This idea is the complete opposite of anything that could possibly be considered close to "new."

Bad idea, many writers will not stand to have their works altered. To prize money over craft is always a bad idea when it comes to art.

/yes, crafts can also be art, IMO.

See Jane run.
See Penis run.
See Spot run.

It was the zenith of times, it was the nadir of times.

Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Pocket Ninja: This idea is the complete opposite of anything that could possibly be considered close to "new."

Misinformation techniques aside, this is a rather creative way to document your proprietary version of someone else's work. I mean if I want to own Mickey Mouse I can get a license to sell his works then change his skin tone to pink. Suddenly, I own this version of Mickey Mouse and can sue anyone with a pink Mickey Mouse, possibly including Disney themselves. Personally, I'm overjoyed at the concept of Amazon destroying existing Copyrights by attempting to protect Copyrights.

Circumvent by:

A) Buying books you plan to rip using a proxy and a gift credit card.

B) Compile list of words which get changed (easy if you have a few books in multiple ebook copies) and then scrub the documents by changing all known targeted words. Cracks will be available the minute any form of this hits the street.

Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM

The patent has no Markush claims defining/limiting what they mean by "synonyms", so the actual claims are absurdly broad and thus unenforceable. I'm surprised this patent was even awarded.

/GED in patent law.

brainiac-dumdum: Bad idea, many writers will not stand to have their works altered. To prize money over craft is always a bad idea when it comes to art.

/yes, crafts can also be art, IMO.

Indeed - it'll be interesting to see if deliberately and systematically changing the content of a copyrighted work constitutes a copyright violation.

Also, imagine trying to quote from a work that has had these goobers "programmatically substituting synonyms" throughout it.

Amazon is quickly becoming the Sony of eBooks. If I needed any further reason to avoid buying a Kindle, this silliness qualifies. It's bad enough that I'm apparently renting books, instead of buying them - now I may not actually get what I paid for, because your idea of DRM would give me "Heed, what brightness through yonder glazing breaks?"

Screw you, Amazon. Screw you.

FormlessOne: Also, imagine trying to quote from a work that has had these goobers "programmatically substituting synonyms" throughout it.

Please. It's worked for the Bible all these years.

Guelph35: Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM
No, the people you have to blame are the content distributors who insist upon clinging to a business model of charging people for a service that people render to complete strangers online as a small favor.
Distributing copies is no longer an enterprise requiring the might of a business behind it, and copyright laws no longer regulate business as much as they stifle noncommercial exchanges between private people.
The general public has gained the ability to freely communicate anything digital across borders and oceans, and that ability is being stifled, not for safety or for the public good, but for no other reason than to preserve obsolete business models.

And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got happy eyes. Blue eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he hollers at ya, and those blue eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched rock music'. The ocean turns red, and despite all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... serve you punch and pie.

I remember when libraries used to stamp the books. Seems like it was 10 or so years ago. 5 or so years ago at at UTD they had barcodes stuck on the inside cover and they scanned them all. Now at my local library they have RFID or something in the books and they just wave them over the checkout counter.

But professor! My Kindle physics book says it's E=MCHammer.

It's not information... it's Fark.

alienchickenpie: Guelph35: Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM

No, the people you have to blame are the content distributors who insist upon clinging to a business model of charging people for a service that people render to complete strangers online as a small favor.
Distributing copies is no longer an enterprise requiring the might of a business behind it, and copyright laws no longer regulate business as much as they stifle noncommercial exchanges between private people.
The general public has gained the ability to freely communicate anything digital across borders and oceans, and that ability is being stifled, not for safety or for the public good, but for no other reason than to preserve obsolete business models.

Distribute material covered by copyright law, no.
Someone who happily downloads a copy of Lady Gaga's latest audible abomination, or Koont'z latest piece of crap... or the latest most incredible piece of work ever known. It's illegal. Claiming some post-modern freedom of 1's and 0's doesn't change that.

