Social DRM Take 2

[igorsk]

Hmm I don't see such text in my EPUB files. Where exactly was it?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

So many points... so little time. So, from the top:

Originally Posted by Format C:

You're right 100%.
But I see thousands of people actually getting them for free, not crying.

Of course they're not crying... they're not getting caught.

Originally Posted by Format C:

And I see also that there's no way to stop them without hurting democracy.
And honestly, that's what I fear most.

If I walk into a department store and load up on clothes and other goodies, I can't just walk out with them. I am watched by cameras, there are plainclothes security personnel watching me, and a product-tag detector at the door, making sure I do not leave without paying. If I pay with a credit card, the cashier will ask to see verifiable ID before accepting my card. And if I decide not to pay... I can walk out, with no fear of reprisal from any of those elements.

By most of the definitions of a pirate, this is "hurting democracy." By my definition, it is smart business sense, and not hurting anyone or anything, especially democracy.

All we're talking about is controls to keep people from being ripped off. We're not talking about nuking the world over a stray e-book.

Originally Posted by Format C:

1. There has to be a limit to the earnings for the single author/creator
2. Every user of the content have to pay for access that content
3. Electronic digital editions cannot be paid per copy; hardcopies (CD, DVD, pbook, LP, whatever...) can be sold like they are now.

In order for #1 and #2 to work, you might as well disconnect the author from the payments, and just give him a set grant up-front for producing a book. This is because people will always be upset if they were among the ones who had to pay for a book, but at a certain point, others behind them got it for free. So the government is likely paying them a set amount, and taking it out of the entire population (including those who did not read it) through taxes. Making someone pay for something they did not read is not as fair as making those who read it pay for it.

I'm not personally opposed to a grant system. But I wouldn't want to be part of the group having to decide what the proper grant payment should be...

Regarding #3, there are actually a number of software vendors that have made pay-per-copy work... Microsoft and Adobe, for instance. I'm not saying every manufacturer should follow their model... just that there are ways to do it, it's not impossible. And if consumers refuse to pay for the things they get, we're likely to see one of them applied to everything by producers who do not want to be ripped off... or we'll see a loss of content. So it's up to consumers to "do the right thing," and secure the products they want the way they want them.

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, and I have as a goal to get money without working but how is this relevant? A lot if not most of great literature has been produced without money stimulation. So why do you believe that control through market is best for producing great literature? The thing I object to is your assumption that there is only one solution and then you build that into the goal and claim that this is the goal some entity have.

You are quite literally thinking of another century... where the population of this planet numbered in the millions, not billions, and it was a lot easier to live well by your own means (farm, steal, mooch or panhandle), and not depend on others' resources to help you get by. That world is not relevant. I can only say that "writing for nothing" is simply not realistic for the majority of the population anymore. That ship has sailed, too late to swim for it. Now boarding: The 21st Century limited. All aboard.

Originally Posted by tompe

Fairness have never been the goal at least not for copyright. But who are these entities you are talking about that have this fairness goal?

Fairness to the creator was the sole original goal of copyright. Period. That fairness was engineered so that creators would not be afraid to create, and so you could benefit from their creations... so it's fair to you, too. Tompe, until you can explain to me how it is fair to ME to create something with zero compensation, and let anyone enjoy the fruits of my labors without paying me for them, we can move past this fairness discussion.

Originally Posted by Barcey

I agree. The goal of the digital rights management should be to identify if it's a legal copy or not.

Well, no... there's no point in doing that if there is no way to take action. DRM's only purpose is to guarantee payment for/prevent theft of a product.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not talking about paying up front. I'm talking about reading so much of the book and then having to pay to unlock the rest of it.

Sorry, I didn't see where that was implied by the earlier post. Of course, if you know when you get the book that you'll have to pay to finish it, it's of no consequence... only if you are fooled into thinking it's free, then finding out later you'll have to pay to finish, is it "bad form."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You are quite literally thinking of another century... where the population of this planet numbered in the millions, not billions, and it was a lot easier to live well by your own means (farm, steal, mooch or panhandle), and not depend on others' resources to help you get by. That world is not relevant. I can only say that "writing for nothing" is simply not realistic for the majority of the population anymore. That ship has sailed, too late to swim for it. Now boarding: The 21st Century limited. All aboard.

As was pointed out in another thread, most authors now aday have another day job. They do not depend on the income from writing to survive or to live.

