"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[anappo]

> However, if a popular site arose that handled, among other things,
> anonymous file-sharing, and e-books became a significant proportion
> of the shared media, it could manage to capture enough of the web
> population to start to generate the kind of e-book transaction
> numbers (however fair or ilicit) that every pub would have to take notice of.

Yep. Thats exactly what happened in Russia - www.lib.ru - Moshkow's Library. That place had pretty much everything up on free access that they managed to OCR. And perhaps not coincidentally, they now have the most customer-friendly e-book business one could wish for.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ahi

Unless that "some of them" is a lot larger than I've ever gotten the notion, it's a waste of time prosecuting and persecuting a group that is primarily composed of "digital serfs"....

Waste of time to prosecute, yes. But not necessarily a waste of time to seek them out as legit customers. And maybe not a waste of time to figure out how to dissuade them.

Most stores don't strip-search people as they leave, but a lot of them have switched to magnetic strips in the boxes that will set off an alarm if they haven't been de-activated when leaving. This is done even though the VAST majority of customers are not thieves--it's accepted because the inconvenience really is minor (I'd say nonexistent, but it does occasionally cause a hold-up at the door when the magnetic wiping didn't work), and ends the moment the customer leaves the store.

If publishers could find a way to prevent illegal torrent use without inconveniencing legal actions, that'd be great. (Nothing comes to mind off the top of my head.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by anappo

Or maybe it could happen because they will increasingly see the content industry as less moral? As long as the prevalent e-book business model is considered immoral, it will become increasingly difficult such businesses to claim moral high ground without people spitting in their general direction.

It could just happen if it becomes increasingly easy to access and use, just as anappo's example indicates. For instance, if for whatever reason Yahoo or Google started offering a fileshare service that its members really latched onto, and books became a major component of that, it would lead to the expected "We gotta do something NOW!" reaction from pubs.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Most stores don't strip-search people as they leave, but a lot of them have switched to magnetic strips in the boxes that will set off an alarm if they haven't been de-activated when leaving. This is done even though the VAST majority of customers are not thieves--it's accepted because the inconvenience really is minor (I'd say nonexistent, but it does occasionally cause a hold-up at the door when the magnetic wiping didn't work), and ends the moment the customer leaves the store.

This has been my point about DRM all along: A method that does not inconvenience customers unduly, but still provides useful (though admittedly not perfect) security is possible. Dismissing DRM out of hand, because the present systems don't work well, is doing the idea a disservice.

[anappo]

> Dismissing DRM out of hand, because the present systems don't
> work well, is doing the idea a disservice.

The idea of DRM / copy protection of digital objects is -not- new. In software, many schemes have been tried. For 30+ years. If we had a solution that would be applicable on e-books, we'd tell you. Honest!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

> If an ebook came with no DRM, full ownership rights, fair use ..

You missed geo-restrictions. On-selling rights are debatable - my guess would be it's better to not have those on e-books.

Gee whiz, sorry for missing one! I think the idea was clear though.

Originally Posted by anappo

Yes. You said yourself - folks have no problem paying for content now. You thus accept that as per available evidence the piracy has insignificant effect on sales. Why should that change in the future? You are foreseeing some massive migration from legal content to the darknet? And the reason you suspect this will happen is that people will become more greedy? Or that they become less moral?

Or maybe it would change simply because peoples attitudes change. If people convince themselves it isn't wrong because digital media "should be free for everyone" then are they any more greedy?

Just to once again clarify, I see an increase in "file-sharing" for two reasons.
1: The availability and ease of use of torrent programs reducing the barrier to doing so. As more and more people learn to use these programs and the programs get better, it will become easier to torrent and therefore people are more likely to do so.
2: The attitude that everyone should have free and unlimited access to all digital media because digital media has "zero value" is gaining acceptence. If someone believes something has "zero value" they will be unwilling to pay anything for it. Not because they are greedy or immoral but simply because they think it has "zero value" and therefore they should have a right to access it for free.

Originally Posted by anappo

Or maybe it could happen because they will increasingly see the content industry as less moral? As long as the prevalent e-book business model is considered immoral, it will become increasingly difficult such businesses to claim moral high ground without people spitting in their general direction.

Which is why I have over and over stated that I do agree the industry needs to change. However, just because the publishing industry needs to change that does not mean that consumers attitudes don't also need to change.

Anyway, I'm done with discussing this issue because it seems now that I must simply repeat myself ad nauseum as you continually seem to disregard most of what I say in order to fixate on some specific point that you disagree with.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This has been my point about DRM all along: A method that does not inconvenience customers unduly, but still provides useful (though admittedly not perfect) security is possible. Dismissing DRM out of hand, because the present systems don't work well, is doing the idea a disservice.

That is false. It is not possible for DRM to provide useful security. The reason people dismiss DRM out of hand is because not only do the present systems not work well, but it is impossible for such a system to work. The whole idea of DRM was an invention of people who do not understand how cryptography works.

[Roseburst]

I wonder how much free/cheap ebooks can boost other book sales and author reputation? I notice many, but not all cheap ebooks do pretty well in material book format. Just a thought.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by anappo

The idea of DRM / copy protection of digital objects is -not- new. In software, many schemes have been tried. For 30+ years. If we had a solution that would be applicable on e-books, we'd tell you. Honest!

