An Acerbic Look At the Future of Reading 318
theodp writes "Using Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' own words against him, Mark Pilgrim offers his chilling take on The Future of Reading with a mash-up of Bezos' Open Letter to the Authors Guild, the Amazon Kindle Terms of Service, Steven Levy's Newsweek article on the Kindle, 1984, and Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read.'"
Is this really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what is happening here. It's the same thing that is happening on other fronts - precisely the same thing.
The constitution was written with the idea of the government serving and protecting the people, watching out for their welfare, arranging things so that this was first and foremost concern in those areas the government operated.
This emphasis on copyright benefiting the business interests any any expense to the citizen's interests is the exact same change in emphasis we have seen for the takings of land, the decreases in freedom of speech, the ridiculous idea that software can and/or should be patentable, the intent to force you to wait through commercials, the powers allowed to the insurance companies to pre-qualify applicants, the insane readings of the commerce clause that allow the government to attack the citizen for any act at all, the outright hijacking of the news outlets by commercially oriented entities — the problem is that it is like the tale of boiling a lobster. It's all annoying, but none of it is annoying enough, by itself, to really get the citizens up in arms.
America is degenerating quickly. If you think your vote counts, you'd better start using it differently at every level. Because the "same-old, same-old" is what got us here.
Isn't this sort of like (Score:2, Insightful)
When a thing becomes outmoded, don't we always let it fall to the side? I mean I don't see many people beating their steering wheel with a buggy whip. electronic reading materials and electronic readers are beginning to be more popular. The MPAA and major networks want you to watch a movie version of the book rather than read it. It's going to be a hard sell to get people to keep turning pages on a paper book. Does anyone reading this post have a set of encyclopedias? Encyclopedias were essential for raising smart kids - replaced. The Physician's Desk Reference used to be an important book about drugs - replaced. An unabridged dictionary was or should have been truly important - replaced.
Perhaps we would be better off to read articles on the ergonomics of new electronic books etc. I know that Ford is not going to re-introduce the Fairlane 500, nor will GE try to bring back hand operated washing machines. Some things are simply no longer appropriate for the great unwashed masses.
Re:Ok, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF? That's incredibly stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never heard of a "public library?" Damn, just when I'm starting to like the 21st century* some bozo reminds me that the mamon worshipers are trying to take away every good thing I've taken for granted all my life.
-mcgrew
*click the sig for explanation
Re:E-Book trading (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair compensation in a digital world (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue with all electronic media is the ease of duplication. That's what all the DRM stuff is trying to address, and making such a mess of everything in the process.
This is nothing new: there was never any physical impediment to sitting down with a paper book and a Xerox machine, or even writing it out by hand. But it was laborious and time-consuming, sufficiently so that few people bothered. It was easier and cheaper to just buy a copy of the book.
So how you you do it? If I'm going to sit down and write a book I expect to be compensated for my efforts. How can you ensure the author's rights to fair compensation in a world where files are so easy to duplicate? It's clear that there is a business model issue here, so how would you fix it?
...laura
Re:Isn't this sort of like (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I see this sentiment on Slashdot quite a bit. Apparently a lot of people around here think the printed word is archaic and is in the middle of being phased out as obsolete.
I can assure you, that books in their physical, paper form are nowhere near being obsolete, outmoded, or about to be left to fall by the side. This isn't about abandoning an old file format of a word processor. To many people the actual physical book is still the preferred method of reading. Hell, send me a long enough document, and I'll print the damned thing and keep it on my desk.
I buy a tremendous amount of books, I don't want an electronic reader of any form, and I'm fairly sure that a larger proportion of the populace does their reading against the old-school dead-tree formats than any form of electronic format.
While your assertion that "electronic reading materials and electronic readers are beginning to be more popular", might be somewhat true, they're only more popular than they used to be. They're simply not more popular than paper.
I would say that people who argue that paper books will go away in the short term have their heads so far up the ass of technology as to not really have a clear view of the world any more. I would say it would be years, if not decades, before we actually see electronic formats really supplant paper. And, you can have my physical books when I'm dead and gone -- I don't personally foresee giving them up any time soon. Books have a warmth and tactile feedback that a cold, digital screen will never offer to me.
There will be people who want electronic books, and they're welcome to them. But, I and countless others want real actual honest to goodness books. Don't look to see them fall by the wayside for a long time.
