<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;kindle&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Canadian Kindle Owners Forced To Leave American Kindle Content &#038; Features Behind</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130122/17510021756/canadian-kindle-owners-forced-to-leave-american-kindle-content-features-behind.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130122/17510021756/canadian-kindle-owners-forced-to-leave-american-kindle-content-features-behind.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Something strange and potentially awful is happening to Amazon&#39;s users in various locations outside the US. Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader reports that <a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/01/20/amazon-now-forcing-canadian-kindle-owners-to-switch-to-canadian-kindle-store/" target="_blank">Amazon&#39;s Canadian Kindle customers are being locked out of purchasing ebooks through Amazon&#39;s .com domain</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>I have received multiple reports (<a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/12/07/new-hints-from-amazon-suggest-imminent-launch-of-canadian-kindle-store/#comment-97465" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.gospelebooks.net/blog/will-canadians-be-forced-to-use-amazon-ca-to-buy-kindle-books.html" target="_blank">here</a>,<a href="https://twitter.com/ClareMarshall13/status/292745224537653248" target="_blank">here</a>) today that Amazon is now refusing to allow their Canadian customers to buy Kindle ebooks from Amazon.com.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Over the past couple days several of those readers have reported that many Kindle titles are showing up on Amazon.com as not being available to Canadian customers even though the same titles will show up on Amazon.ca as being available.</i><br />
<br />
<i>So far as I can tell, the only ebooks still available to Canadian Kindle owners are titles distributed via KDP, seriously limiting their ability to make use of their Kindles.</i></blockquote>
What seems to be happening is a push by Amazon to move customers from other countries over to their local domains, something that has been reported in <a href="https://twitter.com/Travessias/status/293065217477337088" target="_blank">Brazil</a>, <a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/01/20/amazon-now-forcing-canadian-kindle-owners-to-switch-to-canadian-kindle-store/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDigitalReader+%28The+Digital+Reader%29#comment-99044" target="_blank">Japan</a> and France. Other news has filtered in that this <a href="http://www.gospelebooks.net/blog/will-canadians-be-forced-to-use-amazon-ca-to-buy-kindle-books.html" target="_blank">is not <i>necessarily</i> Amazon&#39;s doing,</a> but is a result of publishers "moving" product to non-US regions where pricing is still advantageous (i.e., not subject to the terms of the settlements reached with the Justice Department in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml" target="_blank">ebook price-fixing investigation</a>).<br />
<br />
No matter who is at fault, it&#39;s the users that are getting the shaft. Amazon has only been selling Kindle ebooks to Canadians since late in 2009, but many Canadians have been purchasing ebooks through Amazon&#39;s .com domain since 2007. (Its .ca Kindle store has only been around since December of 2012.) Forcing Canadian users to set up a new .ca account means that much of what their .com accounts contain won&#39;t transfer over.
<blockquote>
<i>First, while Amazon claims that any purchased ebooks will be available* after a Canadian Kindle owner transfers their account that&rsquo;s not completely true. The ebooks might be transferred, but I&rsquo;m told that a customer&rsquo;s purchase history is not transferred and the wish lists are also abandoned. That&rsquo;s going to make it a lot harder for some readers to keep track of what they own and what they want to buy.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Oh, and that claim about the Kindle content transferring isn&rsquo;t exactly true. Amazon.ca doesn&rsquo;t yet support subscriptions, nor does it offer Kindle Serials. That means this Kindle content will be lost in the transfer process along with any back issues that had been saved. What&rsquo;s more, Amazon.ca doesn&rsquo;t offer music and video so transferring an account will prevent customers from accessing media they&rsquo;ve already purchased.</i></blockquote>
If it&#39;s publishers making this push solely to maximize pricing advantages in non-US countries, <a href="http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2340322" target="_blank">the prices being quoted by some .ca users</a> don&#39;t seem to bear this out. (Others have <a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/01/20/amazon-now-forcing-canadian-kindle-owners-to-switch-to-canadian-kindle-store/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDigitalReader+%28The+Digital+Reader%29#comment-98527" target="_blank">reported higher prices as well</a>, but it doesn&#39;t seem to be anything approaching "regulation-free" price hikes across the board.) However, one site did get a response from a publisher, <a href="http://www.gospelebooks.net/blog/will-canadians-be-forced-to-use-amazon-ca-to-buy-kindle-books.html" target="_blank">which indicates the current issues are possibly at least partially their fault</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>After speaking to Amazon Kindle support they informed us that this change was not their doing. They said a change like this would have been made by the publisher only. One of the major publishers affected responded back to me saying, &ldquo;It certainly wasn&rsquo;t our intentional doing; although it may be a side-effect of our pricing model. I&rsquo;ll investigate and see what I can do.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
For Canadian users (and customers in Brazil, Japan, France, etc.), it doesn&#39;t really matter which party is forcing the migration. The end result is a very possible loss of purchased content and a definite loss of purchase histories, preferences and a number of other small, but essential, perks that are part of a long-term Amazon account. This is going to hit the most loyal customers the hardest -- the last thing Amazon should want to do.<br />
<br />
While there are many ways to route around this new issue, the fact remains that migrating a customer&#39;s account should keep it intact, especially when there&#39;s no perceived benefit for the end user. If this <i>is</i> publishers reshuffling their offerings to take advantage of out-of-US pricing, it&#39;s in Amazon&#39;s best interest to point this out. If this is Amazon&#39;s doing, it needed to have the kinks worked out before pushing it on its customers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130122/17510021756/canadian-kindle-owners-forced-to-leave-american-kindle-content-features-behind.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130122/17510021756/canadian-kindle-owners-forced-to-leave-american-kindle-content-features-behind.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130122/17510021756/canadian-kindle-owners-forced-to-leave-american-kindle-content-features-behind.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nothing-in-it-for-the-customers-if-they-move,-and-even-less-if-they-stay</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130122/17510021756</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:06:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Pulls Down Memoir Because Cover Mentions 'Star Wars'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/12545321490/amazon-pulls-down-memoir-because-cover-mentions-star-wars.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/12545321490/amazon-pulls-down-memoir-because-cover-mentions-star-wars.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week we had a story of Amazon <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/09072421425/authors-book-removed-amazon-bogus-trademark-claim.shtml">pulling</a> a book because of a dispute over the term "space marine," which Games Workshop insisted they have full control over due to their trademark (a massive exaggeration of what protections the trademark provides).  The latest may be even worse. As a number of folks are reporting, Amazon has <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/amazon-pulls-self-published-memoir-about-star-wars-because-it-references-star-wars/" target="_blank">pulled a self-published memoir by Gib Van Ert</a> entitled <i>A Long Time Ago: Growing Up With and Out of Star Wars</i>.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/qnPIn"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/qnPIn.jpg" width=250 /></a>
</center>
The book has received some <a href="http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/09/a-long-time-ago/" target="_blank">great reviews</a> from places like Wired, but apparently someone at Amazon thought the title is trademark infringement.  The <a href="http://thissortofthing.com/index/2012/12/25/amazon-removes-a-long-time-ago-from-kindle-for-supposed-trad.html" target="_blank">email from Amazon seems particularly silly</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Thank you for the information you provided regarding the following book(s): 
<br /><br />
A Long Time Ago: Growing Up With And Out Of Star Wars (2353856) 
<br /><br />
Your book(s) contains references to the trademarked term, &#8220;Star Wars (Trademarked Term)&#8221;. We have reviewed the information you provided and have determined that we will not be making the book(s) available for sale in the Kindle store at this time. While we cannot advise you on trademark laws, we encourage you to conduct your own research by possibly going to your local library or using other online resources that may be available to you. 
</i></blockquote>
This seems silly.  The use is clearly descriptive, and the memoir discusses the impact of the movie on the guy's life.  No "moron in a hurry" is going to assume that it is endorsed by Lucasfilm or anything like that.  The likelihood of confusion here is nil.  But in our risk averse age, where too many people incorrectly think that trademark gives you 100% control over a phrase, we see more and more unfortunate stories like this.  Hopefully, Amazon quickly reconsiders... and the publicity from this silly bout of blocking leads to more sales.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/12545321490/amazon-pulls-down-memoir-because-cover-mentions-star-wars.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/12545321490/amazon-pulls-down-memoir-because-cover-mentions-star-wars.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/12545321490/amazon-pulls-down-memoir-because-cover-mentions-star-wars.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>overkill</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121226/12545321490</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:25:01 PST</pubDate>
<title>Buy Your Kindle At Waterstones? You're Now Locked Into One Screensaver... The Waterstones Logo</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/16014421285/buy-your-kindle-waterstones-youre-now-locked-into-one-screensaver-waterstones-logo.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/16014421285/buy-your-kindle-waterstones-youre-now-locked-into-one-screensaver-waterstones-logo.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's no better way to treat your paying customers than by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121127/14455221158/game-maker-studio-drm-misfires-permanently-replaces-created-game-resources-with-pirate-symbols.shtml" target="_blank">taking away</a> some functionality. Most people would consider the previous statement to be completely full of shit, but when you look at it from the perspective of a proud bookstore chain that seemingly adores its own tasteful logo, it all begins to... Nope. It's not working. The thought process involved in the following debacle seems to have <a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/12/06/waterstones-thinks-customers-are-too-stupid-to-remember-where-they-bought-a-kindle-adds-advert-to-remind-them/#.UMEnM4PAd8E" target="_blank">short circuited somewhere between the marketing team and the IT squad, resulting in this bit of branding stupidity</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Remember how Waterstones was going to sell the Kindle and take a sales commission on the hardware and any ebooks bought from that device? Apparently they decided that the subtle but positive relationship of simply making money off the Kindle wasn't good enough; now they've turned the Kindles they sell into billboards.</i><br />
<br />
<i>The Kindles sold by Waterstones got a firmware update in early November. This update wasn't rolled out to all the Kindles, and for good reason. According to a couple different users (this story has also been confirmed by Waterstones) the only change in the update was a new screensaver.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I have not yet seen it myself, but the Kindle owners are reporting that all the screensavers have been replaced by a Waterstones logo. Furthermore, there's no way to disable or replace that screensaver, so every time these Kindle owners pick up their device they will be reminded where they purchased it.</i></blockquote>
Advertising on the Kindle is nothing new. The ad-supported version is available at a discount if the buyer's willing to put up with being advertised at in exchange for a price break. But, as The Digital Reader points out, Waterstones-branded Kindles aren't discounted.<br />
<br />
Instead, as thanks for purchasing a portable Amazon ecosystem from a brick-and-mortar, Waterstones' customers are now locked into a single screensaver that will constantly remind them who they need to contact for a full refund... which, unbelievably, Waterstones is actually offering.
<blockquote>
<i>Thank you for your email regarding your Kindle Paperwhite from Waterstones.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am sorry you are disappointed by the addition of a Waterstones screensaver after the recent software update to Kindle. It is our view that this screensaver does not constitute advertising and differs substantially to the advertising-supported Kindles available to the US market. The Waterstones screensaver is a non-dynamic, static image that will change infrequently and not advertise any specific product, offer or website.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>It is not possible to remove the Waterstones screensaver to replace it with the former Amazon screensaver</b>. We apologise that this change was made without consultation, and hope it does not detract from or alter your reading experience. However, if you feel it does, please let us know and we will arrange for the return of the device and a full refund.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Yours sincerely,</i><br />
<br />
<i>**********<br />
Customer Service Team<br />
Waterstones.com</i></blockquote>
This should do some serious damage to what was already a rather sketchy hookup. Back in September, Waterstones' CEO James Daunt made the following <a href="http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/12/waterstones-ceo-amazon-partnership-great-except-for-the-bear-traps/" target="_blank">ostensibly cheerful statement announcing its partnership with Amazon</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>"There are substantial difficulties for us around working with our major competitor," Daunt said at the Independent Publishers Guild Digital Quarterly Meeting on Tuesday, according to The Bookseller. "But we think we have an agreement which protects some of the most significant bear traps that sit there, and there are some major upsides for us."</i></blockquote>
Notably, Daunt didn't say that the agreement protects <i>Waterstones</i> from "significant bear traps." Instead, his Freudian slippage states that the traps <i>themselves</i> will be unharmed, even if, as it appears, Waterstones has to trigger the traps on its own.<br />
<br />
The deal was never advantageous, what with Waterstones making the most money when purchasers bought ebooks using its <i>in-store wifi network</i>. It's hard to believe this strategy of getting customers into the physical store in hopes that they&#39;d spend part of the time shopping on their Kindles has paid off. Perhaps the always-on "W" is meant to remind customers where they purchased their Kindles and why not go have a look around the bookstore a bit then.<br />
<br />
On the plus side, Waterstones customers were <strike>threatened with</strike> <strike>warned about</strike> promised some additional bonuses for their branded Kindles during this rollout announcement:
<blockquote>
<i>At yesterday's IPG event, Daunt revealed a few more details about Waterstones' Amazon partnership. "<b>Waterstones-specific Kindle screensavers</b>, bestseller lists and a Read For Free offer are among the plans," The Bookseller reports.</i></blockquote>
That's a pretty frickin' specific screensaver, Daunt. Shame it changes so "infrequently" as to be completely undetectable.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/16014421285/buy-your-kindle-waterstones-youre-now-locked-into-one-screensaver-waterstones-logo.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/16014421285/buy-your-kindle-waterstones-youre-now-locked-into-one-screensaver-waterstones-logo.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/16014421285/buy-your-kindle-waterstones-youre-now-locked-into-one-screensaver-waterstones-logo.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>Waterstones-hopes-you-love-Waterstones-as-much-as-Waterstones-loves-Waterstones</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121206/16014421285</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:21:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Wipes Customer's Account, Locks All Ebooks, Says 'Find A New Retailer' When She Asks Why</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Techdirt has been warning people for several years that they don't really own the ebooks they have on their Amazon Kindles.  The most famous demonstration of this was the sudden <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">disappearance</a> of ebook versions of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm (you can't make this stuff up.)  But that's nothing compared to what an Amazon customer in Norway now claims the company has done: <a href="http://www.bekkelund.net/2012/10/22/outlawed-by-amazon-drm/">shut down her Amazon account permanently and locked her Kindle -- all without explanation</a>.
</p><p>
When her ebooks became unavailable, <a href="http://www.digi.no/904658/hun-ble-kastet-ut-av-amazon">Linn Jordet Nygaard</a>, the customer in question, contacted Amazon to find out what had happened.  She received the following reply:

