Cache and Carry: A Review of the Kindle

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hadn't even got as far as thinking about selling the Kindle (if I had one to sell, that is) - my guess would be that you could sell the Kindle itself no problem, but that you would (according to their usage agreement etc - which of course I admit to never having seen, so take this guess for what it's worth!) have to wipe all the content from it first. Kind of like how you're welcome to sell your iPod, but not loaded with MP3s. It does seem like with the Kindle, you're buying the right to read the work in question, and nothing more. You don't own anything at all... apart from the device you're reading it on. And when you couple that with Amazon's right to snatch back what you've paid for (yeah, they refunded all those people, but still... grr!)... hm, it's like paying tons of money to borrow a (rather fancy version of) a book. I'd rather just pay nothing and borrow one from the library, if I'm never going to own it.

Someone needs to challenge this in court. I thought it was understood that when I purchase a book at a store, I have every legal right to sell it privately or even loan it to as many people as I wish. Libraries do not pay any royalties for loaning out books. Publishers' copyrights just don't extend that far.

Copyright law for electronic media is different to that of print media, even if the content is essentailly the same.

Similar thing is happening with video games - online delivery systems like steam don't allow for resale either. The argument is that you're buying the license to use the product, not the actual product itself.

I can see the potential problem that digital media brings with copyright protection - some could potentially make or distribute an infinite number of copies with little effort. You would think though - that if you can buy a paperback version at a bookstore for around $10, that a digital version that you could not resell would cost significantly less. In other words, there should be some kind of legal correlation between the price of a physical copy and a digital copy, in that if you are charged for essentially the same price, you are buying the right to resell it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I imagine the distinction is that the Kindle uses a proprietary technology - not only the device itself but the file format that the files are encoded with.

Someone who has one can confirm this - but there is almost certainly a user agreement that covers this. You enter into a legal contract by buying the media for the device.

What I'd be interested in is whether the author gets a per-copy royalty for the downloads. There's no royalty paid on resale.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

NPR did a piece on this, and I think someone is suing already. I am pretty sure tha answer to that question is no, the auther does not get a per copy royalty but I don't remember everythign in the program clearly.

[rebeccajo 14]

This would be nice for reading newspapers. Do they charge for that?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This would be nice for reading newspapers. Do they charge for that?

Oh #######...I just looked...

$14 for the NYT

$10 for the Washington Post

....

Here's what one customer wrote....

...The price point needs to be $9.95, or even $5.95 to get significant traction. People who will subscribe are not choosing between print and electronic, they are choosing between Kindle and free (web or PDA) electronic alternatives.

My claim here is that any income the NY Times gets from a Kindle subscription is incremental, and they are not going to capture these subscribers thru one of their other channels. In my own case I'm willing to go from a zero cost subscription to a paid subscription, but not at the current price.

I'm disappointed the Times doesn't seem to see the potential of e-delivery as offered by Kindle, at least as far as pricing their product to make it a wild success...

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-York-Times/d...6122&sr=1-1

[rebeccajo 14]

This would be nice for reading newspapers. Do they charge for that?

Oh #######...I just looked...

$14 for the NYT

$10 for the Washington Post

....

Here's what one customer wrote....

...The price point needs to be $9.95, or even $5.95 to get significant traction. People who will subscribe are not choosing between print and electronic, they are choosing between Kindle and free (web or PDA) electronic alternatives.

My claim here is that any income the NY Times gets from a Kindle subscription is incremental, and they are not going to capture these subscribers thru one of their other channels. In my own case I'm willing to go from a zero cost subscription to a paid subscription, but not at the current price.

I'm disappointed the Times doesn't seem to see the potential of e-delivery as offered by Kindle, at least as far as pricing their product to make it a wild success...

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-York-Times/d...6122&sr=1-1

Ten bucks for one paper? Or for several weeks?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This would be nice for reading newspapers. Do they charge for that?

Oh #######...I just looked...

$14 for the NYT

$10 for the Washington Post

....

Here's what one customer wrote....

...The price point needs to be $9.95, or even $5.95 to get significant traction. People who will subscribe are not choosing between print and electronic, they are choosing between Kindle and free (web or PDA) electronic alternatives.

My claim here is that any income the NY Times gets from a Kindle subscription is incremental, and they are not going to capture these subscribers thru one of their other channels. In my own case I'm willing to go from a zero cost subscription to a paid subscription, but not at the current price.

I'm disappointed the Times doesn't seem to see the potential of e-delivery as offered by Kindle, at least as far as pricing their product to make it a wild success...

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-York-Times/d...6122&sr=1-1

Ten bucks for one paper? Or for several weeks?

Per month...

[rebeccajo 14]

Well......to get the Times (London) delivered to your door in the US Mon-Fri is a whopping $300 bucks for three months.

So if you really wanted your British paper, Kindle would be the way to go.

[Mark&Steph 0]

Damn, I really wanted one of these and it looks likely I could get one for Xmas but this thread is giving me pause. I almost want to look at the Sony E-reader now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Damn, I really wanted one of these and it looks likely I could get one for Xmas but this thread is giving me pause. I almost want to look at the Sony E-reader now.

Yeah...I'm starting to have buyer remorse and I haven't even bought one.

I still like the device itself...it's the copyright issues, book costs and subscription fees that are turning me off.

[Mark&Steph 0]

Yeah...I'm starting to have buyer remorse and I haven't even bought one.

I still like the device itself...it's the copyright issues, book costs and subscription fees that are turning me off.

It's sad, isn't it?

I would love to have one and I've found plenty of books at a reasonable price on Amazon that I would get, but I have many e-books that I've collected from various places over the years. If Amazon won't let me keep them on there then the Kindle is kind of useless to me.

[rebeccajo 14]

The only good reason I can see (for most of us) to own one is for reading periodicals. I'd pay 10 bucks each month for a daily British newspaper.

If you travel a lot and are stuck in airports or on planes for a lot of time each week, it might be useful for books. Generally speaking though, the book prices just aren't low enough given the fact you don't get a 'hard copy' to put in your collection.

[mawilson 2,133]

The only reason I would buy one is to be able to read the paper without getting black ink all over my hands.

Yeah, but can you get fish and chips wrapped in a Kindle?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The only good reason I can see (for most of us) to own one is for reading periodicals. I'd pay 10 bucks each month for a daily British newspaper.

If you travel a lot and are stuck in airports or on planes for a lot of time each week, it might be useful for books. Generally speaking though, the book prices just aren't low enough given the fact you don't get a 'hard copy' to put in your collection.

Yep. I would have used one primarily for reading the newspapers, assuming I'd have free access to them like I do online.

If not the Kindle, perhaps someone else with come up with a similar device that would give you free access to online periodicals.

[rebeccajo 14]

The only reason I would buy one is to be able to read the paper without getting black ink all over my hands.

Yeah, but can you get fish and chips wrapped in a Kindle?

You just spoiled my shopping justification.