|
|
Post by micah on Jan 25, 2010 8:53:06 GMT -5
I've made a couple of casual comments in various places and received a storm of replies. Folks on Twitter seem to be in favor of digital reading (go figure) while the comments I'm getting on Facebook are just short of calling me a heathen. This has left me wondering what my horror brethren think.
Love it or hate it, digital publishing has the potential to change the whole world of publishing. I'll put up another poll/thread asking what e-reading means for the industry a little later. Right now I just want to know your feelings as readers.
What's your opinion? Who is the heathen--the one who abandons the beauty, feel, smell, taste...well, maybe not taste...of a book held lovingly in your hands or the person who insists on killing trees so Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer can add to their bank accounts?
|
|
|
|
Post by micah on Jan 25, 2010 9:25:42 GMT -5
I thought my own reply to this question should be separate from the message which asked it. Yeah, I'm a bit off that way.
Let me start off by saying that I never NOT have physical books in my house. There is something magical about being surrounded by all of that knowledge, knowing that I can reach out and feel the smooth paper... In fact, there is an ongoing "discussion" in the house right now focusing on the potential removal of a large section of my library. Granted, I'm probably not going to read those books again, but I like having them nearby.
Having said that let me say I LOVE my new Sony Reader. I've already got around 20 books on it and I haven't even added the extra memory yet. It allows me to read multiple formats, everything from pdf to word to who knows what all else (this is one of the main reasons I did not buy a Kindle--well that and the fact I already have a Kindle emulator on my phone with a half dozen books on it).
It amuses me that I have never heard this same argument with regards to audio-books. Maybe it has been said, but I've never heard anyone malign anyone who chooses to listen to their bestsellers on the way to work.
Maybe this has more to do with how comfortable I am with technology. I've been on-line forever and I am used to reading digital material. Maybe I just like the gee whiz factor.
I admit there are some serious drawbacks. I dread the day my battery runs out in the middle of a good part. I hope I never fall asleep and roll over on the reader (I've ruined many a paperback that way). I don't read in the tub, so that's not an issue--in fact I rag on people who ruin their paperbacks that way.
There is also the issue of sharing. There are some books which are just so good you have to pass them around to your friends. This is a little more difficult to do with copy protected digital copies. I promise to get into that more when the new poll is up.
I am more than a little surprised by the sheer volume of people who have reacted so negatively. I am not exaggerating when I say that some people have acted like I have committed some horrible transgression against the literary gods. I can only assume that none of these people own iPods.
Yep, I'm old enough to remember when this self same argument arose with the advent of easily accessible digital music. The purists screamed bloody murder that the only way to listen to [fill in the musician's name] was on a long playing wax record. Yes, that does lend to the experience in some cases, just as the physical act of turn a page does. This does not, in my opinion, mean that the new format is faulty.
I'm not going to give up my analog books (if I can use that term). If anything, this will make them even more special. I'll still buy Stephen King in hardcover if for no other reason than to keep my collection going.
I just might not break the spine on those.
|
|
|
|
Post by MontiLee on Jan 25, 2010 13:10:37 GMT -5
As someone who has multiple versions of the same books, I have no preference. For me, it's all about where I'll be and what I'll be doing.
I own the paperback, hardcover, audio and digital versions of The Talisman and The Black House. I own all of the hard covers to Stephen King books, and nearly all of the audio versions.
If I plan on settling down for a few nights of knitting or even driving long distances, give me audio. I'm restless and I need something in the background to keep my head occupied.
If I'm traveling - like by train or plane to MLSP, I'll take my eReader and load up on books. Far easier to carry four or five novels in 10 ounces than a bunch of paperbacks.
If I plan on being home in the tub or readiing out in the backyard, I'd rather have a paper book.
This is just like the argument between paperbacks and hardbacks. "True Fans (tm)" read the hardcovers and poseurs wait for the paperbacks. The fact remains - books are being read, whether on paper, eInk, or beamed into our brains. What we can't do is limit how those books are distributed simply because of tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by micah on Jan 26, 2010 10:27:35 GMT -5
I remembered another benefit of the e-reader: you can read embarrassing stuff in public! Need your trashy romance/men's adventure/Twilight/Dan Brown fix? Download that puppy and no one will know what you are reading!