<i><blockquote>We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.</blockquote></i>

But the account holder claims to know nothing about any other account, and so she wrote back asking for more details:

<i><blockquote>As previously advised, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed, as it has come to our attention that this account is related to a previously blocked account. While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened.
<br /><br />
Please understand that the closure of an account is a permanent action. Any subsequent accounts that are opened will be closed as well. Thank you for your understanding with our decision.</blockquote></i>

Unhelpfully, then, Amazon simply re-iterated that the newly-closed account was "related" to another, previously blocked account, wouldn't say why, and emphasized that this was an irrevocable ban, even to the extent of refusing to allow the person accused of this unspecified transgression to open any other account at any point in the future.
</p><p>
Again, Jordet Nygaard not unreasonably sought to find out what the problem was so that she could try to address it.  This time, she received an email that is not only willfully unhelpful, but positively insulting thanks to a cheesy veneer of bogus sympathy that has been added for good measure: 

<i><blockquote>We regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
<br /><br />
We wish you luck in locating a retailer better able to meet your needs and will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.</blockquote></i>

Of course, this is a totally Kafkaesque situation: found guilty of a crime you are not allowed to know, with no way to appeal.  Over on Boing Boing, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/10/22/kindle-user-claims-amazon-dele.html">Cory Doctorow has an interesting theory about what might be the issue here</a>:

<i><blockquote>I'd further speculate that the policy violation that Linn stands accused of is using a friend's UK address to buy Amazon UK English Kindle books from Norway. This is a symptom of Amazon's -- and every single other ebook retailer's -- hopelessness at managing "open territory" for ebooks. </blockquote></i>

That sounds very plausible, and means that Jordet Nygaard is essentially being punished for the publishing industry's incompetence when it comes to operating in a global online market, where national boundaries make no sense.  Bad as that is, it's only a side issue here.  What's most troubling is that Amazon not only closed down Jordet Nygaard's account, forbade her from ever opening up one again, and refused to discuss any aspect of its actions with her, but that it apparently has the capability to lock her out from all Kindle ebooks on any device -- and did so.
</p><p>
If you didn't take the hint when Amazon erased a couple of Orwell's books back in 2009, maybe this latest case involving the alleged remote lockout from all ebooks will finally get across the key message here: those Kindle ebooks you thought you had purchased, are actually only rented to you, and can be denied to you without explanation, and without recompense, any time Amazon wants to.  The only ebooks you will ever truly own are those stored in open formats without DRM, which therefore allow backups to be made, and used anywhere.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>kafka-would-be-proud</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121022/07340420786</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ebook Authors Continue To See Self-Publishing Stigma Disappear</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/05584620327/ebook-authors-continue-to-see-self-publishing-stigma-disappear.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/05584620327/ebook-authors-continue-to-see-self-publishing-stigma-disappear.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the recent news about ebooks has mostly revolved around the price-fixing settlement that was just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml">approved</a>, it&#39;s worth pointing out, or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml">reiterating</a>, how the ebook market continues to take off despite being a digital marketplace with all the same potential pitfalls as the recording industry. Despite those potential troubles, we continue to see a rise in the popularity and saleability of self-published authors, long sufferers of the antiquated myth that if you weren&#39;t published by a big publishing house you weren&#39;t really published at all.<br />
<br />
Take this recent story from CNN, which details how Amazon coincided their release of several new e-readers and tablets with a press bit showing how&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/tech/mobile/kindle-direct-publish/index.html">27 of the top 100 Amazon eBooks</a> are&nbsp;Kindle Direct Publishing books. Considering the outlook on self-publishing before e-publishing came to be somewhat commonplace, numbers like this are significant.
<blockquote>
<i>"Most of my months are six-figure months," said <a href="http://www.hughhowey.com/" target="_blank">Hugh Howey</a>, a 37-year-old Florida author whose <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&#038;field-keywords=wool&#038;rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Awool" target="_blank">"Wool" series of digital books</a> was highlighted by Amazon. "It&#39;s more than I ever hoped to make in a year."</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The company says some authors, including <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&#038;rct=j&#038;q=&#038;esrc=s&#038;source=web&#038;cd=1&#038;cad=rja&#038;ved=0CB0QFjAA&#038;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theresaragan.com%2F&#038;ei=vPxJUMidBoS69QSUnYCQDQ&#038;usg=AFQjCNGk5cNswqXccGWBmxah6BEMmvaLjA" target="_blank">Theresa Ragen</a>, who appeared in a promotional video during the Amazon event, have sold hundreds of thousands of books.</i>
</blockquote>
The article goes on to note how some of these now-successful self-published authors are the same people that could have given up after receiving a dozen rejection slips for their books from agents and publishers. Perhaps more to the point, twenty years ago these authors would have <i>been forced</i> to give up on those books, because the publishing companies were the gatekeepers and publishing books only worked economically because of the kind of scale those publishers could command. Digital printing alleviated some of the need for that scale and allowed for self-publishing, except that then a combination of publishers and brick-and-mortar bookstores acted as the next barrier for self-published authors, such that few in the public could even find a way to buy these books.
<br /><br />
With the rise of the eBook, the only remaining barriers are the ability to get noticed and the ablility to write a compelling book.
<blockquote>
<i>"Fact is that authors no longer need a publisher," Bernard Starr <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/the-new-vanity-publishing_b_1821945.html" target="_blank">wrote at The Huffington Post</a>. "And more and more writers are awakening to the realization that if you are not a high-profile author who can command large sales, a traditional publisher will do little for you beyond editing and printing your book."</i>
<br /><br />
<i>For Howey, author of the "Wool" series, the direct-publishing platform has opened up a life he never imagined was possible -- one where he is paid to write full-time.</i>
</blockquote>
Experiences like Howey&#39;s are important to highlight, because the inevitable response from detractors of eBook self-publishing will be to point out that it is only a small percentage of self-published authors that are making significant money. Even the CNN article says as much. My response is simple: so what? Did the old system, under which publishers and bookstores acted as gatekeepers, <i>not</i> have similar results, with only a fraction of authors making significant money from their books? And what of all the authors and books who would <i>never</i> be heard under that system? What of the manuscripts that would lay dusty and alone in the drawer?
<br /><br />
That is the true benefit of self-publishing in the digital age. As the barriers come down and sales go up, the stigma of self-publishing will be buried under all the dollars previously un-published authors are collecting. This despite their playing in a digital realm that would be open to piracy, if people simply refused to support authors. But that isn&#39;t happening. Sales are on the rise, and culture is rising with them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/05584620327/ebook-authors-continue-to-see-self-publishing-stigma-disappear.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/05584620327/ebook-authors-continue-to-see-self-publishing-stigma-disappear.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/05584620327/ebook-authors-continue-to-see-self-publishing-stigma-disappear.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-more-barriers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120910/05584620327</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:57:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Indie Ebook Scene Is Growing: Here's Over 170 Authors Who've Sold More Than 50,000 Copies</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We've written a lot about the incredible new ecosystem of independent, self-published ebooks, which in a few short years (with the help of huge success stories like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=amanda+hocking">Amanda Hocking</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/?tag=joe+konrath">Joe Konrath</a>) has largely eliminated the stigma of what we once called "vanity publishing", to the point that even traditionally published authors are deciding to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110915/16242615971/author-dumps-publisher-book-launch-party.shtml">go it alone</a>.</p>

