O'Reilly is a perfect example of why DRM is useless.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It was stated a little oddly, but I think the point they were trying to make is that the lack of DRM on the digital version doesn't really make any difference, because most of the pirate copies come from the physical version of their books.

I think the point was "either physical versions or insider leaks, not customer-purchased digital files." Even if DRM were entirely effective, it couldn't prevent someone on the editing staff from releasing the final, internal ready-for-print version to the internet.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kjk

There is even an O'Reilly book on the subject:
Impact of P2P and Free Distribution on Book Sales
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596157876/

99 American squiggles for an ebook?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

99 American squiggles for an ebook?

For reports from studies, they're often crazy expensive like that. Actually seems to be on the cheap end. I've seen a few that ran a few thousand.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

For reports from studies, they're often crazy expensive like that. Actually seems to be on the cheap end. I've seen a few that ran a few thousand.

True. If you think this is exy, you should look at the prices of Forrester Research reports ...

[fafaforza]

I think Zorz's point was that you don't really see epub/mobi files that one buys from Sony/Amazon/etc uploaded to TPB and other sites. O'Reilly books, in general, have been out there for ages.

I don't think that O'Reilly is proving that people would be honest and buy the book instead of getting it free. Just recently, a few game publishers released numbers showing that 90% of people playing their game didn't pay for it.

I think the lack of "actual" ebook files on torrent sites can be attributed to the the fact that most young people and techies either don't go for an eInk device because they don't read, or prefer an iPad type device. And for a techie, reading technical books on an eInk device isn't optimal as pages refer to graphs one or more pages away, to config file lines and code spanning multiple pages, etc.

So instead, the PDF is downloaded and read on an LCD where jumping between pages is quicker, though still not as good as the real thing.

I also think that people that have eInk devices now are probably overall honest and want to see the industry and tech grow. And uploading the files would damage that.

And besides, why would you make available for free something you paid for.

But as these devices get cheaper and more people get them, there might be more of this happening. Though keep in mind that people that pick up a book in the first place, real or eInk, are probably more honest, and mindful of people's effort than a kid ripping off a CD or a video game.

Just my thought on this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by fafaforza

I don't think that O'Reilly is proving that people would be honest and buy the book instead of getting it free. Just recently, a few game publishers released numbers showing that 90% of people playing their game didn't pay for it.

How many people who play Monopoly own the game? How many bought it new? Usually, there's only one copy per family, and often, that copy was bought at a yard sale. Most games have many many more players than owners, and it's always been customary to hand on a used games to someone new.

I know there's differences with digital files, especially with games that take server space to run. But game companies, like publishers, are going to have to deal with the fact of centuries of inertia behind the concept of "share your copy with someone who can't afford it right now." Attempts to end that concept are just not going to work; they need to find a way to allow it, and limit it in some way that encourages purchases without squashing interest.

I also think that people that have eInk devices now are probably overall honest and want to see the industry and tech grow. And uploading the files would damage that.

I think most people are honest and don't want to destroy the publishing or gaming industries; the file-sharers are trying to find a digital answer to the age-old social practice of *share your good finds with your friends*. Or with not-friends; people bring chess sets to public parks to play with strangers.

And besides, why would you make available for free something you paid for.

For the same reasons that you'd loan your book to a friend instead of saying "I bought it--if you want to read it, you can buy it too, or go without."

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by fafaforza

Just recently, a few game publishers released numbers showing that 90% of people playing their game didn't pay for it.

You believe them?

They're probably getting those numbers from the same place that the RIAA gets theirs about losing 10 billion a year.