Or like a grocery store that'll send security guards into your home to prevent you from eating their bread with cheese you bought elsewhere.
Since, you know, DRM is there to actively prevent you from doing something, so comparing it with just passively not offering a service is more than a little dishonest.
Because it just doesn't affect you: Audible has sucked the oxygen out of the room by virtue of its Amazon leverage so most people can't even name an alternative. Eventually alternatives die and all of us unwillingly get put in the jail that you wish to be in. This is why the comments against your capitulation are strong.
I don’t think this is true. In fact I people are listening to more books than before and spending more on them than before. Audible are injecting oxygen into the room!
> In 2020, Deloitte predicts, the global audiobook market will grow by 25 percent to US$3.5 billion.
That’s what we should really care about - books read. And money spent is great as well.
People here forget what books are for - reading. They aren’t supposed to be vehicles for copyright activism.
> I don’t think this is true. In fact I people are listening to more books than before
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what the parent poster wrote? It sucks the oxygen away from other bookstores. Hence the "Eventually alternatives die". That people spend money on Audible is not a counter-argument.
> That’s what we should really care about - books read. [..] People here forget what books are for - reading. They aren’t supposed to be vehicles for copyright activism.
Are you really, really unable to see the danger in relinquishing control over your devices and media?
> Are you really, really unable to see the danger in relinquishing control over your devices and media?
Devices I get, but I don't really understand it for media. What I really want is Netflix for Audiobooks. I'm not ever going to listen to them again. I've also never really understood why people buy DVDs. I mean, I understand the fact folks want to watch a movie more than once, but that seems so odd to me, you already know the story ... there is no novelty anymore. I buy books, but only if there are references, or classics that I'd like my children to be exposed to as some point. I see no need to buy copies of the pulp sci-fi I read too much of, kindle copies are fine.
Audible+ that just launched comes close, but the catalogue is weak for new titles. Libby/Overdrive comes close, but rarely have want I want within a timeframe I'd like.
I'm willing to pay for convenience, of an ephemeral entertainment experience. Sure, I know some folks want to pay to reread, relisten, or rewatch their favorites, and doing so without DRM would be nice.
But as long as the data is accessible in some form, it doesn't seem a fundamental issue. Non-resource based monopolies are only sustainable if they keep their customers happy. There is plenty of money to be made with alternatives if they find a way to either suck to cost too much and longer term copyright expires. That is the real answer, copyright should be shrunk to something like 25 years, ignoring the author's life, and be transferable to their estate.
You have probably hit upon the core of the disagreement: when I buy a book, I want to keep it and I will refer to it in the future. Books that aren't keepers, I will borrow from the library. I don't read much fiction but the stuff that I like (e.g. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), I want to be able to access easily without being subject to encumbrances.
What is your fear here for comments opposing Audible's hegemony? This discussion and your other discussions have devolved into "yes it does!" and "no it doesn't!". Could you just explain why Audible and its scheme needs to be the only one standing and everyone here should just not express any concern about it?
Edit0: BTW, no one has forgotten what books are for. It is Audible with its restrictions that has made reading (or listening) into a hindrance. Are you able to accept that this is my experience/opinion?
> Are you able to accept that this is my experience/opinion?
I can readily accept your opinion.
But when I say 'I'm happy with the tradeoffs and the book world is far better with Audible without and it's a fine consensual business relationship' then everyone tries to remove my agency and that I could only say such a thing under abuse.
Audiobooks used to be astronomically expensive, hard to buy, hard to use. Thanks to Audible I'm reading more than ever. There's a minor trade-off of DRM which isn't really even a theoretical problem for me or I think the vast vast majority of people, but people forget all that and call them 'abusive'. I think it's nasty and unreasonable.
Thanks for acknowledging my point. I acknowledge your concern about Audible but still say that they are currently too-big-to-fail and as a result, unlike in video-on-demand (Netflix vs. its competitors) and perhaps ebooks (Amazon vs. Kobo vs. Google), there is a real danger of them becoming too powerful for a healthy market. I understand the debt of gratitude that I see with you and others defending Audible but hopefully you will see, not before it is too late, that a little diversity in the audiobook market won't hurt.
Since, you know, DRM is there to actively prevent you from doing something, so comparing it with just passively not offering a service is more than a little dishonest.