<p>Though Hocking and Konrath were some of the first names to get some serious attention with their impressive ebook sales, today there are lots of other examples. An anonymous submission points us to <a href="http://selfpublishingsuccessstories.blogspot.ca/" target="_blank">a blog dedicated to tracking self-published ebook success stories</a>, which has put together a <a href="http://selfpublishingsuccessstories.blogspot.ca/2012/03/self-publishing-success-stories_27.html" target="_blank">list of over 170 independent authors who have sold more than 50,000 ebooks</a>, including 33 who have sold more than 200,000. Hocking and Konrath still make the top ten, but they have plenty of company:</p>

<blockquote><em>
Barbara Freethy - over 2 million ebooks sold (April 2012) <br />
Amanda Hocking - 1,500,000 ebooks sold (December 2011)<br />
John Locke- more than 1,100,000 eBooks sold in five months<br />
Gemma Halliday - over 1 million self-published ebooks sold (March 2012)<br />
Michael Prescott - more than 800,000 self-published ebooks sold (Dec 2011)<br />
J.A. Konrath - more than 800,000 ebooks sold (April 2012) <br />
Bella Andre - more than 700,000 books sold (May 2012)<br />
Darcie Chan - 641,000 ebooks sold (May 2012)<br />
Chris Culver - over 550,000 (Dec 2011)<br />
Heather Killough-Walden - over 500,000 books sold (Dec 2011)<br />
</em></blockquote>

<p>The post also points out some encouraging statistics from Amazon:</p>

<blockquote><em>Kindle Direct Publishing has quickly taken on astonishing scale &#8211; more than a thousand KDP authors now each sell more than a thousand copies a month, some have already reached hundreds of thousands of sales, and two have already joined the Kindle Million Club.</em></blockquote>

<p>Under the old system, many of these authors would likely still be sending out manuscripts, hoping for the lucky convergence of circumstances that puts it in the right pile in front of the right reader when they're in the right mood. There's still some disdain for self-publishing in some circles&mdash;but with the open playing field that has been created, the increasing number of authors flocking to it, and a growing roster of success stories, it won't be long before that too starts to change.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/07050019506/indie-ebook-scene-is-growing-heres-over-170-authors-whove-sold-more-than-50000-copies.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>success-stories</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120627/07050019506</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Manufacturer Of Buggy 'Kobo Touch' E-Reader Manages Customer Complaints By... Hiding All Online Reviews</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/18313519835/manufacturer-buggy-kobo-touch-e-reader-manages-customer-complaints-hiding-all-online-reviews.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/18313519835/manufacturer-buggy-kobo-touch-e-reader-manages-customer-complaints-hiding-all-online-reviews.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Quick quiz on crisis management, internet-style:<br />
<br />
<i>Exercise 1: The product you've just introduced is a buggy mess, short on content and backed with terrible customer service. What do you do?</i>
<blockquote>
<i>a.) Bite the bullet and start handing out refunds<br />
b.) Start patching like hell and fire your current Customer Service team<br />
c.) Drain all bank accounts and reorganize under the name <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/03114319558/former-righthaven-ceo-fights-back-claims-as-manager-manager-righthaven-hes-still-power.shtml" target="_blank">Net Sortie, LLC</a>.<br />
d.) Whistle nonchalantly while sweeping bad reviews under the rug</i></blockquote>
If you answered "d," then congratulations! You've lost the battle <i>and</i> the war!<br />
<br />
No matter how many companies line up to play the "I'd Like to Lose at the Internet" game and walk away empty shells of their former selves, there's always another player ready to step up and take a swing at wishing its problems into the Google Cache cornfield.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/07/24/kobo-touch-launch-not-going-well-in-japan-rakuten-now-hiding-user-reviews/#.UBCUt7Se6s3" target="_blank">This week's contender is Rakuten and its Kobo Touch Reader</a>. Billed as sort of a preemptive strike against the expected arrival of Amazon's Kindle in Japan, the Kobo began shipping last week. That's the last of the good news.
<blockquote>
<i>Rakuten launched the Kobo Touch in Japan with the expectation that they would dominate their home market. They are native to the country, and Rakuten does have a sizable retail presence there. Given their technical and CS resources, you&rsquo;d think they would have been able to pull this off.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Unfortunately, it now looks like Rakuten has paved the way for Amazon to dominate yet another ebook market.This launch is rapidly turning into a debacle and it&rsquo;s going to damage Rakuten&rsquo;s reputation. And according to some of the tweets I&rsquo;ve seen (in Japanese) it already is</i>.</blockquote>
So, what went wrong? Well, many, many things. First off, while the firmware was solid, the desktop software was a disaster. If installation failed on the PC, a rather common situation according to the reviews, it pretty much made the Kobo Reader useless. Secondly, Rakuten's promotional work pointed towards 30,000 titles being available at launch. Instead, there were 18,894 titles and, as is pointed out in the comments, many of those were public domain. Last, but not least, purchasers now holding a shiny brick were treated badly by Rakuten's customer service.<br />
<br />
Rakuten was understandably perturbed by this failed launch and decided the best course of action would be to pretend it <i>just wasn't happening</i>.
<blockquote>
<i>It&rsquo;s been just under a week since the <a href="http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/06/29/confirmed-kobo-touch-coming-to-japan-in-july-will-get-epub3-support/" target="_blank">Kobo Touch started shipping in Japan</a>, and things are going so well that Rakuten has removed from their website all the reviews of the Kobo Touch.</i><br />
<br />
<i>No, seriously, all of the reviews are down &ndash; both good and bad. I suppose there were too many people writing things like &ldquo;I&rsquo;m going to buy a Kindle&rdquo; and that upset someone at Rakuten.</i></blockquote>
For a tech company, you'd think Rakuten would be a bit more familiar with how this "The Internet" works. You can't just pull the electronic wool over everyone's eyes and hope to sneak away undetected. The Internet never forgets. And even if it could, there's always a helpful person or two willing to remind it where all that stuff is stashed.
<blockquote>
<i>Luckily one of Rakuten&rsquo;s potential customers tipped me to the story, including giving me a link to a blog that had <a href="http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2134306025074493901/2134306323874611703" target="_blank">collected responses</a> and a screenshot of the review page before Raskuten removed it. That&rsquo;s why I can show you things like this:</i></blockquote>
<center><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/6nLaH.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 169px; " /></center>
<blockquote>
<i>If you can&rsquo;t see the image above, it says that the Kobo Touch has a 3 star rating largely due to the vast number of 1 star reviews.</i></blockquote>
And more help arrives:
<blockquote>
<i>Update: My source found a <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Pwp6ZbBmk34J:review.rakuten.co.jp/item/1/213310_15929951/1.0/sort6/+review.rakuten.co.jp+kobo+touch&#038;cd=1&#038;hl=en&#038;ct=clnk" target="_blank">Google Cache page of reviews</a>. Thanks, Bibo!</i></blockquote>
This response is so wrong and yet so common. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/17472019612/dear-angry-person-people-who-criticize-you-likely-arent-defaming-you-infringing-your-copyright.shtml" target="_blank">Donna Barstow</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/02404115428/how-to-make-mockery-your-own-law-school-sue-your-critics.shtml" target="_blank">law schools</a>, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110414/03462013893/why-doctors-shouldnt-abuse-copyright-law-to-stop-patient-reviews.shtml" target="_blank">freakin' medical community</a>. Pretty much anyone who's ever heard the term Streisand Effect whispered in their general direction has attempted to delete damning content, either of their own or created by others, only to find it resurrected in Google's Cache or the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. It's definitely a knee-jerk response, but it seems to have a steep learning curve attached to it. Kobo screwed up and then doubled down by hiding the reviews. What does that say about the company and its future relationship with its customers?
<blockquote>
<i>Folks, they took the reviews down from the website so new customers wouldn&rsquo;t be warned about the many problems. I want you to look past the fact they did it and think about how customers will feel once they discover the deception. That is what will make this a major debacle and not merely an embarrassment for Rakuten.</i><br />
<br />
<i>A bad launch could be recovered from. This is closer to being a systematic effort to lie to their customers. Okay, eventually people will forgive Rakuten, but in the short run this debacle could drive readers to Amazon.</i></blockquote>
Rakuten, by botching its launch, hurt itself a little. By covering it up, it did a ton of self-inflicted damage. You can't just flip "trust" on and off like a light switch. It's earned. And if it wanted to take on Amazon, it couldn't afford a mistake of this magnitude.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/18313519835/manufacturer-buggy-kobo-touch-e-reader-manages-customer-complaints-hiding-all-online-reviews.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/18313519835/manufacturer-buggy-kobo-touch-e-reader-manages-customer-complaints-hiding-all-online-reviews.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/18313519835/manufacturer-buggy-kobo-touch-e-reader-manages-customer-complaints-hiding-all-online-reviews.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-no-hole-on-earth-big-enough-to-bury-The-Internet</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120725/18313519835</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Hides Classic Free Public Domain Ebooks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/03312419822/amazon-hides-classic-free-public-domain-ebooks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/03312419822/amazon-hides-classic-free-public-domain-ebooks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="https://twitter.com/chr1sa/status/228034357795901443" target="_blank">Chris Anderson</a>, we find out that Amazon recently <a href="http://www.fonerbooks.com/selfpublishing/?p=1977" target="_blank">made a big change to the free ebooks it lists on the site</a>, making them much harder to find.  The explanation, by Morris Rosenthal, is a bit confusing, but apparently Amazon reassigned ASINs (identification numbers) for most of the public domain classics that were available on the site.  In doing so, all of the historical sales info, reviews, comments, etc., were lost.  That means that the works, no matter how popular, get pushed way down in searches and in "related" items.  It also means tons of links are now dead.
<blockquote><i>
Last weekend Amazon removed the vast majority of free classics that they published (adopted from Project Gutenberg) prior to 2011, after replacing them with the same books using new ASIN&#8217;s, meaning new product pages. In doing so, Amazon orphaned millions of links from the web, which now arrive at a &#8220;Can&#8217;t find what you&#8217;re looking for&#8221; page, not to mentions tens of thousands of customer created Listmania lists, So You&#8217;d Like To guides and Customer Discussions. They are orphaned because Amazon does not redirect, or forward the ASIN&#8217;s of eBooks removed from their catalog. 
<br /><br />
A major side effect, if not prime effect, of changing all of those ASIN&#8217;s, is the loss of their historical sales data. In other words, a customer going to the Kindle store and searching for Jane Austen would once have gotten back a list that started off with free editions of her most popular works, starting with Pride and Prejudice. This morning, the only free Austen book appearing in the first page of the search results is &#8220;Love and Friendship&#8221;, certainly not her most popular title, but there because it hasn&#8217;t been updated since 2006. 
</i></blockquote>
Rosenthal doesn't think there's anything nefarious going on here -- just a sign of a company that doesn't much care about these public domain works.  His post also explains some of the wider impact, including how certain related items results are pointing people to fee-based versions of authors' works, rather than free public domain ones.  Obviously, such a result could be seen to benefit Amazon, since Amazon is more likely to make money by pushing you to fee-based books instead of free ones.
<br /><br />
There <i>is</i> one silver lining he notes: for those who go straight to the "top free" list of books, most of those old public domain books have disappeared from the list, meaning that newer free books are now more prominent -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  But, to take all those other classics and effectively hide them seems like a big mistake.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/03312419822/amazon-hides-classic-free-public-domain-ebooks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/03312419822/amazon-hides-classic-free-public-domain-ebooks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/03312419822/amazon-hides-classic-free-public-domain-ebooks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>disappointing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120725/03312419822</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Role Of 'Perceived Value' In Music Is Small And Fading Fast</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/07165819219/role-perceived-value-music-is-small-fading-fast.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/07165819219/role-perceived-value-music-is-small-fading-fast.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=anothercultland">anothercultland</a> points us to a post over at Digital Music News (obnoxiously entitled <a href="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120526charge" target="_blank">"Want More People to Care About Your Music? Then Charge for It&#8230;"</a>) which, though massively overstated and oversimplified, actually gets at a point I've been thinking about for a while now. The basic premise is that the power of "perceived value" can make charging for music a better proposition than giving it away for free, based largely on a comment from an indie artist:

