Barnes & Noble Decides That Purchased Ebooks Are Only Yours Until Your Credit Card Expires

from the ebooks:-where-'buying'-means-'renting-for-an-indefinite-period' dept

DRM rears its ugly, malformed, malignant, cross-eyed head again. Despite the fact that, as Cory Doctorow so aptly put it, no one has ever purchased anything because it came with DRM, an ever-slimming number of content providers insist on punishing paying customers with idiotic "anti-piracy" schemes.

Combine this "malware" with digital distribution that sticks the end user with an unfavorable license rather than, say, an actual book, and you've got another ready-made disaster. The Consumerist has the details on yet another paying customer dealing with DRM stupidity. It starts off with this physical analogy.

[I]f reader Synimatik had bought a paperback book a few months ago and picked it up to read now, the book’s pages wouldn’t magically glue shut just because the credit card she normally uses at the bookstore has expired.

Obviously, no one would expect a physical book to be subject to the whims of the publisher or the store it was purchased from. A sale is a sale, even if many rights holders would rather it wasn't. But, Barnes & Noble doesn't see it that way. Sure, you can buy an ebook from them, but you'd better keep everything in your profile up to date if you plan on accessing your purchases at some undetermined point in the future.

Yesterday, I tried to download an ebook I paid for, and previously put on my Nook, a few months ago. When I tried, I got an error message stating I could not download the book because the credit card on file had expired. But, I already paid for it. Who cares if the credit card is expired? It has long since been paid for, so the status of the card on file has nothing to do with my ability to download said book. I didn’t see anything in the terms of service about this either, but it’s possible I missed it.

This is just one more reason to either not buy ebooks, or strip the drm off of the ones you purchase so you can you the book you BUY on all your devices without having to purchase multiple copies for no reason and have access to something you already bought when you want it.

Nice work, B&N. Driving another person away from your offerings with your amnesiac point-of-purchase system. No one's purchase should be invalidated once the payment has cleared. Barnes & Noble got its money but its customer is out both money and a book. Does B&N really wish for its customers to root their devices and strip the DRM out of their purchases just so they can enjoy them at their own pace? Shouldn't the company be catering to its customers rather than treating them like thieves who can't be trusted even though they've already paid?

If this was a one-of-a-kind experience, we could chalk it up to "live and learn." But a whole lot of living has gone on and the only lesson anyone's learning is the most efficient way to remove pesky DRM idiocy from their purchased "licenses" in order to turn them into actual, useful goods.

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, failures, nook
Companies: barnes & noble

Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive

from the got-that? dept

Joe Betsill points us to the news that Barnes & Noble is the latest to weigh in on the price-fixing case against Apple and some publishers over ebook pricing. It's really bizarre. At best, it can be summed up as "we have to stop Amazon from offering cheap books, because if they do that, then we (Barnes & Noble) might go out of business, and then Amazon would be all alone and it might raise prices." Yes, the argument is that we're better off having expensive ebooks today, because if we don't, we might have expensive books in the future. I'm still trying to figure out how that makes any sense. At all.

Filed Under: competition, ebooks, price fixing
Companies: amazon, apple, barnes & noble

B&N Removes Magazine From Nook Store Due To Feature Article On 'Hacking'

from the hacking-not-allowed dept

We've talked a lot about the difference between gatekeepers and enablers, and how the latter are becoming more important than the former. Both are types of middlemen, of course. And there have been some reasonable discussions about how enablers can become gatekeepers at times. Indeed, this is something to be aware of, and we should worry about it and speak out when we see evidence of it happening. For example, ebook platforms have become great enablers, allowing lots of new written works to be published, promoted, distributed and sold. In 2002, 250,000 books were published. In 2010 the number was over 3 million -- with much of that being thanks to the easy publishing of ebooks, and the platforms that made it possible to publish a book without a gatekeeper.

But... sometimes those enablers turn into gatekeepers. Witness the news, via Slashdot, that Barnes & Noble removed Linux Format magazine from the Nook store because the magazine dared to publish an article entitled Learn to Hack. It is true that they were using "hack" in the (increasingly less common) definition having to do with breaking into other computers and networks, but the framing of it was mostly around understanding these things to keep yourself secure. Still, do we really want platforms like Barnes & Noble acting as gatekeepers concerning what people can and cannot read?