I'm just saying that doesn't make it impossible... just not done yet.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That is false. It is not possible for DRM to provide useful security. The reason people dismiss DRM out of hand is because not only do the present systems not work well, but it is impossible for such a system to work. The whole idea of DRM was an invention of people who do not understand how cryptography works.

A lot of people don't know how cryptography works. But companies like Adobe and Microsoft can demonstrate effective DRM systems every day, as well as the cable TV industry and your local supermarket. Remember, it doesn't have to be 100% perfect. It only has to make it more trouble than it is worth to break, for the majority of people (IOW, easier to just buy).

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A lot of people don't know how cryptography works. But companies like Adobe and Microsoft can demonstrate effective DRM systems every day, as well as the cable TV industry and your local supermarket. Remember, it doesn't have to be 100% perfect. It only has to make it more trouble than it is worth to break, for the majority of people (IOW, easier to just buy).

The essence of DRM is to give the customer access to the content without giving them access to the content.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A lot of people don't know how cryptography works. But companies like Adobe and Microsoft can demonstrate effective DRM systems every day, as well as the cable TV industry and your local supermarket. Remember, it doesn't have to be 100% perfect. It only has to make it more trouble than it is worth to break, for the majority of people (IOW, easier to just buy).

But the dedicated people who know how to break it, even if they end up being a tiny minority, can share the method (or pass on an "unlocked" version) with people everywhere instantly due to the presence of the internet. Right now, for example, cracked versions of popular software like Windows or Photoshop abound in p2p networks.

Originally Posted by Kirtai

The essence of DRM is to give the customer access to the content without giving them access to the content.

That sounds oddly Orwellian.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

That sounds oddly Orwellian.

Well, quite

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

...
Most stores don't strip-search people as they leave, but a lot of them have switched to magnetic strips in the boxes that will set off an alarm if they haven't been de-activated when leaving. This is done even though the VAST majority of customers are not thieves--it's accepted because the inconvenience really is minor....

But all stores remove the magnetic strips as soon as you purchase the item, and do not prevent the purchaser from handing the item down to their sibling, moving it to a different closet, or selling it on Ebay.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

... If publishers could find a way to prevent illegal torrent use without inconveniencing legal actions, that'd be great. (Nothing comes to mind off the top of my head.)

Hm, how about a winning combination of easy availability and reasonable (to the majority of the market) prices....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

That sounds oddly Orwellian.

Yes... it's doublespeak. Used to obscure the meaning of your words.

Let's be a bit clearer: DRM is designed to allow certain kinds of use of content, while restricting others. In the case of e-books, DRM is most often used to tie the content to a specific device, to prevent copying and dissemination of bootleg copies to other devices.

Certain other media and commercial organizations have demonstrated that this concept can be workable and acceptable to the majority of people, provided the incentives for being forthright outweigh the advantages of being criminal.

The better the incentives are, the less obtrusive DRM can be used, and the more acceptable it can be to all concerned.

The combination of acceptable DRM and acceptable incentives to abide by it have not yet been found in relation to e-books.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes... it's doublespeak. Used to obscure the meaning of your words.

No, it was intended to show that the aims are contradictory.

Let's be a bit clearer: DRM is designed to allow certain kinds of use of content, while restricting others. In the case of e-books, DRM is most often used to tie the content to a specific device, to prevent copying and dissemination of bootleg copies to other devices.

I'm well aware of what DRM is meant to do, I'm just saying it doesn't work.

The base problem with DRM is that it's either ineffective since having access to the content also means being able to break the DRM, or it's massively intrusive by requiring a complete, end-to-end secure connection on your computer controlled by many other people (all of the content owners).

Even the latter is not enough, people will be able to break or bypass it, if by no other means than the analogue hole. Check out http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkrpr/3403655734/ (originally from http://bkrpr.org/blog/?p=46). Yes, that's a camera being used to photograph an ebook on a bookreader in a manner suitable for OCR. Can you imagine a DRM system that could stop that? Or that maybe it'll become illegal to bring a camera into the presence of a media viewer?

Even though it may be difficult, it only has to be broken once by someone with the right skills or obsession and then it can be placed on the darknet and used by people without the technical skills to break it themselves.

Bear in mind I have no objection to artists being paid, indeed one of my earlier posts was asking you what you thought about a fixed fee for access to your works. I'm simply stating that naive technical restrictions are not the solution and legal ones are even worse.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A lot of people don't know how cryptography works.

Indeed. Are you aware though that a lot of people probably have long ago gotten the impression that you yourself are precisely in that category?

Your understanding of encryption, DRM, and copyright issues seems about as nuanced as the average Mobileread members' understanding of typography is. (Of course, the latter is far less likely to lead to embarrassment.)

You've obviously heard about it here and there, doubtless read about it many a times in ill-researched news articles... but (or perhaps because of this) you categorically refuse to stop mischaracterizing the issues, no matter how many times people explain to you (many of them far more politely and patiently than is warranted) why things aren't the way you imagine them to be.

- Ahi