<blockquote><em>
The music industry isn't the best at studying pricing (that's for sure), but there's evidence that price tags actually increase overall interest and demand for your music - whether that results in a paid transaction or not.  Here's a comment from a seriously DIY artist in the trenches, Steady Fingers, who experienced something unexpected.
<blockquote>
"But it's funny that even when I used to give away [my music] for free, there wasn't much traffic nor many downloads, almost nothing. Then we decided that we should put it up for sale so that we might be able to recoup some of the money spent on making the music videos (when it's your brother making the videos, I still consider it DIY.) Anyway, as soon as people saw that the music was up for sale, the website and other related social media gizmos received much more attention. Also, people began looking for ways to download it for free, which isn't always a bad sign."</blockquote>
Welcome to the strange world of 'perceived value,' a murky science that enables all sorts of obscene markups - whether at Starbucks, Gucci, or the Apple Store.   But the basic idea is this: the simple presence of an elevated price tag - or a price tag at all - is often enough to convince someone that this product has worth.  
</em></blockquote>
<p>There is actually some truth to this idea, but only under specific circumstances and with a whole lot of caveats. Perceived value is a real thing, and it can be pretty powerful&mdash;but there are significant limitations on how it can be applied to an infinite good like digital content. A good (non-musical) example is self-published Kindle novels: for an author just starting out, it's actually probably a good idea to charge $0.99  instead of making it free, because of the way Amazon separates the lists of free and paid books. Of course, as authors like Joe Konrath have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/02510113396/cheap-ebook-authors-realize-even-cheaper-is-even-better.shtml">discovered</a>, books at $0.99 make a lot more money than books at $2.99&mdash;so the limitations of perceived value come into force quite quickly. In app stores, paid apps may once have held some clout over free ones&mdash;but now many of the top grossing apps are free and ad-supported, and the perceived value of a price tag to download has all but disappeared.</p>
<p>And it's disappearing everywhere, as the lines between professional and amateur get weaker all across the media spectrum. I buy a lot of $5 and $10 albums on Bandcamp, and I also download a lot more free ones&mdash;and I can't really remember which is which. For indie music, price is a poor indicator of quality. Besides, pretty much all music can be streamed first in a "try before you buy" fashion now, so any perceived value is quickly supplanted by an actual evaluation of the product. Just as with books in the Kindle store, there may be certain venues in which adding a price tag offers some advantage, but that can only go so far and it could always disappear in an instant.</p>
<p>Beyond that, and perhaps most importantly, <strong>there is nothing that says you can't charge for your music and <em>also</em> give it away for free</strong>. Or, at the very least, charge for it but accept (or better yet embrace) piracy. When payment becomes <em>optional</em> for fans and prospective fans, then they see it as an affirmative choice to support the artist, and many will make that choice. Dan Bull sold enough copies of his <em>Sharing is Caring</em> single to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120430/04432118703/dan-bulls-free-single-hits-charts.shtml">hit the pop charts</a>, and a lot of the attention came not from the fact that he was charging money, but from the fact that he was also giving it away for free (as he does with all of his music). By offering an option to buy and an option to download for free, you get the best of both worlds: the power of perceived value in those few cases where it counts, and the attention of the growing number of people who don't view content that way anymore.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/07165819219/role-perceived-value-music-is-small-fading-fast.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/07165819219/role-perceived-value-music-is-small-fading-fast.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/07165819219/role-perceived-value-music-is-small-fading-fast.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>music-aint-gucci</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120606/07165819219</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120602/02140019181/not-only-can-you-compete-with-free-you-have-to-if-you-dont-want-your-business-overrun-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120602/02140019181/not-only-can-you-compete-with-free-you-have-to-if-you-dont-want-your-business-overrun-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Rob Reid, who recently got a ton of well deserved attention for his hilarious TED talk on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08475818116/when-entertainment-industry-numbers-are-more-suited-to-comedy-than-analysis.shtml">copyright math</a>, has a WSJ op-ed piece, in which he tries to explain <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577438212250619458.html" target="_blank">why there's so little ebook infringement, compared to music infringement</a>.  The crux of his argument?  Even though the big publishers aren't really <i>great</i> about this stuff, rather than fight the technology, they were actually quick to embrace the technology and make authorized works available for purchase.  Contrast that to the music industry, which sued every advancement in technology, including the first MP3 player, and didn't actually license an MP3 download store until many, many years after MP3 players were widely available.
<blockquote><i>
Compare this to the situation in books. Although it had some small-time forerunners, the Kindle, like the Rio MP3 player, brought portability to a mass market. But the Kindle launched with licenses rather than lawsuits from the key rights-holders in its domain, and offered more than 90% of the day's best sellers when it shipped.
<br /><br />
This meant that consumers discovered digital books through a licensed experience that delighted them. Exciting hardware, a critical mass of titles and Amazon's retail sensibilities were all integrated into a single elegant package that piracy has never matched.
<br /><br />
Of course, piracy emerged anyway. Countless unlicensed e-books can be found online, and millions of people use them. But sales figures suggest that relatively few of these downloads represent foregone purchases. Most Kindle, iPad and Nook owners seem to view piracy as a low-rent and time-consuming experience compared with the sanctioned alternatives. They probably wouldn't if the publishers had kicked things off with a five-year content boycott.
</i></blockquote>
This highlights a key point that many of us have been trying to make for a long, long time.  The "answer" to the "piracy question" is not greater enforcement or more draconian laws, as the entertainment industry keeps telling us, but rather <i>more</i> legitimate services that can provide good value to consumers.  The music industry failed at that for so long, that it really helped drive the culture of infringing music.
<br /><br />
For years, we've pointed out that <i>of course</i> you <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml">can compete with free</a>.  But what Rob's article is highlighting is even more fundamental.  Not only <i>can</i> you compete with free, <i>you <b>must</b> compete with free</i> or you're going to lose out.  If you don't offer a legitimate alternative, people will flock to the illegitimate ones.  Yes, some people will always infringe, but over and over again we see how legitimate services pull people away from file sharing and towards paying -- if they provide enough value at a reasonable price.
<br /><br />
Now, I know that some will quibble with one other major difference between books and music that Rob sort of leaps over in his piece: it was much easier to create digital music than ebooks.  You could just take CDs and drop it into your computer and there you go.  There really wasn't a simple equivalent for books.  Sure, lots of people have scanners, but that's a laborious process.  Still, I'm not convinced that was really as big a deal as I'm sure some will make of it.  That's because once a <i>single copy</i> of a book is digitized, it's very quickly available all over the place.  And there were plenty of people working to digitize books long before the Kindle came along.  It might have been a limiting factor, but certainly not a complete hindrance to ebook infringement.
<br /><br />
Either way, the key takeaway can hardly be challenged: the way to deal with piracy is to offer <i>good</i> legitimate services, and preferably more than just one, so they can compete on adding value.  Unfortunately, many in the industry like to just dip their toes in the water with a few services -- and as soon as they become successful, seek to raise prices.  That's no way to encourage a long term market success.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120602/02140019181/not-only-can-you-compete-with-free-you-have-to-if-you-dont-want-your-business-overrun-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120602/02140019181/not-only-can-you-compete-with-free-you-have-to-if-you-dont-want-your-business-overrun-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120602/02140019181/not-only-can-you-compete-with-free-you-have-to-if-you-dont-want-your-business-overrun-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>basic-economics</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120602/02140019181</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did The Publisher's Own Insistence On DRM Inevitably Lead To The Antitrust Lawsuit Against Them?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed in the past how it was the book publishers' own stupidity that put them in a position of <i>demanding</i> DRM from Amazon when Amazon wanted to launch the Kindle.  The end result, of course, went exactly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml">against</a> the publishers' best interests, because it locked everyone in to Amazon as the platform.  Because buyers can't easily switch to another platform and take their books with them, they have to keep using the Kindle (or Kindle app) if they want to continue to have access to the books they've bought in the past (because, remember, you <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">don't own</a> what you think you "buy" with ebooks).
<br /><br />
Making Amazon such a dominant player in the market was a huge mistake -- and it was totally avoidable.  We'd already seen the exact same thing happen with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0128303920.shtml">music</a> and iTunes, where the labels originally required DRM, and Apple complied, locking many people into iTunes (a lock-in that was eventually taken away).  We couldn't figure out why the publishers were so stupid to give Amazon such power, but it sounds as though it was a combination of technological illiteracy and an irrational fear of "piracy" trumping business sense.
<br /><br />
Author Charlie Stross has a great blog post discussing a variety of issues around <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/understanding-amazons-strategy.html" target="_blank">the history of Amazon</a> and how it became such a dominant player in the market, in which he notes:

<blockquote><i>
However, as subsidiaries of large media conglomerates, the executives who ran the big six had all been given their marching orders about the internet: DRM restrictions would be mandatory on all ebook sales, lest rampant piracy cannibalize their sales of paper books.
<br /><br />
(This fear is of course an idiotic shibboleth&#8212;we've had studies since 2000 proving that Napster users back in the bad old days spent more money on CDs than their non-pirate peers. The real driver for piracy is the lack of convenient access to desirable content at a competitive price. But if your boss is a 70 year old billionaire who also owns a movie studio and listens to the MPAA, you don't get a vote. Speaking out against DRM was, as more than one editor told me over the past decade, potentially a career-limiting move.)
</i></blockquote>
Once the publishers realized (way too late) that they'd turned Amazon into something of a monopsonistic buying power, they struggled to figure out what to do -- and the end result appears to look something quite like collusion -- which is why <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml#c669">they're being sued</a> today by the Justice Department.  As the details of the lawsuit make clear, the deal with Apple wasn't just a deal to bring another competitor into the market, but one that was explicitly designed to <i>increase prices</i> for consumers.
<br /><br />
As Stross notes, this was plan B.  And it has now failed.  That means that it's time for Plan C -- and the only reasonable plan C to get out from under Amazon's thumb is to drop DRM:
<blockquote><i>
It doesn't matter whether Macmillan wins the price-fixing lawsuit bought by the Department of Justice. The point is, the big six publishers' Plan B for fighting the emerging Amazon monopsony has failed (insofar as it has been painted as a price-fixing ring, whether or not it was one in fact). This means that they need a Plan C. And the only viable Plan C, for breaking Amazon's death-grip on the consumers, is to break DRM.
<br /><br />

If the major publishers switch to selling ebooks without DRM, then they can enable customers to buy books from a variety of outlets and move away from the walled garden of the Kindle store. They see DRM as a defense against piracy, but piracy is a much less immediate threat than a gigantic multinational with revenue of $48 Billion in 2011 (more than the entire global publishing industry) that has expressed its intention to "disrupt" them, and whose chief executive said recently "even well-meaning gatekeepers slow innovation" (where "innovation" is code-speak for "opportunities for me to turn a profit").
<br /><br />
And so they will deep-six their existing commitment to DRM and use the terms of the DoJ-imposed settlement to wiggle out of the most-favoured-nation terms imposed by Amazon, in order to sell their wares as widely as possible.
</i></blockquote>
I know there's been some talk about whether or not Apple or Amazon is the more "evil" party in the ebook world -- but it really seems like the publishers dug their own graves here.  In their desperation to avoid the dreaded word "piracy," they never bothered to understand the real issues or the obvious results of focusing so strongly on DRM.  Handing Amazon so much power was stupid.  Colluding with Apple to try to get away from that original stupid decision was potentially even more stupid.  The only real path to fixing things is to go back and fix the original stupid decision, and recognize that piracy is a hell of a lot less of a "threat" than handing over the entire market to a single player (or even just two major players).
<br /><br />
If only they'd realized this originally -- just as tons of people had warned them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-DRM-they-required</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120416/12411618512</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:54:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the more amazing things over the past decade or so is just how clueless legacy content companies are when it comes to the realities of DRM.  For years, content creators have misunderstood the issue of online infringement entirely -- assuming that the effort had to be focused on somehow "protecting" works and ratcheting up infringement, rather than giving users more of what they wanted.  The dirty secret of DRM is that it does exactly the opposite of what the content companies wanted: rather than protect works, it basically hands all the power in a market to a single <i>tech</i> provider, stripping much of the content companies' abilities to control their own markets.
<br /><br />
We saw this in the music market first.  Even as Steve Jobs was clear that he thought DRM was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060324/1035206.shtml">stupid idea</a> for music, he was happy to give the record labels what they "wanted" in the early years: building DRM into the early version of iTunes.  Of course, this did absolutely nothing to stop infringement.  Because all you need is a <i>single</i> copy to get out in the wild, and then all DRM is completely useless on that particular piece of content.  So Apple's DRM did absolutely nothing to stop file sharing... but it did <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051010/1440231_F.shtml">make Apple</a> the most powerful player in the music market.  Because the DRM locked people into Apple's platform, and there was no significant competition at the time, once people started using Apple, they were pretty much locked in.  And the labels <i>hated</i> it, even though it was their own damn fault in demanding DRM.  Eventually, of course, the labels agreed to give up DRM, by which point Apple was already so dominant that no one really challenged their position, though alternatives are finally starting to get more serious.
<br /><br />
Three years ago, we noted that book publishers were bizarrely making <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090227/0128303920.shtml">the exact same mistake</a> with Amazon.  Publishers, just like the labels, were so focused on the <i>fear</i> side that they were adamant about having DRM.  And, once again, all this has done is lock people into the Kindle platform, and made it (by far) the most dominant player... which people can't really get out of.
<br /><br />
I was reminded of this after reading Joe Wikert's <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/02/unified-ebook-format-end-drm.html" target="_blank">call for the end of ebook DRM</a>, noting that all it had really done was give all the power to Amazon:
<blockquote><i>
<p>I often blame Napster for the typical book publisher's fear of piracy. Publishers saw what happened in the music industry and figured the only way they'd make their book content available digitally was to tightly wrap it with DRM. The irony of this is that some of the most highly pirated books were never released as ebooks. Thanks to the magic of high-speed scanner technology, any print book can easily be converted to an ebook and distributed illegally.</p>

<p>Some publishers don't want to hear this, but the truth is that DRM can be hacked. It does not eliminate piracy. It not only fails as a piracy deterrent, but it also introduces restrictions that make ebooks less attractive than print books. We've all read a print book and passed it along to a friend. Good luck doing that with a DRM'd ebook! What publishers don't seem to understand is that DRM implies a lack of trust. All customers are considered thieves and must be treated accordingly.</p>

