"put down the devices and get back to a nice, tactile, easy to handle book"
The main reason I bought an e reader is because those "easy to handle books" were way to heavy and bulky when I'm travelling (which I do a lot). The second reason was because I often found myself at train stations and airports faced with a crappy selection of overpriced, oversized book and I'd rather pay less to have a library in my pocket up front that I know I'll enjoy.
I appreciate your opinion, but it's not universally true by a long shot.
"But in general terms, it's way easier to find a pirated episonde of your favorite tv show than it is to find an ebook."
Of course it is - not only are TV shows consumed in greater amounts, they're also more disposable (a TV show takes an hour to consume).
That doesn't mean there's no interest, it just means that the general interest in TV is greater than the general interest in books. Something that I've heard bemoaned my entire life.
"I would also suggest that perhaps the younger end of the adult market may not be so inclined to buy a book to start with."
The market that grew up with Harry Potter and is directly responsible for reading all the YA fiction that's so popular at the moment? Unless you have data to back up your assumptions, I'd suggest you may be generally mistaken.
"The public just hasn't been interested in the "innovations" on offer."
Because they're not interested in the innovations? Or because DRM prevents them from moving their content easily between competing platforms, so they stick with the one they can use their purchases on? That's the problem - give people an open choice between platforms, and they'll move to the one that suits their needs. Restrict them to one platform, and they'll stick with the one where they bought the most content.
Every reader listed has the search function you're whining about (including Kobo). Several readers have the continuous scroll feature you're whining about. With hardware devices, there is a wide range of difference depending on the screen type & version, whether or not they're touch screen, etc., but every one I've used has a search function and newer models are significantly faster with refreshing the screen (older models were a bit slower due to limitations of the e-ink technology, not because people weren't bothering to emulate paper).
Perhaps you should research a subject before attacking people far more familiar with it that yourself.
"You're also telling them you want the $9 kindle version over the $45 hardback/$30 soft back."
...and by doing so telling them that you're happy to have DRM remove your rights so you can get a few dollars off. Why would Amazon ever give you a better deal as a consumer, since they're benefiting from your purchase and locking out real competition with the DRM?
By the way, which books are you buying with a $30 paperback price? Mind you, I rarely buy a book that costs more than $5, Kindle or paperback so maybe we have very different reading habits.
"The proper response is to not be so conceited as to tell others what the 'proper' response should be."
Telling you facts is "conceited"? You're probably doing a lot wrong, since you refuse to listen to anyone giving you proper advice.
The problem is... yes, but not in the minds of the studios. We've all seen it here before - fools braying about how VPNs should be banned because one of their uses might be trying to hide pirated traffic. Never mind that it's vitally important for everything from corporate financial data to free speech from repressive regimes. No, someone might be using it to watch a movie without authorisation (including - shock, horror! - people who are paying for a service but need to bypass regional restrictions to access what they paid for), so everything needs to be nuked from orbit.
Now, I'm certainly not going to pretend that any such thing was even considered in this case, as it's clearly yet another "anomaly" where the rights of innocents are attacked at their own expense because someone's scared people are pirating a 25 year old movie. But, to the usual trolls and sycophants, the presence of "VPN" and "torrent" in the same page means they must be criminals.
It's sad that I can predict how badly a logical argument about the rights of people who have committed no crime and have zero evidence against them will go, but there you are.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:04pm
"It makes for a faster search and your important data is out of reach"
Out of reach for whom? Law enforcement can almost certainly subpoena and gain access if they have reason to request it, but might not have the same recourse if you lose access to your account for whatever reason.
"Only the people who really are up to something nefarious."
Wrong. Plenty of people who are doing nothing wrong know how to do this. The existence of encryption to protect my data and devices against theft or other illegal activities does not indicate guilt if a DHS agent or law enforcement officer is the one requesting access. To believe otherwise is to fall for their propaganda.
That doesn't exactly change the central point of the article - which is that Amazon have chosen to not sell these devices rather than address the source of the "confusion". The solution is still in Amazon's hands even if the cause makes the solution non-trivial.
The fact that other manufacturers refuse to compromise the stability and security of their own devices to make Amazon's life easier is hardly a negative point against anyone other than Amazon. It might not be their fault that content providers insist on DRM, but it's their decision as to how it was to be implemented.
Yeah, there's at least 2 sides to any debate and the tag might be referring someone arguing *against* gun control. But he'll never know, because he doesn't even want to risk hearing someone make an argument that disagrees with his personal politics. Sad.
Re: Re: Please explain exactly how Netflix could even exist if anyone could re-distribute the content.
Funny, those of us who don't spend their entire life ranting and lying on here don't seem to have that problem.
"Persistence pays... very little here, other than to enrage the barking rats."
Then why do you bother? Is your life really that pathetic and empty? You seem to post on here far, far more than I do, I seem to be relatively prolific among the majority and I only come on here occasionally during the work week during downtime periods.
"It would be interesting to read a study that could compile all the video's taken down, and all the attempts to access those video's that were taken down"
YouTube will almost certainly have that data in their logs. The real question is - how many of those videos were taken down incorrectly. It's pointless to look at ad revenue "lost" by a video that was infringing to begin with, but much more valuable to look at videos taken down despite being uploaded by the rightholder, within the bounds of fair use, etc. There's probably no way to filter those without lengthy and expensive manual examination, though.
"Take that dollar amount and compare it to the actual revenue lost by the videos that were not taken down, but should have been according to our current laws."
Even if that happens, the thing that made ContentID in the first place will still exist, and it will still affect whichever competitors come in to fill the void. ContentID is the symptom, not the disease.