Cheers
Re:Is this really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly hope you mean by that that you should STOP voring for the Republicrats. Because face it, when that great American corporation Sony gives ten million to the Republican and ten million to the Democrat, no matter who loses, Sony wins.
In all seriousness... (Score:3, Insightful)
He seems to draw the conclusion that this capability will lead to such a situation. I think it's got a long way to go before getting there. If the government begins censoring everything *other than* remotely editable E-Books, I'll begin to worry. Until then, there's plenty of media other than that where you can find out what's really happening.
Re:WTF? That's incredibly stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
Among people who were willing to spend $400 for a device that offers few objective benefits over a free public library membership, maybe.
The rest of us are quite happy reading the ink-and-paper volumes that have been the standard for millenia.
Re:Ok, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's way to much for something that has no physical presence, that you can't share, give away, or resell. It's a money grab. The publishing industry needs to learn from the music industry. You cannot charge an insane amount of money just for the content. At least with a printed book there is a recognizable investment in printing plant, paper, ink, and distribution. With an ebook there's just distribution. Amazon has a significant infrastructure for distribution already in place so adding ebook distribution is really only maximizing use of their existing assets.
Publisher formats the manuscript then sends it to Amazon for distribution. That's a one time expense for them.
Amazon's distribution costs...well how much does is cost to send 100k of data over a network? Storage costs? A 200GB hard drive will hold approximately 400K books given each book is 500k in size (which is insanely generous for essentially a text file with no compression.)
Let's see, refunds for unsold books? None. Expenses for additional print runs? None. Sales lost because a book is out of print? None.
$10 for the e-version when even the paperback isn't that expensive? Get real. Everyone loves to hate on Apple, but thanks to them I don't have to spend $20 to buy one track anymore. $1 gets me just the song I want, legally.
Kindle will do more to kill print media than help it. $5 for new releases I would consider. $2 once it's in paperback I would do. But only if you scrap the DRM, and don't charge me for web sites or loading my own content. If they did that then the only thing that would still keep me from buying it is the absolutely horrible industrial design. Hello platinum colored speak and spell...no thanks.
Re:Is this really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I meant what I said, which was fairly general.
For me, it means looking for a mix of libertarian and social service ideals. They're tough to find in one package. I think this is because the libertarians have a lot of trouble understanding certain things. Such as, that people need safety nets in extremis, good "roads" for goods, communications, data and themselves, sewage and other utility infrastructure, a uniform and detailed general education, medical care and a stable currency everyone uses, and that they inherently need all these things regardless of their economic condition on the one hand... While on the other, the republicrats can't seem to understand that the the right to tell someone else what to do outside of as it addresses directly interfering with one another or government's legitimate service to the people was never delegated to the government in any form, nor should it be.
But that's just me. Certainly elections resulting in this type of candidate being elected would represent a huge change; and it approximates what I'd like to see. Others have to answer the question of what they'd like to see and vote accordingly. What I'm suggesting is that if we really look at our current situation, what is going on is not what we'd really like to see.
Re:Ok, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Real objects degrade with time. Digital ones do not. This means a used digital item can resell at about the same price indefinitely. In theory you could buy and sell used books exclusively and really only ever have the price of one book locked up in the industry.
Real objects need to be shipped if the item you find is far away. Digital ones do not. Instantaneous transfer of ownership (except download time, which for books is practically nothing) means there is no reason to not use the entire global market to find your used copy. This makes it much more likely you will find what you are looking for in the used market, and not defer any savings of buying it used to shipping costs. There is less of a reason to buy new. In fact the way you buy a used book could be almost identical to a new one, and since the product is identical, why buy new?
A publisher's job is to sell as many books as they can. A second hand market like that would seriously cut in to their book sales. They wouldn't want to put their books in digital form if they had to agree to that.
Also, the fact is DRM is the only way to establish a market for digital anything that content providers would want to get in to. The music industry really can't help it because it is so easy to rip CDs and download songs. The content providers don't really need to play ball to get music online. If they don't, other people will (and do).
Books are a different matter. Not many people will photocopy books and put them online. People need publishers to make the eBooks for them. You won't get eBooks at all if there is no DRM. DRM is a good thing in some cases. Nobody would want to put copies of their book in a digital format that anybody could copy and hand out to their friends so they can read it on their Kindles. DRM is probably the only way to get most publishers to provider eBook forms of their books.
Re:Yes, it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me something, then. DRM (Digital RIGHTS management) is managing exactly what rights?