<p>The evil of DRM doesn't end there, though. Author Charlie Stross recently wrote a terrific blog post entitled "<a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cutting-their-own-throats.html">Cutting Their Own Throats</a>." It's all about how publisher fear has enabled a big ebook player like Amazon to further reinforce its market position, often at the expense of publishers and authors. It's an unintended consequence of DRM that's impacting our entire industry.</p>
</i></blockquote>
That Charlie Stross piece is also a great read, and makes the point pretty explicitly that the publishers created their own problem by insisting on DRM'd ebooks:
<blockquote><i>
As ebook sales mushroom, the Big Six's insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy, it has locked customers in Amazon's walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon's leverage over publishers. And unlike pirated copies (which don't automatically represent lost sales) Amazon is a direct revenue threat because Amazon are have no qualms about squeezing their suppliers &#8212; or trying to poach authors for their "direct" publishing channel by offering initially favourable terms. (Which will doubtless get a lot less favourable once the monopoly is secured ...)
<br /><br />
If the big six began selling ebooks without DRM, readers would at least be able to buy from other retailers and read their ebooks on whatever platform they wanted, thus eroding Amazon's monopoly position. But it's not clear that the folks in the boardrooms are agile enough to recognize the tar pit they've fallen into ...
</i></blockquote>
What's truly amazing about this was just how obvious it was years ago when we (and many others) pointed this out.  I mean, with the music execs you could <i>kind of</i> understand the mistake, because if you really don't think through a few steps out, you could be forgiven for thinking that DRM makes sense as a protectionist measure.  But if you're a Big Six publisher, you didn't even have to think ahead a few moves.  You just had to look at the monster the labels <i>created</i> by demanding DRM in iTunes (something they'd already started to move away from just as the Kindle was ramping up) and realize that demanding DRM would create the same situation with Amazon.  But what's even <i>more</i> amazing is the fact that the big publishers <i>still</i> haven't figured this out so many years later.
<br /><br />
If the big publishers end up failing, it's their own damn fault for being perhaps the least perceptive strategists around.  I can only imagine how bad they are at playing chess.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/01364817725/how-publishers-repeated-same-mistake-as-record-labels-drm-obsession-gave-amazon-dominant-position.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>very-predictable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120210/01364817725</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:06:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>That Didn't Take Long: Amazon Sued For Patent Infringement For New Kindle Fire Tablet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The general rule continues to prove itself true: do anything interesting in the tech world, and you <i>will</i> get sued for patent infringement.  Just weeks after Amazon announced its new Kindle Fire tablet, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20118548-38/amazons-kindle-fire-tablet-hit-by-patent-lawsuit/" target="_blank">the company has been sued for patent infringement</a> by well-known patent troll Smartphone Technologies, a subsidiary of patent trolling giant Acacia.  Just a few months ago we noted that Smartphone Technologies/Acacia was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml">buying up</a> more smartphone related patents, as it looks to seriously cash in on anyone actually doing anything in the space.
<br /><br />
The patents in question:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=ARMVAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6,956,562,&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=WmmVTvuCJs7XiAKhrc3CAg&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,956,562</a>: Method for controlling a handheld computer by entering commands onto a displayed feature of the handheld computer (originally a PalmSource patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=J1wLAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6466236&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=5POSTouNDYLl0QGfm_BH&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,466,236</a>: System and method for displaying and manipulating multiple calendars on a personal digital assistant (originally a Palm Inc. patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=hPAVAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6,950,645&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=N2uVTu-mN7DQiAKg_IjkDg&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,950,645</a>: Power-conserving intuitive device discovery technique in a bluetooth environment (originally a PalmSource patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=0Qi6AAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=7,506,064&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=o2uVTsj1DpL-iQL3y-T2BA&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">7,506,064</a>: Handheld computer system that attempts to establish an alternative network link upon failing to establish a requested network link (another PalmSource patent).
</li><li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=0N6sAAAAEBAJ&#038;pg=PA1&#038;dq=RE40,459&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=JWyVTpbnKarViALi1fiEBQ&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&#038;q=RE40%2C459&#038;f=false" target="_blank">RE40,459</a>: Method and apparatus for communicating information over low bandwidth communications networks (and, yet again, PalmSource)</li>
</ul>
So Palm may be dead and buried inside HP... but at least we know its patent legacy lives on in making products people want more expensive and less able to come to market.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>up-in-flames</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111012/03322316320</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:46:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amazon's Silk Browser To Be A Data Mining Jackpot</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/23172216142/amazons-silk-browser-to-be-data-mining-jackpot.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/23172216142/amazons-silk-browser-to-be-data-mining-jackpot.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already discussed whether Amazon's Kindle Fire 'Silk' browser is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml">copyright lawsuit waiting to happen</a>, for the way it apparently is going to cache and modify content from its own AWS servers.  It seems that people are realizing some other potential issues with it as well.  <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/kdawson/status/119383079000346624" target="_blank">Keith Dawson</a> points us to a couple of interesting stories looking at the data mining implications.  The first, by Chris Espinosa, <a href="http://cdespinosa.posterous.com/fire" target="_blank">summarizes the issue succinctly</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The &ldquo;split browser&rdquo; notion is that Amazon will use its EC2 back end to pre-cache user web browsing, using its fat back-end pipes to grab all the web content at once so the lightweight Fire-based browser has to only download one simple stream from Amazon&rsquo;s servers. But what this means is that Amazon will capture and control every Web transaction performed by Fire users. Every page they see, every link they follow, every click they make, every ad they see is going to be intermediated by one of the largest server farms on the planet. People who cringe at the data-mining implications of the Facebook Timeline ought to be just floored by the magnitude of Amazon&rsquo;s opportunity here. Amazon now has what every storefront lusts for: the knowledge of what other stores your customers are shopping in and what prices they&rsquo;re being offered there. What&rsquo;s more, Amazon is getting this not by expensive, proactive scraping the Web, like Google has to do; they&rsquo;re getting it passively by offering a simple caching service, and letting Fire users do the hard work of crawling the Web. In essence the Fire user base is Amazon&rsquo;s Mechanical Turk, scraping the Web for free and providing Amazon with the most valuable cache of user behavior in existence.
</i></blockquote>
So there's that.  Of course, there are a few caveats here.  In theory, your ISP could have much of the same info -- though you can get around it with encryption.  Furthermore, your ISP isn't caching everything, so there are some limitations there.  Of course, on the flip side, the Silk browser is only on the Kindle Fire, meaning Amazon is only getting such data based on what people surf over that particular tablet device and its 7-inch screen.  It might be interesting to see some data here, but I'd bet the sort of browsing done on such a device is not representative of how people surf the wider web.
<br /><br />
Of course, things could get more interesting if Amazon decides to enter the browser wars in a bigger way... such as by releasing Silk as a desktop browser as well.  That theory is posited in another article <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/kdawson/status/119379297134854144" target="_blank">highlighted</a> by Dawson, this one by Joe Brockmeier, which <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/09/the-implications-of-amazons-si.php" target="_blank">delves deeply into the implications of the Silk browser</a> on a variety of fronts.  He's the first person I've seen bring up the idea of Amazon entering the larger desktop browser wars:
<blockquote><i>
But does it seem likely that Amazon will put that much emphasis on Silk just for the Fire? I don't think that's likely. Amazon has several jobs posted for Silk engineers, and while mobile is mentioned, it's not exclusive. I strongly suspect that Amazon is going to be releasing a Silk desktop browser eventually. Probably not in the near future &ndash; Amazon needs to make sure that its infrastructure can handle the onslaught of all the Kindle users before trying to scale to an unknown number of desktop users.
</i></blockquote>
Remember when people said the browser wars were over and Microsoft had won?  Yeah.  Anyway, Brockmeier's article also notes that Amazon won't just have all this aggregate info, but in theory can tie the info specifically to the Amazon account holder:
<blockquote><i>
Each Kindle is tied to an Amazon ID, which gives Amazon a great deal of information about you already. Introducing Silk into the mix and Amazon is going to be in a position to know a great deal about your Web browsing habits along with your buying habits and media habits. Now Amazon is in a position to know what books you buy, what shows you watch, the Web sites you visit and much more.
</i></blockquote>
Perhaps it's not just copyright lawsuits that Amazon will be facing with Silk.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/23172216142/amazons-silk-browser-to-be-data-mining-jackpot.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/23172216142/amazons-silk-browser-to-be-data-mining-jackpot.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/23172216142/amazons-silk-browser-to-be-data-mining-jackpot.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-there-an-encryption-app?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110929/23172216142</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:52:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Amazon's New Silk 'Cloud' Browser A Huge Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Waiting To Happen?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been plenty of fanfare over Amazon's new Android-based e-reader, the Kindle Fire, with one interesting feature being the new <a href="http://amazonsilk.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/introducing-amazon-silk/" target="_blank">Silk browser</a>, which is differentiated by the fact that it's built on top of Amazon's cloud web services storage, allowing it to effectively cache and optimize content on its own servers.  But this raises a big question.  As Stephan Kinsella points out, <a href="http://c4sif.org/2011/09/is-amazons-silk-browser-a-copyright-pirate/" target="_blank">technically, this may be copyright infringment</a>.  First up, here's Amazon's video explanation of the browser:
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_u7F_56WhHk?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
Based on the info in that video, Kinsella explains the legal concerns:
<blockquote><i>
