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

MPAA Joins RIAA In Having Budgets Slashed

from the obsolete-organizations-die-off dept

Following the news that the RIAA's revenue was cut dramatically in the past few years, TorrentFreak has also posted the MPAA's 2010 tax filing, showing that it, too, has taken a pretty massive beating in terms of revenue from its gatekeeper members.

In just three years the revenue generated by the anti-piracy outfit reduced from $92.8 million to $49.6 million. The decreased budget is a direct result of the major Hollywood studios cutting back on their MPAA funding. In the same period membership dues dropped from $84.7 million to $41.5 million, more than a 50% decline.

The filing (embedded below) includes some interesting tidbits. It's not at all surprising to see that the MPAA funds the Copyright Alliance, but I had not seen before that it funds ITIF. ITIF was the think tank who was the major "intellectual backer" of SOPA/PIPA. They had published the first paper that more or less suggested the approach found in SOPA/PIPA, and when the MPAA was absolutely desperate for technology "experts" who could argue that SOPA wouldn't break DNS, the only people they rolled out were ITIF staff members. It's not surprising that the MPAA funded them, but I don't recall that being disclosed anywhere previously.

Also, as with the RIAA's salaries, it's pretty ridiculous to see the MPAA complaining about being rich as proof that someone must be breaking the law, when its top execs are all making pretty large salaries. Nearly every person listed in their list of key employees/highest compensated employees is clearly way far north into the 1% of most highly compensated Americans.

And all that while its budget keeps getting slashed. Perhaps the studios are recognizing that they're better off no longer throwing good money after bad. Of course, it's noteworthy that a number of people on the list ended up leaving the MPAA. Former CEO Dan Glickman left earlier than expected, apparently due to dissatisfaction from the studio heads, and a number of others left as well. So it will be interesting when the 2011 report finally comes out to see if they studios fed money back into the MPAA once Chris Dodd was brought in.

Filed Under: budgets, failures, funding
Companies: copyright alliance, itif, mpaa, riaa

DailyDirt: Epic Fail In Advertising

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are numerous ways to piss off customers. Most companies make mistakes from time to time in advertising, but every so often, there are mistakes so egregious that people just can't look away. Sometimes bad publicity is still publicity, but here are some train-wreck examples.

• Some advertisers are rushing to Rush Limbaugh, against the tide of sponsors running away from him. After Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, it seems that a couple escort services would like to advertise their services on Limbaugh's show (and apparently these companies are just fine with Rush's use of the word slut). [url]
• Mommy bloggers are not a group you want to offend, and it might seem cute to try to have a little fun with some motherhood observations... However, the makers of Motrin found out the hard way that it needs to choose its words more carefully. [url]
• Woody Harrelson doesn't actually mean "ask me anything" when he talks to people online. Harrelson just wanted to promote his new movie, but instead enraged would-be fans in a discussion that went downhill pretty quickly. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: advertising, failures, motrin, publicity, rush limbaugh, woody harrelson

TSA May Announce New Behavior Screening Plans Soon

from the wait-and-see dept

Apparently the TSA is planning to roll out some changes to its screening process in the coming months, including embracing at least some of the "Israeli method" of airplane security, which tends to focus much more on behavior, rather than what you have on you.

"I'm very much interested in expanding the behavior detection program, upgrading it if you will, in a way that allows us to….have more interaction with a passsenger just from a discussion which may be able to expedite the physical screening aspects," [TSA boss John] Pistole said during an appearance at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. "So, we've looked at what works around the world, some outstanding examples and we are planning to do some new things in the near future here."

Pistole declined to elaborate on the enhanced behavior detection program but said it would "probably" be announced in August. During an on-stage interview with CNN's Jeanne Meserve, Pistole acknowledged that the Israeli techniques have been carefully examined.

"There's a lot--under that Israeli model--a lot that is done that is obviously very effective," he said.

Of course, the devil is always in the details, but it would be nice if the security practices were more focused on stuff that actually works, rather than pure security theater. Pistole also appears to have reiterated earlier comments about how the TSA may change its procedures so that little kids don't need to be groped so much, saying that it would have parents "more involved in the process of helping TSA personnel figure out why a child is setting off alarms."

Tough luck for the elderly, however, since apparently many of the people on the terrorist watch list are old, so you still need to get groped. Seems like a logical fallacy of course. Just because many terrorists are old, that doesn't mean many old people are terrorists. A bit strange that the TSA doesn't seem to recognize this.