Filed Under: enablers, gatekeepers, hacking, linux, middlemen
Companies: barnes & noble

Excitement Over B&N/Microsoft Teamup Is A Bit Premature

from the what-exactly-is-the-plan-here? dept

There's just something about when also-ran brands suddenly team up to try to "do something" that gets clueless people excited. It almost never works however. The latest is that Microsoft and Barnes & Noble have settled their (somewhat acrimonious) patent dispute (in which B&N was making the case that Microsoft violated antitrust law with its patents) in order to work together on a new spinoff company built around the Nook ebook platform. To be fair, lots of reviewers have raved about the Nook, and noted that it's actually a better device than the Kindle. But actually getting the market to agree has been a pretty big challenge. Could Microsoft help? Perhaps, but these kinds of linkups don't have much of a history of working well. In part, it's because you have different parties with different priorities. In part, it's because deals like this usually involved a lot more planning than executing. But, largely, it's because these companies don't really understand the market. At least, they seem to think that if they do a few superficial things up front, that will suddenly catapult them to the top. They may discover it's a lot more difficult than that.

But, of course, that hasn't stopped some from getting really excited about this. B&N stock shot upwards in response, though perhaps it was just because investors were happy that the company was able to "unload" the Nook. But, then, you see comments like this:

"With the new Windows rollout, there are so many things you can do with the Nook beyond e-reading," Glickstein, who is based in New York, said today in a telephone interview. "Now that Bill Gates and Microsoft are in on the tech side, it’s absolutely compelling."

Of course, you could do lots of things with the Nook beyond e-reading that have nothing to do with Windows. Tying the Android-based platform to anything having to do with Windows seems like a step backwards, not forward. Also, er, someone should tell this guy that Bill Gates retired four years ago. But, you know, why would anyone who's in charge of analyzing these kinds of things be aware of little facts like that?

Filed Under: android, ebooks, nook
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Subscribe To A Newsapaper, Get An E-reader Free

from the make-it-up-on-volume dept

Well, this was bound to happen. Barnes & Noble is offering big discounts on its Nook e-readers to people taking out subscriptions to digital editions of magazines and newspapers:

The Nook edition of People is $9.99 a month; with a one-year subscription, customers will receive a Nook Tablet, a color device with a 7-inch display, for $199, a discount from its regular price of $249. Customers who buy a one-year subscription for the Nook edition of The New York Times for $19.99 a month, which includes access to NYTimes.com, will receive a black-and-white Nook Simple Touch free or a Nook Color for $99.

It's that last deal that's really striking: a free Nook when you subscribe for a year. The benefit is clear: once you've got your Nook, you're quite likely to buy a few other titles to read on it, and that's where the profit starts rolling in for Barnes & Noble.

It's not hard to see Amazon following suit. After all, it is allegedly selling the Kindle Fire for less than it costs to make, so it has effectively adopted the same business strategy already.

The low-end models for both Barnes & Noble and Amazon are ideal for bundling free with newspapers and magazines, especially as hardware prices continue to drop. E-readers might even be offered free with e-books, provided people commit to buying a minimum number per year - traditional book clubs would be wise to try this approach in conjunction with Amazon or Barnes & Noble before those two do it on their own. Similarly, it can only be a matter of time before the newspaper and magazine publishers start offering combined hardware and software bundles as standard in an attempt to entice people to sign up for digital subs.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: business models, discounts, ebook readers, nook
Companies: barnes & noble

Barnes & Noble Going Around Asking Everyone To Change All Links From Borders To B&N

from the really? dept

As you probably heard, Borders went out of business recently and Barnes & Noble purchased a bunch of Borders assets around its trademarks. Still, it was a bit surprising when we received an email this week asking us to change any links we have on Techdirt that go to Borders.com to redirect to Barnesandnoble.com:

Barnes & Noble recently purchased most of the Borders trademarks and intellectual property in a recent auction. As a result of this purchase, we started transitioning the Borders.com website to Barnesandnoble.com via redirects.

We noticed that your site is currently linking to http://www.borders.com/online/store/Home , and I’d like to reach out and ask you to kindly update your links to the corresponding URLs on Barnesandnoble.com. We have redirects in place for many Borders.com pages, so you can use that to help you determine the correct landing pages on Barnesandnoble.com.

To be honest, I absolutely could not recall ever linking to Borders, but I did some digging, and found that we did so... three and a half years ago in a post about Borders.com's last ditch attempt to try to be innovative with a different kind of home page. Because of that we linked to the front page of Borders.com. For a variety of reasons, it would be stupid to change that link. In the context of the story, it wouldn't make any sense at all.

But all of this makes me wonder why Barnes & Noble is wasting their time sending emails to people like this. If it wants to redirect people, just set up some redirects. Don't expect everyone to drop everything and go change ancient links.