C'mon, Bob, ten seconds, The question is, what's your name? Eight seconds Bob, you can do it... you know this one, Bob... [ a nod to Cheech and Chong ]Oh. I see. You think slashdot moderation works, therefore you think that posts are designed for the approval of these moderators. Well, sadly, slashdot moderation does not work, and never will, until or unless it provides for (a1) recovery of posts lost to bad mods, or (a2) stops downgrading good posts (moderator accountability is key here), and (b) actually uplifts all the posts worth reading. In the meantime, all savvy slashdot readers read at -1 so they don't miss all the great posts that the manifestly broken slashdot moderation lets fall by the wayside. So, no, not posted for any reason to do with "karma." Bzzzt.
And try not to be so homophobic, eh? I know it's tough, but you can probably manage it if you try. Because being homophobic is boilerplate for declaring one's self an unvarnished idiot.
Re:Is this really news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this really news? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm really sorry to poke the obvious hole in your populist bullshit, but I'm sure you'll ignore it anyway and move on.
Not a license (Score:5, Insightful)
That is *not* what you buy.
You purchase a copy. That copy is yours. You don't "use up" a license. You use a copy.
The whole idea of copyright is simple: allow the creator of a work to provide limited licenses on *copying.* The only rights the author has is the right to control copying of the creation. That's why it's called a "copy right."
This whole idea of licensing copyrighted works is from the software industry. It involves the *license* to create copies of the work. Of course, in most cases, the work is useless without copying onto a hard drive, so it kinda makes sense, in a strange way.
However, when you purchase a book, you are not making a copy. You are purchasing a copy, and that copy belongs to *you*. You may sell it, lend it, and even copy small sections for purposes of academia or research or review (SEE fair use). You can do anything you want, as long as you don't make a copy, because only the author has the right to authorize ("license") copies.
Please resist the urge to voluntarily give up your rights. Don't let them convince you that sharing is bad. It isn't. That book is yours. That console game is yours. You can sell them, lend them, or do anything else you can do with a physical object. Those are your *rights.*
At least, those are your rights in the United States, and in many other nations. Check with your local government to be sure.
Re:What the constitution actually says (Score:3, Insightful)
Pity we don't have a Supreme Court with a backbone.
that's pretty cynical (Score:3, Insightful)
how truthful that cynicism is or not, i can defeat your point of view with an even more cynical observation: if a third party appeared, killing off the republican or the democrats, that party would merely replicate the previous party's level of degeneration and corruption
so the issue is structural: a law must be passed that must seal off the involvement of money in politics. anyone who gets enough signatures gets a pool of money to spend, that's it
then, any spending of any money in any case, no matter how peripheral, is punished. that owuld be easy to enforce, considering the spotlight that politicians labor under
but to get that law made, you need an issue-oriented candidate, of ANY PARTY
who would ride a wave to public office based on this issue and this issue alone, then his popularity must be big enough to muscle the change through
it has nothing to do with party politics
Re:Fair compensation in a digital world (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's compare CNN's free content to the Economist with subscription costs of over $100/year with discounts being few and far between. If your premise were true, no one would purchase subscriptions to the Economist because CNN's content is free. Yet clearly that is not the case. The Economist's content is obviously worth it to the people who are paying for it, despite CNN's 'free' content.
Creative works are very similar. If what you said is true, then the majority of people would never pay top-dollar for first-run movies and first-edition books. They would just "move on" to the much cheaper 2nd run theaters, or wait for the DVDs to hit the $4 bin at wal-mart, or buy the remaindered books at places like The Dollar Store.
Yet that is clearly not the case. Many people do indeed pay top dollar for new content when there are plenty of alternatives available.
Re:Is this really news? (Score:3, Insightful)
For most of recorded history, the vast majority of the worlds' population have been little more than serfs. A thousand years from now, this (approximately) 200 year old experiment with universal human rights and democratic ideals will be a paragraph or two in the history books. The extremely small minority to whom this history will be available will shake their heads in wry amusement as the vast numbers of serfs supporting their survival go unheeded.
Same as it ever was.
(sorry - feeling particularly pessimistic today)
Re:Is this really news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up! My earliest memory from Grade 1 was being given my Dick & Jane type reader, which I (having an older sister and a librarian mother, I learned to read at 4) read through in about 2 minutes. (IIRC, the book contained less than 60 words.) When the teacher asked me about the boy on the first page, I eagerly ratted out the contents of the entire book. To my surprise, I wasn't praised for my ability; I was hauled out of my chair in front of the class, and was spanked. It didn't take me long to realize that public schools aren't at all interested in you achieving your potential, and very much interested in ensuring you don't rock the boat in any way, shape, or form.