One smart thing Silk does to speed up web browsing as seen by the user of the Kindle Fire by &ldquo;pre-loading&rdquo; content into Amazon&rsquo;s &ldquo;cache&rdquo; in its own &ldquo;Amazon computer cloud&rdquo; (i.e. Amazon&rsquo;s servers)&ndash;and to optimize them for the Kindle Fire (e.g., a 3MB image is scaled down maybe to 50k because that would look the same on the Kindle Fire as a 3MB image, but could be transmitted more quickly). But to do this Amazon&rsquo;s servers have to store copies of files obtained from other websites, including images (as explicitly stated at 3:07 to 3:26) and other files which, of course, are covered by copyright. At 3:54, it&rsquo;s explained that if Amazon&rsquo;s computing cloud sees you looking at the New York Times home page, and it predicts, based on other user statistics, that you are somewhat likely to next click on some NY Times subpage link, then the Amazon servers will go ahead and download that next link, and cache it, in case you do click on it next, so that it can serve it up more quickly. Now this makes sense technically, but what it really means is Amazon&rsquo;s servers are making copies of other people&rsquo;s copyright-protected content: images, files, NYTimes web pages, and serving them up to Kindle Fire users as if the Amazon computer cloud servers are the host of those images. It is a bit like if Amazon ran a site called NYTimes2.com, and had its servers constantly copying content from NYtimes.com and duplicating it on NYTimes2.com, and serving up the content on NYTimes2.com (which was copied from NYTimes.com) to browsers.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, as he notes (and as the people in the video note), this makes tremendous <i>technological sense</i>.  It makes for a much better experience.  But copyright can and often is used to stop innovations that make tremendous technological sense, because they can upset legacy business models.  Of course, one could argue that what Amazon is doing here is no different than what Google does with it's cache -- but that might not stop a potential legal fight, unfortunately.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/02393716133/is-amazons-new-silk-cloud-browser-huge-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>caching</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110929/02393716133</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:06:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Routes Around Apple With HTML 5 Kindle App</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110811/04031215475/amazon-routes-around-apple-with-html-5-kindle-app.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110811/04031215475/amazon-routes-around-apple-with-html-5-kindle-app.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been pointing out for a while now how many app makers can easily route around Apple's draconian app store rules by embracing HTML 5 and offering their apps through alternative means.  While there are still <i>some</i> features that HTML 5 can't do, it can handle an awful lot (and many "native" apps were really created in HTML 5 in the first place anyway.  Still, it seems like Apple's draconian gatekeeper-ism, and the ridiculously high 30% fee for in-app purchases, means that some big companies are finally discovering the HTML 5 opportunity.  We already noted that the Financial Times' app went HTML 5 to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/08374914589/newspapers-finally-realizing-they-dont-have-to-use-apples-high-priced-payment-offering-locked-down-app-store.shtml">avoid Apple</a>, and now Amazon has made a big splash by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14473893" target="_blank">releasing its Kindle app as an HTML 5 web app</a> rather than through Apple's app store.  Hopefully such high profile names help drive more companies to realize they have more than a single option.  And maybe, just maybe, it'll convince Apple to be just a smidge more open.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110811/04031215475/amazon-routes-around-apple-with-html-5-kindle-app.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110811/04031215475/amazon-routes-around-apple-with-html-5-kindle-app.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110811/04031215475/amazon-routes-around-apple-with-html-5-kindle-app.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110811/04031215475</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:02:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kindle Spam Is A Filter Issue, Not A Spam Issue</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12201414770/kindle-spam-is-filter-issue-not-spam-issue.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12201414770/kindle-spam-is-filter-issue-not-spam-issue.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/1424244/Spammers-Discover-Kindle-Self-Publishing?utm_source=slashdot&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a>, we learn that <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/social-networking/spam-clogging-amazons-kindle-self-publishing/article2063929/singlepage/#articlecontent" target="_blank">spammers have discovered the ability to publish cheap "ebooks"</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Thousands of digital books, called ebooks, are being published through Amazon&rsquo;s self-publishing system each month. Many are not written in the traditional sense.
<br /><br />
Instead, they are built using something known as Private Label Rights, or PLR content, which is information that can be bought very cheaply online then reformatted into a digital book.
<br /><br />
These ebooks are listed for sale &ndash; often at 99 cents &ndash; alongside more traditional books on Amazon&rsquo;s website, forcing readers to plow through many more titles to find what they want.
</i></blockquote>
The article makes it sound like this is a big problem, calling it "the dark side" of self-publishing, but I don't get it.  Assuming no one wants this crap, then it seems likely that Amazon will start to filter it out of any search results or top lists.  
<br /><br />
There is some slightly more legitimate concern about outright plagiarism, where some of these "spammers" are merely copying other books and then re-branding them and selling them as ebooks.  But, once again, this seems like a filter problem more than anything else.  In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Amazon doesn't do a basic check to make sure the content of an ebook hasn't already been offered by someone else, and do a further investigation if that's the case.  Others have suggested that Amazon charge a small fee to upload a book, as that might prevent spammers from going crazy with such copies, and that could make sense as well.  I just have trouble believing that this is such a serious "problem" that it can't easily be stopped.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12201414770/kindle-spam-is-filter-issue-not-spam-issue.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12201414770/kindle-spam-is-filter-issue-not-spam-issue.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12201414770/kindle-spam-is-filter-issue-not-spam-issue.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>filter-away</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110620/12201414770</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Long Until A Lawsuit Is Filed Against eBook Trading Service?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/01120212827/how-long-until-lawsuit-is-filed-against-ebook-trading-service.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/01120212827/how-long-until-lawsuit-is-filed-against-ebook-trading-service.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already talked about how people are starting to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml">freak out</a> about "lending clubs" forming on Facebook to share Kindle ebooks, now that Amazon has launched a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/17544411554/kindle-to-let-you-lend-books-just-like-a-real-book-except-not.shtml">ridiculously limited "lending"</a> feature.   Not surprisingly, such efforts are quickly moving beyond Facebook as well, such as with the <a href="http://ebookfling.com/" target="_blank">launch of a service called eBookFling</a>, which is basically a marketplace for matching up folks for "lending" such limited ebooks.  I have no clue how well this particular service will work -- and I'm curious to see how both publishers and the Amazons and Barnes &#038; Nobles of the world react to the fact that they're charging $1.99 for folks who don't have any "book credits" to get a book.  I doubt many people will actually pay, but sooner or later I imagine someone's going to sue, and it'll make for quite the interesting lawsuit...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/01120212827/how-long-until-lawsuit-is-filed-against-ebook-trading-service.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/01120212827/how-long-until-lawsuit-is-filed-against-ebook-trading-service.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/01120212827/how-long-until-lawsuit-is-filed-against-ebook-trading-service.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hours?-days?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110126/01120212827</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:57:37 PST</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Stops Selling Book On How To Game Amazon</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/11215812532/amazon-stops-selling-book-how-to-game-amazon.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/11215812532/amazon-stops-selling-book-how-to-game-amazon.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Amazon's recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/00565212088/amazon-believes-free-speech-pedophiles-not-wikileaks.shtml">statement</a> that:
<blockquote><i>
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable." 
</i></blockquote>
The company quickly proved that wasn't the case and went back on its word with that book, and since then has taken down a number of other books it decided were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml">objectionable</a>.  Apparently, one of the latest books it finds objectionable is one that <a href="http://www.techeye.net/internet/amazon-realises-it-is-selling-anti-amazon-book#ixzz1A5eO636f" target="_blank">explains how to game Amazon's ratings system</a>.  A guy, who figured out how to <a href="http://www.techeye.net/internet/amazon-kindles-best-seller-ranking-is-bogus#ixzz1A36ZSqnV" target="_blank">game the system</a> that rates the popularity of Kindle books, wrote an ebook about his experience gaming Amazon's Kindle ratings.  It was up for a while, until people started writing about it.. and then suddenly it disappeared.  Apparently, Amazon's views on "censorship" are not quite as principled as the company made them out to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/11215812532/amazon-stops-selling-book-how-to-game-amazon.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/11215812532/amazon-stops-selling-book-how-to-game-amazon.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/11215812532/amazon-stops-selling-book-how-to-game-amazon.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech-for-all...-except-if-we-don't-like-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110105/11215812532</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:40:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>Fearmongering: Kindle Lending Feature Will Lead To 'Lost' Book Sales?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already pointed out how Amazon's new "lending" feature for Kindle ebooks is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/17544411554/kindle-to-let-you-lend-books-just-like-a-real-book-except-not.shtml">extremely limited</a>, in such a way that it's barely useful, but already we're seeing fearmongering about how that feature is going to create "lost" book sales.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/status/21881384717000704" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to an article at The Next Web, which discusses how some folks have <a href="http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/01/03/kindle-users-form-e-book-lending-club-on-facebook/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: TheNextWeb (The Next Web All Stories)&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">formed a "lending club" on Facebook</a>, so that they can find a larger pool of people to lend books to and from.  And, the article's author warns, this inevitably means "lost" book sales:
<blockquote><i>
Whether Amazon anticipated users organising themselves into a lending club or not, we're not sure but it's likely to result in many lost sales. After all, most books can be comfortably read in 14 days. If all you need to do to get hold of Kindle books is to request a loan from a stranger online, how many will you actually bother to buy?
</i></blockquote>
The article goes on to ask: "can Amazon really do anything to stop this growing?" and wonders if publishers will kill off this feature entirely.
<br /><br />
Let's try rewriting that paragraph in a manner that highlights the ridiculousness of the argument:
<blockquote><i>
Whether library organizers anticipated users taking out books or not, we're not sure but it's likely to result in many lost sales.  After all, most books can be comfortably read in 14 days.  If all you need to do to get a hold of books is to go to the library and take one out, how many will actually bother to buy?
</i></blockquote>
And yet, libraries did not kill book sales.  At all.  Separately, one of the reasons why I still haven't joined the ebook parade is that I like being able to actually lend out books to others.  So, by the argument above, it's the DRM feature on ebooks today that has meant "lost sales."  So perhaps we should just get rid of that?  Limiting the usefulness of ebooks with crazy restrictions makes them a lot less valuable, meaning decreased sales.  Ignoring that and thinking that only this sort of extremely limited lending will somehow harm ebook sales is pure fearmongering and is based on very little evidence.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110103/07333112498/fearmongering-kindle-lending-feature-will-lead-to-lost-book-sales.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-burn-down-the-libraries</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110103/07333112498</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:38:15 PST</pubDate>
<title>Another Reminder That You Don't Own Your eBooks: Amazon Removing More eBooks You 'Bought' From Archives</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, you may recall, Amazon got into some trouble for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">deleting</a> a supposedly "infringing" copy of George Orwell's <i>1984</i> from peoples' Kindles.  After this got a ton of attention, the company announced that it would change its system so books won't get deleted from Kindles any more.  Of course, they never said they wouldn't delete them from your <i>archive</i>, however.  Separately, you may recall that a few weeks back, Amazon got into a bit of a kerfuffle over a book concerning pedophilia.  The company initially defended allowing this book for sale, by stating:
<blockquote><i>
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable." 
</i></blockquote>