Filed Under: behavioral analysis, failures, screening, tsa

TSA Can Grope Dying Old Ladies; But Can't Catch Guy Boarding Flight Illegally?

from the security-theater dept

Apparently the TSA's Security Theater is a comedy. Pjerky was the first of a whole bunch of you to alert us last week about the TSA's massive failure to catch a Nigerian man who boarded a flight without a valid boarding pass. The man successfully flew from New York to Los Angeles. Apparently, the flight crew discovered they had a stowaway after people complained about the man's smell (even though he was seated in a seat). I'm not quite sure how complaining about someone's smell leads to them being found out as a stowaway, but what I do know is that the guy was not arrested when the flight landed. Instead, he was taken into custody a few days later when he tried to do it again by getting on a Delta flight from LA to Atlanta without a boarding pass. This time, the FBI took him in, but later released him. Meanwhile, the TSA was busy groping 95-year-old cancer patients.

Filed Under: failures, security, tsa

While TSA Sexually Assaults Miss USA... It's Letting Other Passengers Through Without Clearance

from the feeling-safer? dept

As the TSA is busy sexually assaulting Miss USA, apparently it's not paying very close attention to everyone else. The TSA has confirmed that in the past five days alone, it has had to shut down security screenings three separate times, at Newark airport, after screeners accidentally let passengers go through without being "fully" screened. These aren't cases of people sneaking through either. Apparently, it involved people designated for further screening who were then ignored and went about their businesses of heading to their gates and boarding their flights. I wonder if those people were able to get liquid through to the gate area!

Filed Under: failures, security, tsa

Lazy TSA Agents Let Thousands Of Bags Through Unscreened (But They Gotta See Us Naked)

from the feeling-safer? dept

While the TSA and the US government continue to insist that it's absolutely necessary to see passengers naked before they can get on a plane, it appears that not everyone in the TSA is so committed to such thorough searches. Apparently, the feds are investigating a group of 27 TSA agents in Hawaii who apparently just skipped over the part of their jobs where they were supposed to screen luggage. Instead, they just tagged the luggage, saying it was screened and let it go on planes.

Filed Under: failures, screening, tsa

Recording Industry Persecution Complex: Claiming EMI's Plight Is Due To File Sharing

from the um,-no dept

Bas points us to a bizarre opinion piece for NME (which is usually a bit better than this) in which recording industry insider Alan McGee posts a near factless diatribe claiming that EMI's recent takeover by Citigroup proves that "downloading has murdered the music business." There's almost nothing accurate in McGee's piece. It's fantasy-world writing where people just make up stuff. Let's dig in a bit:

First things first: EMI is still a great British label. I mean, it owns the Beatles back catalogue! So why is it in the hands of a bank? It’s just economics. Guy Hands bought it in 2007, at the height of the market, when people were paying stupid prices for everything, not just labels.

Ok. So we agree. Guy Hands (well, really his firm Terra Firma) paid way too much for EMI in 2007. Frankly, that's the reason for EMI's plight today. Terra Firma got infatuated with the names on EMI's roster, didn't understand the recording industry at all, and got suckered into paying way over a reasonable price, and then couldn't handle the debt load. It had nothing to do with people paying stupid prices in 2007. People weren't paying stupid prices for record labels -- just Terra Firma. And that's because they didn't really understand what they were buying.

The trouble is, now everyone has woken up to the reality, which is that illegal downloading is murdering the music business.

So much incorrect in such a short sentence. First, I don't think anyone views the industry's situation much different in 2011 as they did in 2007. File sharing was rampant then as it is now. The struggles the recording industry were facing were already quite clear in 2007 (hell, they were clear in 1997 to people paying attention). Second, the only part of the "music business" struggling is the record labels. Nearly every other part of the music business has grown massively over the last decade. Third, there is little to no evidence that "illegal downloading" is the cause of any serious problems. Yes, it does act as a substitution in some cases, but as we've seen over and over again, when musical acts embrace file sharing in conjunction with a smart business model, they end up making more money. So, no, "illegal downloading" is not the cause of EMI's problems. EMI's inability to adapt to a changing market, combined with a massive debt overload was the issue.