[tompe]

Regarding goal of copyright see for example

http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php

The core purpose of copyright law is not difficult to find; it is stated expressly in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Nothing about fairness here.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

As was pointed out in another thread, most authors now aday have another day job. They do not depend on the income from writing to survive or to live.

You're right... so many of them write, and offer their works for others to read, out of the goodness of their hearts. And you want to repay their kindness by not giving them anything for their labors? Not even so much as a "Thank you, sucker?" How fair is that?

Do I have a right to tell you how much money you have a right to earn in your job (assuming you have one), or in your life? Then exactly what gives you the right to tell me what I have a right to earn?

It's also been pointed out that most of us do not read from "most authors"... we tend to read from those few who have publishers... the ones who are generally considered "good." If those people, who wish to get paid for their work, stop writing, think about what readers are left with. In other words, your plan would only lower the overall quality of available writing.

And there's too much drek out there now.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're right... so many of them write, and offer their works for others to read, out of the goodness of their hearts. And you want to repay their kindness by not giving them anything for their labors? Not even so much as a "Thank you, sucker?" How fair is that?

I have never said that. But what has that to do with if some entity that you still have not specified has fairness as a goal?

Do I have a right to tell you how much money you have a right to earn in your job (assuming you have one), or in your life? Then exactly what gives you the right to tell me what I have a right to earn?

What has this to do with the discussion. It is you that want somebody to have the right to tell people how much they have a right to earn since you seem to want some external entity that enforces fairness.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by tompe

As was pointed out in another thread, most authors now aday have another day job. They do not depend on the income from writing to survive or to live.

Speaking as an author with a day job, I'd rather write for a living. I'd certainly have more time to write if I didn't have to work--and therefore produce more.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Nothing about fairness here.

Don't just quote it... Read it. What's the point of securing exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries? So that they can gain due compensation for their efforts, to make them willing to produce for others... that's the fair part. That's why it was written, and there is no other conceivable reason to write it if it is not to establish fair compensation for the creator. (For the record, "fair" means "not taken advantage of.")

Unless, of course, you're assuming the quote was written specifically to allow the Bill Gateses of the world to steal all the money on the planet, and rule over the rest of us with an iron fist and a buggy computer...

(sigh) I grow weary of this incessant wordplay, not to mention the clear implication that I'm a greedy, capitalist baby-eater with delusions of grandeur because I believe in neanderthal concepts like money. Let's cut to the chase, Tompe: Do I, as a creator, deserve to be paid what I ask for my creations?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If I walk into a department store and load up on clothes and other goodies, I can't just walk out with them. I am watched by cameras, there are plainclothes security personnel watching me, and a product-tag detector at the door, making sure I do not leave without paying. If I pay with a credit card, the cashier will ask to see verifiable ID before accepting my card. And if I decide not to pay... I can walk out, with no fear of reprisal from any of those elements.

Steve, you know the difference between steal REAL goods and make electronic copies of files, come on!
I'm the first to put in jail thieves!!!!

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

By most of the definitions of a pirate, this is "hurting democracy." By my definition, it is smart business sense, and not hurting anyone or anything, especially democracy.

All we're talking about is controls to keep people from being ripped off. We're not talking about nuking the world over a stray e-book.

The only way to definitely stop what you call "piracy" and what millions of people call "fair use" [and what I call strife of greeds] is to have an Authority knowing and controlling what everybody reads, watches and listens. And even if it's done with the best of non invasive DRM and with the purest of intentions, it's a damage for democracy, however you call it.

"fair" is a two-sided word. And from my point of view, to make it work one way is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In order for #1 and #2 to work, you might as well disconnect the author from the payments, and just give him a set grant up-front for producing a book. This is because people will always be upset if they were among the ones who had to pay for a book, but at a certain point, others behind them got it for free. So the government is likely paying them a set amount, and taking it out of the entire population (including those who did not read it) through taxes. Making someone pay for something they did not read is not as fair as making those who read it pay for it.

I'm not personally opposed to a grant system. But I wouldn't want to be part of the group having to decide what the proper grant payment should be...

I can.
I have actual numbers in mind.
I know how much make people pay, and how much authors get.
Of course, it all can work only with a tracking system that can count (anonymously) the number of different users accessing content (no longer "buying books", in case of digital editions, accessing content is the key).