Years later, I went to a private school in Toronto. There, while my teachers expected me not to disrupt class, it was pretty clear that they thought it was an issue of respect for them and the other students, and not trying to keep me in check. In certain classes, like math and science, where it was clear I had mastered all the material, I was given extra stuff to try (like old Sir Isaac Newton tests, an-all Canadian high school competition in physics), so that I still had a chance to grow without hindering the progress of others.
That said, I have to say my current experience with the Catholic school system in Ontario (which, despite UN protestations, is publicly funded) is more promising. Both my daughters are in the gifted program, and their teachers offer them lots of choices to explore their interests, and expand in areas where they are strong. So, I'd have to admit that there has been some shift in the public system, and the truly gifted do get a chance to move ahead faster.
However, in Canada, there is no federal Dept. of Education that looks after public schools. This is purely a provincial (US friends, read "state") responsibility, and even there, while the province usually sets overall standards, individual regional school boards are given the actual responsibility to set up their own implementations. To track how well they were doing, about a decade ago, the right-wing gov't of Mike Harris set up standardized tests (quite rightly, IMHO) for students in grades 3 and 6 in reading and math, so that parents could see how their school in particular, and their board in general, were doing compared to other schools and boards. The results have been quite remarkable; not only has there been a general improvement in scores over the last ten years, parental involvement has escalated. When a school shows up in the bottom 10%, the principal is sure to be besieged by angry calls asking "what's being done?".
Many of the old excuses are wearing thin. In one celebrated case in Toronto, a run-down school where most children were from a public housing project (and where many had the additional handicap of English as a second language), the energetic principal engaged students, faculty, parents, and the community, and produced spectacular results. This kind of embarrassed public schools in the same board where the students came mostly from $1 million+ homes. The tests provide both motivation and measurement.
And, of course, this being /., I have to ask who would be in favour of the Central Scrutinizeer (DofE) vs. distributed processing (regional school boards)?
Re:Is this really news? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I didn't say that, and I don't want that. Your assertion is groundless. Software patents are wrong, but copyrights are the correct tool for source code protection.
No, I'm fine with commercials. What I'm not fine with is forcing me to accrue time to them when they're irrelevant or not interesting. I won't tolerate that, and they can't make me tolerate it, either.
No, I want insurance companies and their middlemen to go away, I want us to pool our resources as a society and make sure everyone is covered. The insurance industry has catastrophically conflicting interests; in order to protect the user of the service, they pool fees and spread risk over the users. In order to protect the owners of the service, they work to eliminate risky users. The end result is low risk users, with those at highest risk unprotected. Which is the exact opposite of what we actually need. It is the people who crash that need the airbags. It isn't a matter of higher fees, either - they go without protection, with claims rejected, and so on. The insurance industry is a festering boil on the ass of progress.
No, I think that America is degenerating because our government no longer complies with its constituting authority, which means it has no authority at all, just power. I think that America is degenerating because our citizens have been stripped of their liberties. Because we torture. Because we undertake wars of aggression. Because our personal choices are the subject of wars - wars on sexuality, marriage, drugs and more. Because lawyers have been allowed to run like wild dogs across the idea of personal responsibility. Because the federal government has interfered with, nay, outright stolen, many state's rights. Because of the government's failure to protect property ownership. Because legislators are purchased by corporations. Because of the USAPATRIOT act. Because of the pervasive and nefarious nature of the religious infestation in our legal system. As it happens, I have what I want - I'm 50, debt free, live where I want in the style I want, have a great family and do work I enjoy. However, that doesn't mean I don't notice when the lady down the road loses all her teeth because she can't afford dental work, or when the insurance company won't insure the guy next door for any amount that could possibly be afforded because he's a diabetic, or when some poor bastard is arrested without a warrant and held for years without hearing, or when kids have their lives ruined by a drug charge or for having sex with each other. In short, I think America is degenerating because it fucking well is degenerating. If you don't think it is, I can't account for that, nor do I think your jumping to the conclusion that I am agitating for change because my situation is poor is evidence of very clear thinking. You could have simply asked; instead, you went off the deep end on an entirely irrelevant and incorrect rant.
Indeed? Well perhaps if you reverted to "think, write, post" instead of "write, post, think" you'd feel a little better about yourself.