I actually think Guy Hands didn’t do a bad job. He was just personally unfortunate. He came along at the wrong time. Shit happens. It was a time of affluence of abundance. Then the world economy turned upside down, Lehman Brothers went broke, and the world changed. The market crashed.

Huh? The market crash had nothing to do with the troubles facing EMI. Nor does McGee show how the two are connected. As with his earlier claims, he just insists it's true with no proof.

EMI's problems should be a wake-up call. How did they get into this mess? It all comes back to the impact of illegal downloading. We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy.

First up, we've already discussed why the impact of unauthorized file sharing was not the problem, but more importantly, countries around the world have been changing legislation plenty over the last decade to come down much harder on "piracy" and it's done nothing to improve the lot of the record labels. Is McGee totally unaware of the Digital Economy Act in the UK? Rather than recognize that such laws have been passed and have not helped the record labels, McGee just wants more protectionism. That old line about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results may apply...

Otherwise guys in little bands starting out now are never going to be the next Rolling Stones.

Wait, so the only options are failure or the Rolling Stones? And that statement is a ridiculous one either way. What we've seen (and been documenting for years) is that things are much better for bands starting out today than in the past because they don't need to win over the gatekeepers. They can find their own audience. They can create their own business models and make a living -- unlike under the old system, where you either hit it big or you gave up and went back to your day job. As for who will be the next Rolling Stones, I have little fear that the general nature of human psyche will continue to find new acts to turn into superstars.

And, should we even mention just how much money the Rolling Stones make from touring, which is an industry that has actually been helped by unauthorized downloads in building up larger fanbases of various bands?

When you download an album illegally, it's not the record company guys that get fucked -- those people are still on massive salaries -- it's 19-year-old kids, it's guys in bands making £100 a gig.

Wait, what? In this very same paragraph you claimed the totality of EMI's problems were due to unauthorized file sharing, but then just a few sentences later you claim the record labels aren't impacted. Keep it together, McGee. As for the impact on the 19-year-old kids making £100 per gig, they can actually be massively helped by file sharing, because the more people who know and like their music, the more people will be willing to come out to their gigs, so maybe they'll start making more than that £100.

When I came along in the 80s and 90s, I was lucky to be in a market where people bought music. Now If I wanted an album, I could just go on some torrent site and download it. You've got to give bands a chance, let them develop. In the 80s, bands started dodgy, then they got good. The bands I worked with – Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine, even Oasis -- it took them a few years to go from being OK to being good. These days bands don't get the chance, they just get dropped.

Again these are statements that appear to imply some sort of causal relationship, but fail to show any. What does the fact that people bought CDs have to do with letting a band develop? I mean, if it really takes so much time for a band to develop, then doesn't that mean people shouldn't be buying their early music anyway? And the final line highlights the crux of the problem: it assumes that the only way to succeed today is by signing to some big label. So if that label drops you, you're screwed. And yet, we're seeing over and over again that musical acts are being amazingly successful without a label (since they don't need to make nearly as much money as they have to on a label to make a damn good living). In fact, we're seeing bands celebrate being dropped from their labels, because it means more freedom to develop and the ability to make more money.

There's only one independent label, post-Creation, that's really been phenomenal, and that's Domino. Laurence (Bell, owner) is a genius. He's touched with gold dust. Whether it sells or not, he's got the magic touch.

This is a total non sequitur. What does the fact that there's been a good indie label have to do with file sharing or EMI?!? Furthermore, "whether it sells or not," seemed to be the whole point earlier in the article. Now it doesn't matter? Finally, to say that there's only been one good indie record label suggests a level of ignorance to what's actually going on in the music world today. There are a bunch of fantastic indie labels out there. Perhaps McGee should get out more.

As for me, if I ran EMI, I'd get legislation changed and make a profit by stopping piracy.

Can someone -- anyone -- explain how getting people to stop downloading creates a profit anywhere? Getting people to stop downloading doesn't magically make them start buying. And it's not like EMI hasn't been among the efforts by all the major record labels to get legislation changed for years, and all of that has done absolutely nothing to stop file sharing. It's pure folly to suggest that there's some sort of magical legislative move that will stop unauthorized file sharing and create "profits" at the same time.

What will do that, however, is smarter business models -- something that McGee never even seems to consider. Thankfully, reading through the comments on that article, nearly everyone is pointing out all of these points to McGee, though I doubt he'll ever read any of them.

Filed Under: alan mcgee, failures, music industry
Companies: emi