from users and ISPs, and the UK is in the midst of a furious row over the idea. Graduated response has never been introduced in Congress, and no major ISP has agreed to adopt the approach voluntarily.
Still, Fricklas is big on the idea. It's definitely a saner solution to the issue than hauling college kids into federal court, and feature sanctions "more proportional to the harm." (This is certainly debatable when it comes to France-style disconnections and blacklists, however, especially on family accounts.)
And Fricklas wants to make sure that there are rights of appeal, since the process can sometimes be a bit too "guilty until proven innocent."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market; New York Times, 10/21/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market:
"As widely expected, Barnes & Noble unveiled its Nook electronic reading device at a splashy news conference on Tuesday to generally positive views from the publishing community, and offered some details about its whispered-about lending capabilities.
The Nook electronic reading device from Barnes & Noble was unveiled Tuesday, offering a competitor to the Kindle.
As much as anything, publishers seemed relieved that Barnes & Noble, which operates the nation’s largest chain of bookstores, had produced a credible alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. The Nook, priced at $259, went on sale Tuesday afternoon at nook.com, at a price that matched the latest edition of the Kindle. The Nook will ship starting in late November.
Amazon currently dominates the market for electronic readers. Estimates vary, but according to the Codex Group, a consultant to the publishing industry, Amazon has sold about 945,000 units, compared with 525,000 units of the Sony Reader...
One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21nook.html?scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
"As widely expected, Barnes & Noble unveiled its Nook electronic reading device at a splashy news conference on Tuesday to generally positive views from the publishing community, and offered some details about its whispered-about lending capabilities.
The Nook electronic reading device from Barnes & Noble was unveiled Tuesday, offering a competitor to the Kindle.
As much as anything, publishers seemed relieved that Barnes & Noble, which operates the nation’s largest chain of bookstores, had produced a credible alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. The Nook, priced at $259, went on sale Tuesday afternoon at nook.com, at a price that matched the latest edition of the Kindle. The Nook will ship starting in late November.
Amazon currently dominates the market for electronic readers. Estimates vary, but according to the Codex Group, a consultant to the publishing industry, Amazon has sold about 945,000 units, compared with 525,000 units of the Sony Reader...
One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21nook.html?scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Sony Plans to Adopt Common Format for E-Books; New York Times, 8/13/09
Brad Stone via New York Times; Sony Plans to Adopt Common Format for E-Books:
"On Thursday, Sony Electronics, which sells e-book devices under the Reader brand, plans to announce that by the end of the year it will sell digital books only in the ePub format, an open standard created by a group including publishers like Random House and HarperCollins.
Sony will also scrap its proprietary anticopying software in favor of technology from the software maker Adobe that restricts how often e-books can be shared or copied.
After the change, books bought from Sony’s online store will be readable not just on its own device but on the growing constellation of other readers that support ePub...
“People need to remember, when they buy books that come with digital rights management, they don’t have the freedoms they normally would have with a book,” said Holmes Wilson, campaigns manger of the Free Software Foundation, which obtained the signatures of nearly 4,000 authors and tech pundits on a petition saying Amazon’s anticopying software was a “clear threat to the free exchange of ideas.”
Companies like Sony and Adobe do not want to abandon anticopying measures, fearing that piracy of books would run rampant. Rather, they want to push the e-book industry toward common standards to avoid a replay of Apple’s domination of the digital music business.
Early this decade, Apple sold music from its iTunes store that was protected by its own FairPlay software and could be played only on the iPod.
The result was what is known as “lock-in.” Apple built up extraordinary market power and leverage to dictate terms to the major music labels on matters like the price of digital songs. Then, as now, second-tier players banded together to promote the increased flexibility and choice that open standards gave to consumers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/technology/internet/13reader.html?_r=1&hpw
"On Thursday, Sony Electronics, which sells e-book devices under the Reader brand, plans to announce that by the end of the year it will sell digital books only in the ePub format, an open standard created by a group including publishers like Random House and HarperCollins.
Sony will also scrap its proprietary anticopying software in favor of technology from the software maker Adobe that restricts how often e-books can be shared or copied.
After the change, books bought from Sony’s online store will be readable not just on its own device but on the growing constellation of other readers that support ePub...
“People need to remember, when they buy books that come with digital rights management, they don’t have the freedoms they normally would have with a book,” said Holmes Wilson, campaigns manger of the Free Software Foundation, which obtained the signatures of nearly 4,000 authors and tech pundits on a petition saying Amazon’s anticopying software was a “clear threat to the free exchange of ideas.”
Companies like Sony and Adobe do not want to abandon anticopying measures, fearing that piracy of books would run rampant. Rather, they want to push the e-book industry toward common standards to avoid a replay of Apple’s domination of the digital music business.
Early this decade, Apple sold music from its iTunes store that was protected by its own FairPlay software and could be played only on the iPod.
