I wish Amazon would adopt the Netflix model for books. I'd certainly sign up for that.
Unlike movies, books can't be read within a 90 minute time frame. I can't see Amazon introducing an unlimited eBook model.
Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
81–90 of 92 posts
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#82Non-technical friends were impressed by my Kindle but it was hard to explain not being able to lend books. However, the restrictions sound like they're designed to make the recipient end up buying the book, rather than really facilitate the type of lending people will expect.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, but is it now possible get established relatively easier by simply writing a better book than the other guy? I mean the ease of distribution brings the harm of piracy but aren't there also some gains? As examples, I'd offer both Why's poignant guide to Ruby and 2 pretty good books I've recently checked out, Learn Python the Hard Way & A Byte of Python.
> [Is] it now possible get established relatively easier by simply writing a better book than the other guy? Sure, just like Britney Spears gets all her sales by having good music. Writing a good book means little if you can't find a way to get lots of people to read it.
Well Britney is a good example but at the other end I'd offer something like Die Antwoord, who were able to get themselves a big record deal by simply putting their videos on youtube.
Or Justin Bieber, who also only exists because of the internet and youtube. I'm not saying Bieber makes good music, but he exists and thrives because of the internet, not despite it.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
F. Waaaaaaaaait a second. Why would the author write a book of which he can only sell 1 copy? There is no book.
Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward (I would strongly argue that it isn't), the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity.
Almost everything sold today is by means of artificial scarcity ... do you think oil companies are happy with alternative fuels and hybrid diesels?
Related to book authors: they need a way to make a living writing books, at least part-time.
Also in a fair society, brilliant people should be rewarded accordingly.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#85I recognize that I'm posting an article by Cracked here, but anybody who's a regular reader knows that Cracked hits the nail on the head at least 2% of the time. They recently had an article about the future and artificial scarcity (using a colorful acronym), and this is a perfect example. You don't have to "lend" books, you can just make a digital copy and give it to your friend. Anything less than that is software…
You're looking in the wrong place to discover scarcity.
Copyright law is there to prevent real scarcity. Without copyright law there would be no big budget or little budget movies, little recorded music, few books, and on and on and on.
Sure, there will be a couple of beatniks who'll work night jobs as janitors to ply their trade, but the vast majority would abandon the effort.
The scarcity, minus the "artificial" scarcity, would be very real.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
F. Waaaaaaaaait a second. Why would the author write a book of which he can only sell 1 copy? There is no book.
Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward (I would strongly argue that it isn't), the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity.
>Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward
"Reward" is the means to pursue your creativity. The ability for an author or a photographer or a painter or a musician to actually work on their trade instead of working menial jobs to try to support a hobby.
There was once a time in human history where creativity wasn't a meritocracy. It was an idle pursuit that the rich engaged in. Is that a better model?
>the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity
From a naive perspective, of course you can copy that floppy.
From a rational perspective, however, of course it deals with a real scarcity of creation that copyright seeks to prevent (just as patents attempt to prevent a scarcity of innovation, though the results are much more mixed).
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#87We were going to offer this at Fifobooks.com.
In fact, we were going to offer a feature whereby any ebook you bought on any device could be made to work on any other device.
Unfortunately, we found out from a legal review that the DMCA makes that a criminal offense (we thought we would be covered by a consumer's right to make personal archival copies of media they'd purchased, but that common-sense right is not part of the DMCA).
Anyway, the lend feature is really a step behind what AMZ should be doing: portability of ebooks from device to device.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#88The main problem that I have with the Kindle is not the lack of lending. What I want more than anything for the Kindle is support for ePub books, including DRMed ePubs. The Kindle would be enormously useful to me if I could navigate to my library's website, check out an eBook, and read it right on my Kindle.
Yeah, but Amazon wants to make the Kindle enormously useful to go to their web site and buy books from them.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
F. Waaaaaaaaait a second. Why would the author write a book of which he can only sell 1 copy? There is no book.
Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward (I would strongly argue that it isn't), the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity.
And what is the marginal cost of printing a book? The difference between burning a CD or printing a book and sending a digital file is often overblown. If it costs $1 to burn a CD that sells for $10 or $2 to print a book that sells for $25, 90%+ of the money is still paying for other things.
Publishers are not as dumb as the pirates think. The publishers just actually have seen the numbers and know that if you take out the cost of printing, you really haven't lowered the cost of the book very much. If you take out the cost of burning the CD, you really haven't lowered the cost to the record label very much. So why should they be expected to now evaporate 100% of their revenue becuase their cost drop 10 or 20 or 30 percent? That is nuts.
Re: Amazon to add "lending" feature to Kindle
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
My software may be free, but my labor is not. In other words, your previous answer was a cutesy lie. You do not, in fact, earn a living giving away software. You earn a living getting people to pay you to to write software. That you don't sell the software is irrelevant: you're still creating the software because there is money in doing so. What would the effect be on your creative output if nobody would pay you for…
I stand by my original statement, and I think the tone of your response doesn't particularly invite debate on that point, but I do want to address this: How much software would you be writing if you had to crank widgets for a living instead? I've done pizza delivery, tech support, coffee barista, construction, and a bunch of jobs I barely even remember. I was writing software while I was doing all of it. My side proj…
Dont' be ridiculous. For 3 of the last 4 years my sole income was from doing free software.
This is 100% spot on:
"In other words, your previous answer was a cutesy lie. You do not, in fact, earn a living giving away software. You earn a living getting people to pay you to to write software."
How can an author do that? There is absolutely no equivalence between the economic model around free software and the economic model around music and books. Free software makes money by giving it away to a lot of people, and getting money from the few people that need extra. Some people will pay for you to add a feature or provide support or make a change or put it under a different license or gaurentee uptime. Maybe the project matters so much to a person or group that they will pay someone to work full time on it. This is what makes FOSS go economically.
A book is a book for everyone. Once you have the book, what else could you need?
And to say that a side project and full time are the same thing is also ridiculous. I did a lot more coding on FOSS when I didn't have a 40-50 hour a week comittment to my FT job going on.