However, hours later, Amazon changed its mind and suddenly became one with its inner censor.  Apparently, with its newfound willingness to go that route, it's <a href="http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/amazon-removes-incest-related-erotica-titles-from-store-kindle-archive/" target="_blank">begun unleashing those powers widely</a>, taking down a whole bunch of "erotica" books without explanation.  Apparently, many of the books in question include fictional accounts of incest.  Of course, as some have <a href="http://theselfpublishingrevolution.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazon-in-book-banning-business.html" target="_blank">pointed out</a>, the Bible also contains accounts of incest -- and a book seen in a recent <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5647778/amazons-secret-incest-in-the-kindle-ad" target="_blank">Amazon ad</a> includes a fictional account of incest.
<br><br>
While the Slashdot account of this story says that the books are <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/0153255/Amazon-Taking-Down-Erotica-Removing-From-Kindles?from=twitter" target="_blank">being removed from the Kindle</a> that's not <i>exactly</i> true.  They're being removed from <i>your Kindle <b>archive</b></i>.  This means that if you delete the book from your Kindle, you can't redownload it.  In other words, it's like the bookshelf in your basement where you store books you might want to go back to some day, but probably won't touch for a while.  However, for a company trying so hard to pretend that its ebooks are <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/17544411554/kindle-to-let-you-lend-books-just-like-a-real-book-except-not.shtml">just like real books</a>, it really ought to stop deleting things after you've supposedly "bought" them.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: Amazon emails me to say they've put out a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdMsgNo=161&cdPage=7&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2QG9BWA19KO4O&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx1R06EV4B15ZFQ#Mx1R06EV4B15ZFQ" target="_blank">statement</a> saying this was a mistake that has now been fixed, stating:
<blockquote><i>
Due to a technical issue, for a short window of time three books were temporarily unavailable for re-download by customers who had previously purchased them. When this was brought to our attention, we fixed the problem and those books were once again made available for re-download. We apologize for the inconvenience.
</i></blockquote>
It still appears that the books themselves are no longer for sale.  That's Amazon's prerogative, of course, but the lack of explanation still seems pretty weak -- especially after supposedly defending not being about censorship.  Also, there is no explanation of just what kind of technical "glitch" this was.  Considering the trouble the company got into for deleting books in the past, you would think this would have been more carefully reviewed.  Finally, the fact that it took nearly a week and numerous high profile media mentions to get Amazon to respond to questions from the authors is pretty weak customer service.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/02571612282/another-reminder-that-you-dont-own-your-ebooks-amazon-removing-more-ebooks-you-bought-archives.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-this-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101215/02571612282</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:05:07 PST</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Won't Host Wikileaks... But Will Sell The Leaked Cables For Your Kindle?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09011412205/amazon-wont-host-wikileaks-will-sell-leaked-cables-your-kindle.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09011412205/amazon-wont-host-wikileaks-will-sell-leaked-cables-your-kindle.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This is making the rounds on Twitter, but <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=awd">cc</a> was the first to submit it here.  When Amazon <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/12255912081/amazon-bows-to-us-censorship-pressure-refuses-to-host-wikileaks.shtml">kicked Wikileaks</a> off of their S3 hosting service, we noted how it had (just weeks earlier) tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/00565212088/amazon-believes-free-speech-pedophiles-not-wikileaks.shtml">defend</a> a pro-pedophilia book by stating:
<blockquote><i>
"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."
</i></blockquote>
While Amazon did cave and pull that book eventually, some suggested that perhaps this just meant that Amazon would be fine with Wikileaks if it was being sold in book form.  And, apparently, someone is testing that theory, and so far it's working.  You can apparently <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004EEOLIU?ie=UTF8&ref_=sr_1_2&s=books&qid=1291847557&sr=8-2&linkCode=shr&camp=3194&creative=21330&tag=matstmeuk-21" target="_blank">buy the Wikileaks leaked State Department cables on Amazon for your kindle</a>, if you're so inclined.  Of course, since they're available (at an ever increasing number of mirror sites) for free, there's no reason to -- but as a way of showing Amazon's hypocrisy, well, that's just priceless.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: Amazon's <a href="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20101209/amazon-explains-why-its-ok-to-sell-books-about-the-wikileaks-stuff-it-wont-host/" target="_blank">"explanation"</a> is that the book also contains commentary.  Um.  What?  So if the Wikileaks website also contained commentary (which I believe it does), it would be okay?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09011412205/amazon-wont-host-wikileaks-will-sell-leaked-cables-your-kindle.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09011412205/amazon-wont-host-wikileaks-will-sell-leaked-cables-your-kindle.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09011412205/amazon-wont-host-wikileaks-will-sell-leaked-cables-your-kindle.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>choices</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101209/09011412205</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:32:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Don't Be Confused By Amazon's Ebook Sales Claims</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/23094211059/don-t-be-confused-by-amazon-s-ebook-sales-claims.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/23094211059/don-t-be-confused-by-amazon-s-ebook-sales-claims.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Amazon seems to have a way with presenting information about its ebook sales in a way designed to mislead people into thinking it's more significant than it really is.  You may remember last year, when Amazon announced that on Christmas day, for the first time ever, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml">ebooks outsold regular books</a>.  That got a lot of press coverage.  But it was somewhat meaningless.  That's because on Christmas, plenty of people who received a Kindle probably decided to buy an ebook or three.  And it's also a day when fewer people have reason to go to Amazon and buy a physical book, since they may have just received some books as gifts (though, to be fair, some may have received Amazon gift cards too, but you don't necessarily need to use them that same day).
<br /><br />
The latest is Amazon's recent claim that <a href="http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&#038;site=meandmykindle.wordpress.com&#038;url=http%3A%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc%3D176060%26p%3Dirol-newsArticle%26ID%3D1449176%26highlight%3D&#038;sref=http%3A%2F%2Fmeandmykindle.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F16%2Fis-amazon-lying-about-ebooks-outselling-printed-books%2F" target="_blank">ebooks are outselling hardcover books 180 to 100</a>.  Another nice headline that the press picked up, with various stories suggesting that ebook sales are now really significant.  This bothered some folks who <a href="http://meandmykindle.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/is-amazon-lying-about-ebooks-outselling-printed-books/" target="_blank">dug much deeper into the numbers</a> over at the MeAndMyKindle blog:
<blockquote><i>
So what happens if you ask how many "printed books" Amazon sold, instead of using the smaller number of "hardcover books"? Following the same ratio, Amazon would be selling approximately 334 paperbacks for every 100 hardcover books -- or a total of 434 printed books for every 180 ebooks. That would mean over 70% of the books Amazon sells are still printed books -- 180 out of 614 -- with ebooks accounting for just 29.3% of all the books that Amazon sells.
</i></blockquote>
Add to that the twin facts that Amazon covers 90% of ebook sale and that it only represents 19% of the overall book market, and you get an estimate that ebooks represent about 6% of the total market.  This is certainly a non-zero number, and there's no doubt that it's growing, so it's a trend to watch out for.  But we're a long, long way from ebooks really being a majority of the market.  As the blog points out, even Amazon admits that <b>no ebook has sold more than a million copies</b>:
<blockquote><i>
According to Amazon's own figures, no ebook has ever sold more than one million copies. (Though Stieg Larsson's three ebooks, added together, total one million in sales -- an average of just 333,333 per book.) PC World reports Stephenie Meyer is close to selling one million ebooks -- though she's sold over 100 million printed books.
</i></blockquote>
This isn't to say the ebook market isn't important, but Amazon's statements promoting ebook sales seem purposely designed to pump up the significance of ebook sales, which still represent a much smaller proportion of the market than the company would have you believe.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/23094211059/don-t-be-confused-by-amazon-s-ebook-sales-claims.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/23094211059/don-t-be-confused-by-amazon-s-ebook-sales-claims.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100916/23094211059/don-t-be-confused-by-amazon-s-ebook-sales-claims.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-as-big-as-you-might-think</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100916/23094211059</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:10:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Reminder: You Don't Own Your Ebooks; Amazon Locks Customer Out And Doesn't Respond To Help Requests</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13215710863.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13215710863.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've pointed out in the past that if you're "buying" ebooks on devices like the Kindle or the iPad, it's important to remember that you're not really "buying" the books, and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/0415565326.shtml">you don't really own them</a>.  We're seeing that once again with a story on Consumerist about a woman who <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/09/amazon-locks-you-out-of-kindle-account-ignores-you-for-a-month.html" target="_blank">was locked out of the ebooks on her Kindle for a month</a>:
<blockquote><i>
A month ago I bought a kindle and was really excited to use it on vacation. I bought a few books and when I was done, I bought another. Then they froze my account, so I called in and logged a case.
<br /><br />
Within 48 hours I got a call back, saying it was an error on their side and they'd unfreeze it for me, but I'd just need to re-order the book. I thought no problem, thanks for the help. So I bought the book a second time and it automatically freezes me out again. I call in and log another case, but get no phone call back as promised from an account specialist. 
</i></blockquote>
This apparently has gone on for four weeks, involving approximately 20 phone calls and emails... and still no solution from Amazon.  Anyone know of any case where the same thing happened with a physical book?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13215710863.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13215710863.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/13215710863.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-don't-own-what-you-bought</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100901/13215710863</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 20:13:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Students Overwhelmingly Don't Like Kindle As A Textbook Replacement Option</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0020429577.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0020429577.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Amazon pitched its Kindle Dx as a perfect replacement from having to lug around heavy textbooks in college, but it seems that the drawbacks to the technology have students <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011938870_kindle24.html" target="_blank">pining for the old textbooks</a> (found via <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/05/25/1713242/Amazon-Kindle-Fails-First-College-Test?from=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a>).  In fact, in a survey after using the Kindle Dx for a while, "80 percent of MBA students who participated in Amazon's pilot program said they would not recommend the Kindle DX as a classroom study aid..."  And it's not that they don't like ebooks.  The same report notes that "more than 90 percent <b>liked it</b> for pleasure reading."  Apparently not being able to "scribble notes in the margins, easily highlight passages or fully appreciate color charts and graphics" is sort of a pain for educational settings.  Who knew?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0020429577.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0020429577.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0020429577.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ouch</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100526/0020429577</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>