The result was what is known as “lock-in.” Apple built up extraordinary market power and leverage to dictate terms to the major music labels on matters like the price of digital songs. Then, as now, second-tier players banded together to promote the increased flexibility and choice that open standards gave to consumers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/technology/internet/13reader.html?_r=1&hpw
Thursday, August 6, 2009
New Entry in E-Books a Paper Tiger; New York Times, 8/6/09
David Pogue via New York Times; New Entry in E-Books a Paper Tiger:
"You get five free out-of-copyright books to start you off (“Dracula,” “Sense and Sensibility” and so on)...
Besides, if you want free, out-of-copyright books, you can get them on the Kindle, too. They await at Gutenberg.org and other free sites...
And remember, you can never lend, resell or pass on an A or B e-book. You’re buying into proprietary, copy-protected formats — which can have its downsides. Last month, for example, Amazon erased “1984” and “Animal Farm” from its customers’ Kindles by remote control, having discovered a problem with the rights. Amazon refunded the price, but the sense of violation many customers felt was a disturbing wake-up call...
Buying a “free” book entails a 1-cent charge on your credit card, which is refunded at checkout (huh?)...
Barnes & Noble’s e-book initiative has some bright spots: the iPhone and Windows apps are mostly excellent, the concept of free access to public-domain books is sound and being able to read your e-books on your laptop is a no-brainer.
But over all, this is a 1.0 effort — which, incidentally, the company acknowledges. It vows to address the shortcomings."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/personaltech/06pogue.html?_r=1&hpw
"You get five free out-of-copyright books to start you off (“Dracula,” “Sense and Sensibility” and so on)...
Besides, if you want free, out-of-copyright books, you can get them on the Kindle, too. They await at Gutenberg.org and other free sites...
And remember, you can never lend, resell or pass on an A or B e-book. You’re buying into proprietary, copy-protected formats — which can have its downsides. Last month, for example, Amazon erased “1984” and “Animal Farm” from its customers’ Kindles by remote control, having discovered a problem with the rights. Amazon refunded the price, but the sense of violation many customers felt was a disturbing wake-up call...
Buying a “free” book entails a 1-cent charge on your credit card, which is refunded at checkout (huh?)...
Barnes & Noble’s e-book initiative has some bright spots: the iPhone and Windows apps are mostly excellent, the concept of free access to public-domain books is sound and being able to read your e-books on your laptop is a no-brainer.
But over all, this is a 1.0 effort — which, incidentally, the company acknowledges. It vows to address the shortcomings."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/personaltech/06pogue.html?_r=1&hpw
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
New petition demands an end to Kindle DRM, faces long odds; Ars Technica, 8/4/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; New petition demands an end to Kindle DRM, faces long odds:
"It was that decision to link the Kindle hardware and store with a new DRM scheme that led the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to add the Kindle to its "Defective by Design" anti-DRM campaign.
The group has now launched a petition asking Amazon to "remove all DRM, including any ability to control or access the user's library, from the Kindle... Whatever Amazon's reasons for imposing this control may be, they are not as important as the public's freedom to use books without interference or supervision."
The Foundation took particular exception to two decisions that Amazon made. First was the company's decision to address publisher concerns about the Kindle's text-to-speech feature by giving book publishers a way to disable the automated reading of their titles. Second was Amazon's almost unimaginably bad decision to remove already purchased books from customers' devices—and not just any books, but the George Orwell titles 1984 and Animal Farm...
These issues are certainly troubling, and the FSF is right to call Amazon to account for them. But to most consumers, the bigger concern about DRM is vendor lock-in...
The shift to electronic books provides obvious advantages in convenience and portability (every Ars staffer who owns a Kindle swears by it), but those books can only be read on devices that support Kindle DRM. Just as with music, people run the risk of making a significant investment into a product that they cannot resell and which may well become obsolete or unreadable in a decade—or whenever they decide to switch e-reader brands. "
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/new-petition-demands-an-end-to-kindle-drm.ars
"It was that decision to link the Kindle hardware and store with a new DRM scheme that led the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to add the Kindle to its "Defective by Design" anti-DRM campaign.
The group has now launched a petition asking Amazon to "remove all DRM, including any ability to control or access the user's library, from the Kindle... Whatever Amazon's reasons for imposing this control may be, they are not as important as the public's freedom to use books without interference or supervision."
The Foundation took particular exception to two decisions that Amazon made. First was the company's decision to address publisher concerns about the Kindle's text-to-speech feature by giving book publishers a way to disable the automated reading of their titles. Second was Amazon's almost unimaginably bad decision to remove already purchased books from customers' devices—and not just any books, but the George Orwell titles 1984 and Animal Farm...
These issues are certainly troubling, and the FSF is right to call Amazon to account for them. But to most consumers, the bigger concern about DRM is vendor lock-in...
The shift to electronic books provides obvious advantages in convenience and portability (every Ars staffer who owns a Kindle swears by it), but those books can only be read on devices that support Kindle DRM. Just as with music, people run the risk of making a significant investment into a product that they cannot resell and which may well become obsolete or unreadable in a decade—or whenever they decide to switch e-reader brands. "
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/new-petition-demands-an-end-to-kindle-drm.ars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)