That's small fish, but still illegal. No, the bigger fish are the people like you who feel that something that is NOT in the public domain should be treated as such. The people willfully sharing pirated copies are the ones who need the litigation to come down upon them, to see those 8 figure judgments against them. The downloaders can pay pennies on the dollar and walk for all I care.

Public Domain? Do what ever the fark you want with it. Open Season.
Still under copyright? I hope you get PMITA prison for denying someone their livelihood from their work. I don't care if it's some up-and-coming indie band or the evil empire. Not your call.

FormlessOne: Screw you, Amazon. Screw you.

Go buy a print copy from a small bookstore and feel self-righteously good while supporting small businesses and being free to have a format of the book that won't be rendered obsolete in five years.

alienchickenpie: Guelph35: Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM
No, the people you have to blame are the content distributors who insist upon clinging to a business model of charging people for a service that people render to complete strangers online as a small favor.
Distributing copies is no longer an enterprise requiring the might of a business behind it, and copyright laws no longer regulate business as much as they stifle noncommercial exchanges between private people.
The general public has gained the ability to freely communicate anything digital across borders and oceans, and that ability is being stifled, not for safety or for the public good, but for no other reason than to preserve obsolete business models.

Yeah, because it's not like copyright law is one of the bedrock principles the world economy is built on or anything.

Just because you can get something for free doesn't mean you should, or that you have a right to it.

I agree that distributors need to find better ways to monetize it, but come on, be serious. Their incompetence is not an excuse.

Whodat?: Their incompetence is not an excuse.

Sure it is! To all the lounging and gouging 14 year olds who have never invested in or created something with intangible value!

alienchickenpie: Guelph35: Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM
No, the people you have to blame are the content distributors who insist upon clinging to a business model of charging people for a service that people render to complete strangers online as a small favor.
Distributing copies is no longer an enterprise requiring the might of a business behind it, and copyright laws no longer regulate business as much as they stifle noncommercial exchanges between private people.
The general public has gained the ability to freely communicate anything digital across borders and oceans, and that ability is being stifled, not for safety or for the public good, but for no other reason than to preserve obsolete business models.

Copyright law isn't in the Constitution to regulate business models. It's in there to protect authors and inventors

tricycleracer: It was the zenith of times, it was the nadir of times.

LOL. Original, btw, is the opening passage ever.

/best/

tricycleracer

It was the zenith of times, it was the nadir of times.


It was the Zenith of times, it was the Goldstar of times.


Now with Product Placement(tm)!

netweavr: Pocket Ninja: This idea is the complete opposite of anything that could possibly be considered close to "new."

Misinformation techniques aside, this is a rather creative way to document your proprietary version of someone else's work. I mean if I want to own Mickey Mouse I can get a license to sell his works then change his skin tone to pink. Suddenly, I own this version of Mickey Mouse and can sue anyone with a pink Mickey Mouse, possibly including Disney themselves. Personally, I'm overjoyed at the concept of Amazon destroying existing Copyrights by attempting to protect Copyrights.

Or they could just put a watermark image on the damn page.

I've heard of paranoid CEO's do this, by the way. They'll send out a BCC'ed "company-wide announcement", but they'll alter the wording slightly for, let's say, each department. That way, if the announcement gets leaked to the press or to blogs, you can narrow down who might have sent it out.

Why don't they just put occasional typos in like printers currently do to stamp their books? You know, something logical?

Cinaed: FormlessOne: Screw you, Amazon. Screw you.

Go buy a print copy from a small bookstore and feel self-righteously good while supporting small businesses and being free to have a format of the book that won't be rendered obsolete in five years.

I collect books. I have at least four thousand of them, hence my self-righteous protest. So far, no one's tried to forcibly take any of them back or edit any of them to ensure that I was entitled to the book I purchased.

The very idea that a book distributor would edit the contents of a book - not add identifying content, mind you, while leaving the original content intact - to ensure you didn't steal from them should offend anybody who uses literature in a professional or academic sense. It would be very difficult, for example, to trust that the content you're quoting is, in fact, original content.

