Comments on: Kindle brings up the PDF versus print debate again

By: kjamma4

kjamma4 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:34:34 +0000

Not knowing the first thing abouy how Kindles operate, how exactly do they “take” it away from you?

Thanks in advance.

By: dar

dar — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:53:06 +0000

And it looks like there is an apology.

By: Allan Sugarbaker

Allan Sugarbaker — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:32:59 +0000

In general, DRM is okay – it just keeps you from copying the DRM files you download. Copy protection for the publishers is something I can get behind. However, formats that require a continued relationship with the source (like the Amazon Kindle e-books, apparently) are the ones I’d be wary of, as you never know when the source will assert its authority and change its policies.

By: Asylos

Asylos — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:07:48 +0000

So how do you know if a product has DRM before you buy it?

By: Allan Sugarbaker

Allan Sugarbaker — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:51:07 +0000

Okay, yeah, it’s becoming more clear Amazon simply didn’t make sure they were dealing with the company that actually holds the rights to the Orwell books. So, A+ to Amazon for quickly covering its ass legally; D- for the manner in which it was done.

Again, for DRM or any electronic product tied to its creator, this must be making e-consumers nervous.

By: Scott R. Krol

Scott R. Krol — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:02:50 +0000

The point everyone seems to be glossing over is the fact that the books pulled were found to be illegal copies that shouldn’t have been sold in the first place. I don’t think this is a sign that the Amazon e-jackboots are coming to knock down your Kindle’s door.

And yeah, I’d have to say that anyone who uses a product in which the DRM is inherently tied into the parent company should probably already be aware of the possibility. That’s one of the issues a lot of folks have with services like Steam. Sure, chances are Valve won’t go belly up but if they do guess what? Everyone is SOL with their Steam purchases.

By: dar

dar — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:13:56 +0000

Sorry, I thought you guys stated that purchasers should have understood the possibility.

I think they should have, or at least had it plainly explained to them by Amazon.

or… maybe Amazon just did?

By: dar

dar — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:11:05 +0000

This is terrible and deeply disturbing.

You are right, purchasers should have known.

By: Allan Sugarbaker

Allan Sugarbaker — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:31:36 +0000

Near as I can tell, there was no warning given before Amazon revoked the downloaded e-books.

By: Asylos

Asylos — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:17:41 +0000

Did they even give any warning? I feel bad for all the people who were in the middle of a book, and now have to track down other means to finish it.