1984 George Orwell and the Kindle

[Austin William Wright]

Alan Dayley wrote:
> [...]
>
> Amazing.  The holy grail of publishing: licensing for a limited time
> and the ability to pull it back when wanted.
> - No more need to go through the work of releasing a new edition of a
> text book, just take it away from everyone at the end of the semester!
> - Make people sign in to their reader and charge for each different
> person that reads the same book.  Sue anyone who gives out their
> password.
>
> There is a story somewhere out there on the web about a possible
> future.  A future where a guy risks prison by sharing his textbook
> reader password with his new girlfriend so she can study for her
> classes.  I think it was authored by Richard Stallman back in the
> 1980's.  I can't find it or I'd give a link.  More and more it is
> prophetic.
>
> We're getting there.  If the public does not raise outcry over this
> latest move, we're at the threshold of such a world.
>
> There really are two sides at battle here.  Information control for
> profit and information freedom for benefit.  Digital technology
> requires those who would control to take extreme measures.  They stand
> out in stark relief against the freedoms of information we have (had?)
> in the recent past.
>
> Alan
It is this one,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Stallman, as usual, is right, even if (I think) for all the wrong
reasons. Copyright is something that could not exist in a free society,
the only way it can exist is through the coercion of government force,
restricting you from doing otherwise lawful things with what you own as
your property (In fact, even if there was no private property,
government could still enforce intellectual property). Regardless of
wither intellectual property should exist, it is of little doubt the
power grabs by the government and long copyright terms are hurting the
market for authors instead of helping. I don't know if Amazon would
still have the right to take back books like they did (without studying
property rights a bit more, I suspect 'they do but why would they want
to?'), in any case I don't think that, without copyright as it is, they
could have pulled it off (no pun intended har har har). At the very
most, commercial pressures might have gotten them to do so, but another
publisher would step up offering a better alternative, with no
artificial hampering of the market by patent or copyright.

I think with Washington, DC the way it is right now there is nothing
standing in the way of even more copyright expansion (or government in
general for that matter), like "database rights" in the European Union
or a broad "workright" where you own the "right" to anything you invest
time into and all derivatives (like making a copy of a public domain work).

Austin Wright.