|
|
|
|
Post by George W on Jan 27, 2010 9:39:31 GMT -5
Well, my preference is for hard copies... I have about 50K in my collection, but I have no aversion to electronic or audio versions. I think anything that gets more people reading is a good thing, so I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgifford on Jan 31, 2010 14:05:37 GMT -5
I like some e-reading stuff, but I'm a little old fashioned...I guess its the thrill of going to a used bookstore and being assaulted by the smell of old leather and dusty pages that makes me want to curl up with a good book...but I don't like how Amazon can jus randomly delete your books. I read about that school kid in Macomb...I figure, if it gets kids to read, then what's the harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by MontiLee on Feb 2, 2010 13:35:24 GMT -5
Two things about Amazon and the kid:
Amazon has an obligation to publishers and authors alike to sell only authorized versions of books. That's how we get paid. When Amazon discovered what had happened, there is no question that it should have pulled the unauthorized version. Unfortunately it went a step further and deleted the books from people's readers, which is very much like an employee of Borders or B&N sneaking into your home in the dead of night and removing the book from your nightstand, or bookshelf or schoolbag. We'd never stand for it, yet it's actions were exactly that.
This is why Amazon fails with Kindle. People were so geeked to have a portable format they forgot to look at the fine print. If you can download wirelessly with little or no effort, certainly with the right coding, someone can upload and remove.
The kid in Macomb story wasn't about the kid reading, it was about the notes he'd taken on his Kindle (you can use it to annotate stories, like you'd do in a paper book) for a school project being lost when Amazon deleted his book. Money doesn't replace notes, and the Kindle doesn't have a backup feature for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by micah on Feb 2, 2010 17:06:14 GMT -5
It's the fine print that gets you every time. According to Amazon, you never actually purchase a digital version of the title, you are purchasing a "license." This license can, of course, be revoked at any time for a number of reasons without advance warning.
To quote the actual agreement:
"Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon."
The scary portion is the next section entitled RESTRICTIONS
"Restrictions. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content."
A very loose interpretation of this means if I have a Kindle, I can't post an anti-DRM blog without violating my agreement. Ridiculous, but a potential interpretation.
A more reasonable, and currently enforced via the software package, is that you can't copy the material. I'll grant you this is more in line with the purchase of an analog version of a book. I can't legally go into Kinko's and have them photocopy my copy of Under the Dome. If I happen to drop it in the tub and ruin it, that's my too bad. This does fly in the face of how I treat all of my other digital content. My manuscripts, works in progress, digital calendar, photos, even my iTunes library are all backed up in multiple locations. The fact that I can't do that with my digital copy of Drood makes me twitchy.
The phrase may not/will not encourage blah blah blah occurs three more times in the agreement. There is the usual prohibition against separating either the software or downloaded content from the device (yep, that's right--you paid for it but you can only read it on your Kindle). You can't crack the thing open to see how it works (again, even though you own it). That would be like Mazda saying I can't change my own oil.
OK, now for the really creepy stuff: "The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service." In other words, once that kid started making notes on 1984 on his Kindle, said notes were accessible by the folks at Amazon. Seriously, the device was reporting back to the company on what the kid thought about 1984. That is more ironic than anything that every happened in Alanis Morrisette's entire life.
And finally:
"Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right."
"Termination. Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate without notice from Amazon if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement. In case of such termination, you must cease all use of the Software and Amazon may immediately revoke your access to the Service or to Digital Content without notice to you and without refund of any fees. Amazon's failure to insist upon or enforce your strict compliance with this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any of its rights."
And
"Amendment. Amazon reserves the right to amend any of the terms of this Agreement at its sole discretion by posting the revised terms on the Kindle Store or the Amazon.com website. Your continued use of the Device and Software after the effective date of any such amendment shall be deemed your agreement to be bound by such amendment."
Amazon can change the service contract in any way it deems fit, regardless of how this may affect you and your content. If you use the device after it changes the agreement, even if you are not aware of the changes, you are assumed to have agreed to them. Finally, if you violate your agreement, even if it is one of those changes you agreed to without knowing about it, Amazon can eliminate your account, wipe your device's content and software turning it into a really expensive door stop, and they don't have to give you jack.
I suppose the kid should be happy that when they took the book they left a few bucks on his night stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by micah on Feb 2, 2010 17:20:25 GMT -5
Post Script to the last post.
What kills me about the whole thing is that Amazon almost never uses the "licensing of digital material" nonsense when it is promoting the Kindle or the service. They almost always talk about "purchasing an e-book." The distinction may seem small, but it is monumental when you look at that huge steaming pile of legalese.
There are other issues besides the possibility of losing your material which differentiate licensing something from owning it outright. If I buy a paperback I can read it (or not) and then stick it on a shelf and never look at it again. I can loan it out to friends. I can straight up give it away if I want to. Hell, I can even do what my mom does when she finishes a book on vacation--leave it on the plane or in the airport for some other traveler.
