I don't have much time this morning, but I'll write a few notes before I dive into my weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Because with my scheme sharing is not casual.
|
"Casual sharing" is a term used to differentiate friend-to-friend or household sharing from large scale or organized distribution. It does not necessarily imply either method or attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
So the first situation (current DRM) is one of exponential growth of the diffusion of a file: every person who gets a file can become a new center of diffusion. There's no damping mechanism at all, because (promised) punishment is as much hyper-terrible as hyper-unlikely.
|
The first damping mechanism is illegality (which can be a moral choice or a logical choice, but for most people the result is the same). The second damping mechanism is that it takes effort, and the desire to figure it out. Yes, it's easy to strip DRM once you know how, but as I stated before, most people don't care enough to bother. The third dampening mechanism is the "I wasn't aware there was a problem" crowd - they read a book, move on to the next. For them, reading is a solitary venture, not a communal one, and sharing books never enters their mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
I strongly object to this. Not because it seems to me that my "social DRM" will reduces piracy, or at the very least does not increase it (though I am pretty convinced of this). But because reducing piracy was not the aim of my proposal: only a side effect that should make it interesting to publishers.
|
I intended no offense, and I did state "a" selling point, rather than "the" selling point.
My point was that any system MUST be attractive to publishers and retailers. That's why I keep bringing up the potential lost sales. If your focus is only on consumer rights (though a good thing, obviously) then the content providers won't play ball. Period. You can't force them because if they feel that they can't manage in this brave new world, they will take their toys and go home. There must be incentives for them that can be quantified. Our current DRM system is in place because "OH NOES! PIRACY!" and regardless of how much of an impact piracy currently has, any alternative must either:
a) reduce piracy, or
b) increase sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Of course, my reasoning may be flawed: this is why I really appreciate the thinking effort that you and the other posters of this thread are putting into helping me finding flaws.
|
And I appreciate the fact that you take the time to think about and respond to our points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
The good thing is that if you think before you share, you don't actually risk anything and, in exchange for your increased responsibility, you get the freedom to actually own your media, i.e. to do with them what YOU want and not what the publisher wants. You are in charge: exactly the opposite of what happens with current DRM systems.
|
As catlady already pointed out, I simply can't mentally elevate ebooks to the level of firearms, or the key to the liquor cabinet. I already take file security seriously, so if I'm having issues with this concept, I fear that the average user's response may be "LOL wut?". It would take a whole lot of screw ups causing problems for a whole lot of people before it would really sink in, and call me crazy, but I don't think things should work that way. I just feel like you are both underestimating and overestimating human nature at the same time.