[InclinedPlane]

If I interpret it correctly, it's better than DRM because it more closely mimics a physical good. It's a one-user-at-a-time system, with a URL it's possible to use a simple mechanism to determine whether a user is actively reading or not, and then disallow other users while the "book" is in use. In that regard it becomes very similar to a printed book, although a little more flexible. You can loan a book to a friend and they can read it, then they can return it and you can read it, etc.

It's not a bad idea per se, but the problem with it is the problem with all DRM. It's an attempt to impose the limits of one medium on another medium in which they don't apply and are unnatural. Ultimately all such attempts are doomed to failure. What people should be using their creativity to come up with are not ways to pretend as if electronic books are identical to physical books (they aren't, nor should they be) but rather how to deal with the sea change of digital media in a robust way that will actually stand the test of time, and that doesn't impose arbitrary limits.

[Dylanlacey]

I agree that it's arbitrary, but this is a better implementation then most, BECAUSE of the link.

I don't actually mind the normal model of books... Sure, the reproduction costs are now tiny, but that shouldn't shrink the cost of the good to nothing.

The distribution of most pop goods has ALWAYS been cheaper, much cheaper, then the cost of the product. I don't see why the internet making it even cheaper nesscessarily means the product should become free, because as nice as that would be, free books won't keep their authors in anything but ramen. Maybe. If they're popular. And sponsored by people who make money not selling goods.