Only one of these options is available for licensed material (and even that may be taken away without warning).
Yeah, this sucks as a reader but stop for a minute and think about it from the viewpoint of a writer. No matter what you do, you never own the Kindle versions of your own work. You can never go to the publisher and buy a bunch of copies at a discount (or not) to sell at conventions or on your own site. You can not sweep up your remaindered copies and sell them. You can't give them away to reviewers or as promotional items. You can do none of this, even though you wrote the damn thing.
What is going to happen if Apple (or any other company) opens up a serious e-book store? Will authors be forced to choose between different formats? Will they be able to or will they be locked in by whatever agreements their publisher has already made? The recent Kindle Kerfuffle speaks directly to this. I just spot checked a number of TOR titles. Despite Amazon's public statement saying that they would start carrying Mcmillian titles, none of them have BUY IT buttons yet...
...and remember, those are the physical copies.
|
|
|
|
Post by MontiLee on Feb 2, 2010 17:33:25 GMT -5
And yet personally I don't see a problem with how Amazoin handles its wireless content, I just know it's not for me, which is why I've been a Sony fan for a few years now.
Some of those clauses are there to protect the author as well as Amazon from anything that might could (to use an Ohioan subjunctive) arise from misuse.
RJ is more anti-DRM than I am, because I see things that are digital much like I see the bourbon I drink - I'm only renting it for a while. I think creators should be given a choice what rights they'd like to sell (or abandon all together), but let's face it - most writers don't understand rights, which is why so many of them have their work plastered all over the net. And then then wonder why they can't sell exclusive rights to a publisher.
I never gave away the books I liked. I bought them, treasured them, and sometimes I'd donate them to a library. I could recommend books to people, expecially now I recommend audio and digital books but I don't loan out my copies. I stopped actively using used book stores a while ago, both actions for the same reason: the author wasn't going to see a dime of it. That kind of hurt my heart.
When we buy books - we're buying the paper printed on them, not the words inside. We don't own the book or the idea or story. You're paying for the priviledge to read that story and keep it on a bookself - a one-time user fee, if you will - but you don't own it. We can't sell that book to a producer and make money, so the idea of "owning" falls a little short. Readers like Kindle the the PRS-300 operate much there same way. You've paid a retailer a one-time user fee for the platform, and when you purchase books, you're really paying for exclusive Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Amazon stepped in it again because they, like traditional publishers, simply don't understand the natural of digital publishing. They don't get how bickering over a few dollars ultimately crushed the spirit of the commodity they're arguing over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stout Roost on Mar 12, 2010 15:48:01 GMT -5
When we buy books - we're buying the paper printed on them, not the words inside. We don't own the book or the idea or story. You're paying for the priviledge to read that story and keep it on a bookself - a one-time user fee, if you will - but you don't own it. We can't sell that book to a producer and make money, so the idea of "owning" falls a little short. Readers like Kindle the the PRS-300 operate much there same way. You've paid a retailer a one-time user fee for the platform, and when you purchase books, you're really paying for exclusive Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license. While I do agree with this, I have to play Devil's Advocate. If we bought books with the proviso the stories within were printed on disappearing ink, would we stand for it? We buy books with the knowledge that as long as we have them, the stories printed inside will remain there. It's bad hat for Amazon to delete a book from a Kindle and calling it a revocation of a license. Do I get to revoke my cash too? |
|
|
|
Post by micah on Mar 12, 2010 23:42:08 GMT -5
Yes, you can revoke your cash, but only to a limited extent. When the big Orwell debacle happened, Amazon did provide refunds when it deleted the books from customers' Kindles.
Of course, those refunds were in the form of credits to the customer's Amazon account ensuring that they would remain Amazon customers.
Buy Button update: Due a huge price snafu, Amazon has temporarily removed the buy buttons from all material supplied by Diamond Distributors (comics/graphic novels). There was some goof up where the prices were off--way off. According to the internetz, people who ordered material at the wrong price point have been given Gift Cards instead of the merchandise (with the value of the cards more than what was spent in most cases). As of right now, they are working on correcting the problem. Until it is fixed, you can not order Diamond material directly from Amazon but must do so through other merchants.
There are conflicting reports about the same problem at Barnes and Noble. This might be a good time to pick up those FreakAngels, Walking Dead, Marvel Zombies, and Hellboy collections you have been looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by micah on Apr 7, 2010 9:19:26 GMT -5
|
|