I fully expect authors to flip out, especially authors that use typographical or linguistic gimmicks to communicate particular ideas, or editors whose very reputations hinge on ensuring good copy goes out the door. It doesn't take much to change the feel or impact of a single sentence - authors and editors didn't assemble those words willy-nilly, after all - and having the friggin' merchant decide to screw with your work to ensure that the merchant gets its cut is appalling.

FormlessOne: I fully expect authors to flip out, especially authors that use typographical or linguistic gimmicks to communicate particular ideas, or editors whose very reputations hinge on ensuring good copy goes out the door. It doesn't take much to change the feel or impact of a single sentence - authors and editors didn't assemble those words willy-nilly, after all - and having the friggin' merchant decide to screw with your work to ensure that the merchant gets its cut is appalling.

I sneak into bookstores during my lunch break and capitalize all of E.E. Cummings works.

Guelph35: Cinaed: Well if people would stop pirating and distributing this stuff, we wouldn't be in this mess.

This.

We only have ourselves to blame for DRM


This isn't DRM, this is farkING WITH CONTENT.

If I legitimately buy something, and the product is corrupted, then it's Amazon who has failed, not me, and not people who have pirated in the past. There's no excusing this by saying "well this is why we can't have nice things". Total bullshiat.

Amazon didn't have to do this, there are many ways to deal with piracy. They've just chosen one that dilutes the value of the product they're trying to sell.

And this move will only increase piracy. After all, if Amazon is going to sell corrupted product, why pay for it? Why not download it. Seriously, if iTunes mp3s sounded like shiat, no one would pay for them.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: FormlessOne: I fully expect authors to flip out, especially authors that use typographical or linguistic gimmicks to communicate particular ideas, or editors whose very reputations hinge on ensuring good copy goes out the door. It doesn't take much to change the feel or impact of a single sentence - authors and editors didn't assemble those words willy-nilly, after all - and having the friggin' merchant decide to screw with your work to ensure that the merchant gets its cut is appalling.

I sneak into bookstores during my lunch break and capitalize all of E.E. Cummings works.

The horror!

I would like a REAL book please, so I have something to read in the coming Dark Ages.


/please stop burning and throwing them out

FormlessOne: I fully expect authors to flip out, especially authors that use typographical or linguistic gimmicks to communicate particular ideas, or editors whose very reputations hinge on ensuring good copy goes out the door. It doesn't take much to change the feel or impact of a single sentence - authors and editors didn't assemble those words willy-nilly, after all - and having the friggin' merchant decide to screw with your work to ensure that the merchant gets its cut is appalling.

I doubt too many authors are going to blow a gasket if they're actually getting their due, and the spirit of the content is effectively unchanged thanks to a few carefully placed misspelled words.

Christian Bale: This isn't DRM, this is farkING WITH CONTENT.

If I legitimately buy something, and the product is corrupted, then it's Amazon who has failed, not me, and not people who have pirated in the past. There's no excusing this by saying "well this is why we can't have nice things". Total bullshiat.

Amazon didn't have to do this, there are many ways to deal with piracy. They've just chosen one that dilutes the value of the product they're trying to sell.

And this move will only increase piracy. After all, if Amazon is going to sell corrupted product, why pay for it? Why not download it. Seriously, if iTunes mp3s sounded like shiat, no one would pay for them.

Corrupted? Corrupted would infer that the actual essence of the content is changed. This isn't leaving Michael Bay in a room with a sharpie, a eight ball, and a copy of King's Dark Tower series. It's like changing a CD to include 'imperfections' so as to thwart people ripping the music.

I'd guess audio and video will be following a similar bent soon enough for the exact same purpose.

They will, then they'll share them, then when the MPAA/RIAA sues random douchebag #71012B for distribution of protected content, they'll have an ever stronger case than ever before.

Burn_Atlanta: tricycleracer: It was the zenith of times, it was the nadir of times.

LOL. Original, btw, is the opening passage ever.

Meh. It's no "It was a dark and stormy night..."