Filed Under: history, links, revising
Companies: barnes & noble, borders

Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android

from the trivial-patents dept

Earlier this year, Microsoft continued its shakedown war against all things Android by suing Barnes & Noble for patent infringement over the Nook. As we discussed, B&N is fighting back in a big way, claiming that Microsoft's shakedown tactics are an antitrust violation. As that effort moves forward, it's beginning to reveal a ton of useful info. While Microsoft continues to try to keep the patents it's using in these shakedowns "secret," B&N has been revealing them. Groklaw has the details:

The patents, we read, "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" and yet Microsoft is demanding "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in effect asserting "veto power" over Android's features. One aspect of the license, Barnes & Noble tells us, was a demand to control design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license. That, Barnes & Noble says, is "oppressive and anticompetitive". I think it's accurate to say that the company believes it is illegal.

Barnes & Noble asserts that Microsoft is attempting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it, in essence, is acting like a patent troll, threatening companies using Android with a destructive and anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents, some trivial and others ridiculously invalid or clearly not infringed, or spend a fortune on litigation.

Beyond revealing more of the patents, the company, in its filings, makes it clear what it believes Microsoft is doing:

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market.... Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.

Seems like a pretty accurate summary from what we've seen. It's really pretty sad when the focus of your business is hindering others, rather than innovating yourself.

Filed Under: android, patents, trivial
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Barnes & Noble Claims That Microsoft Patent Shakedown Over Android Is An Antitrust Violation

from the sounds-about-right dept

There's finally been a growing recognition that intellectual property laws are about providing monopolies, and that misusing patent and copyright laws thus could be considered antitrust violations. While it's true that copyright and patents involve legal monopolies, misusing them would clearly be an abuse of a monopoly, and should be ripe for actual antitrust investigations (rather than silly antitrust attacks on companies just because they're "big.") So it's interesting to see that Barnes & Noble is pressing the feds to go after Microsoft on antitrust grounds for its Android licensing shakedown. Barnes & Noble is pretty direct in its accusations.

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operation systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operation systems market.

The complaint also notes some odd behaviors on Microsoft's part, such as refusing to explain what patents it was threatening B&N over, unless B&N agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Microsoft specifically alleged that Barnes & Noble's Nook was infringing six patents purportedly held by Microsoft. When Barnes & Noble asked Microsoft for more detailed information related to these patents, Microsoft refused, claiming that the information was confidential and could not be shared unless Barnes & Noble first executed a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"). Because both the patents and Barnes & Noble's Nook product are public -- meaning there was no need for an NDA -- Barnes & Noble refused to sign.

The company continued negotiating with Microsoft over what seemed like a pretty bizarre discussion concerning whether B&N had to sign an NDA just to find out what patents Microsoft wanted the company to license. Because B&N did eventually sign a limited NDA, it's asking the DOJ to step in and subpoena the details it can't reveal. Still, B&N claims that Microsoft's patents would severely limit its ability to innovate:

This proposed licensing agreement covered Barnes & Noble's use of Android on its existing eReader devices but is structured in such a way to presume that Microsoft's portfolio of patents dominate, and thereby control, the entire Android operation system and any devices that use Android. Indeed, the proposed license would have severely limited and, in some cases, entirely eliminated Barnes & Noble's ability to upgrade or improve the Nook or the Nook Color, even though Microsoft's asserted patents have nothing to do with improvements.

Unfortunately, I just don't see the Justice Department gearing up for this, but that's really unfortunate. It should be watching out for abuses of patent law that appear to impact wider innovation. Instead, it's running around chasing companies based on size, not actual impact.

Filed Under: android, antitrust, patents
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Barnes & Noble Doesn't Get Digital DC Comics, Throws Hissy Fit

from the cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face dept

In a move that screams of a complete disconnect from reality, Barnes & Noble (B&N) has decided to remove over 100 DC comics from its shelves. This move is in reaction to DC giving Amazon exclusive e-publishing rights to the digital versions of those comics.

In a statement to CNN, Jaime Carey, B&N's chief merchant, said:

Regardless of the publisher, we will not stock physical books in our stores if we are not offered the available digital format. To sell and promote the physical book in our store showrooms and not have the e-book available for sale would undermine our promise to Barnes & Noble customers to make available any book, anywhere, anytime.

Read that again. Since B&N did not get the rights to the digital version of the comics, it will be denying customers access to the physical comics. How exactly does this fulfill the promise of providing DC comics "anywhere, anytime"? How are comic fans who frequent B&N supposed to get these comics if the comics are not available in-store? This move certainly flies in the face of that promise.

With this move, B&N is hoping to 'punish' DC with fewer sales. In reality, this will only tick off its comic loving customers who will have to go to another store in order to buy these comics. While this move will probably make B&N feel better, it will not result in any real change to its partnership with DC. This is yet another company putting its own interests ahead of the interests of its customers. Much like those other businesses, this is going to bite them in the butt and they will end up backtracking soon.

Filed Under: comics, ebooks
Companies: amazon, barnes & noble, dc comics