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Regarding #3, there are actually a number of software vendors that have made pay-per-copy work... Microsoft and Adobe, for instance. I'm not saying every manufacturer should follow their model... just that there are ways to do it, it's not impossible. And if consumers refuse to pay for the things they get, we're likely to see one of them applied to everything by producers who do not want to be ripped off... or we'll see a loss of content. So it's up to consumers to "do the right thing," and secure the products they want the way they want them.

In my country, about 70% of MS Office instances are pirated, and I suspect with Photoshop is even worse.
How do you get them without breaking democracy rules? You cannot search homes without a good reason, and "he bought a PC" is not good enough.... You cannot even send trojans in private computers to search for cracked software...
I don't call it a system that works well...

And it's really really UNfair to make people pay per-copy when a copy doesn't have a cost and an actual value, like the case of ebooks.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, no... there's no point in doing that if there is no way to take action. DRM's only purpose is to guarantee payment for/prevent theft of a product.

I don't think DRM's purpose is to prevent theft. It'd be the biggest failure in History of mankind.
First of all, because "copy" is not "steal".

But let's pass on it, and let's call "extorsion" the demand to be paid. Or, at least I'll do: I put myself in a neutral position between authors and pirates, so I use the words: "use" and "remuneration" or "theft" and "extorsion", just to be honest.
OK, I know. By now the Law is with authors, but laws are not "fair" by definition....

We're all on the same side, according to two basic principles:

1. Authors HAVE to be remunerated for their work and ideas, and proportionally to their skill
2. People HAVE the right to read everything, without censorship (at least for adults), and regardless for their wealth.

Present system (the same since XVIII century) have long proved to be inefficient with the new technologies.
And I suppose you too agree with it.

You sell books for 2$ each.
But will you be happy if Donald Trump pays 200$ for his copy and 98 schoolboys share other 98 copies over P2P networks?

I suppose you are.

The kids put some work in the copy process, you didn't. Will you pay them, for their work?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, if is is a mobipocket file it is not very easy at least and most people will not do it. I thinks also that this method is aimed at people giving away copies to a limited group of people.

I assume you mean a DRMed mobipocket file? Doesn't that make this a moot point. If there is DRM then you don't need "social" DRM.

BOb

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Political speeches (only slightly here) are being preserved by many entities, and if you want archives of them, you can get them from sources other than YouTube.

If you take your own camera to the debate, you will be arrested & beaten.

Every source that does have video DRMs it, preventing us from recording it. It's available (in an edited form) via the cable company's "on demand" but that is protected by the broadcast flag.

The sources that are there depend on the FCC & the politicians good graces for their survival, so when a politician tells them to kill a video, they will.

There are no sources for archiving the 2008 US election. Big brother has won.

Andy Out!

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by sianon

Bob, I have no idea how to edit it out of the file and nor would a lot of users. It stops as much illegal copying as more intrusive DRM. The people who will illegally distribute content will do so regardless of what DRM is used. This method at least does not inconvenience the honest user.

Karen

I agree with you. But, it also doesn't do anything to stop a hacker from "sharing" the file sans the name in it.

My point is, DRM doesn't work. So, I was proposing an "alternative" to DRM which would try to raise the awareness. As Steve Jordan said, the Copyright notice does that... however, it is not in your face nor does it require any type of acknowledgment that you have read it and agree to it. Even if my idea is a "token" accepetence it would be non-obtrusive, each to implement, good for the customer.

There have been several apps that I have downloaded, thinking they were free, and when the installer presented it's "This is NOT free software, you can try it for 30 days"... etc. I did not install it and went elsewhere. Or, I knew if I really wanted it that I would have to buy it.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Steve, you know the difference between steal REAL goods and make electronic copies of files, come on!

That is the million dollar problem, in a nutshell: Until a consensus is reached regarding the status of electronic files, i.e., whether they can be considered "goods of worth," "completely worthless," or something else altogether, much of the debate over the issue of copying-versus-stealing is... well, not quite pointless, but certainly premature (and possibly counter-productive, as the debate only seems to bring out angst and frustration in those who discuss it).

I maintain that any and all electronic versions of one of my books, for instance, have a net worth, set by me. The ease of production has absolutely no bearing on the cost, because the value is not in the production... the value is in the literature, and I have the right to choose what value to place on my literature.

If someone wants to obtain a copy of that book, they are obligated to pay me the price I set for that book. If they do not want to pay that price, they are within their rights to try to bargain a new price with me, or they can walk away and not make the purchase. They are not within their rights to take it and not pay me, especially since the book is not a commodity that they can claim to require. This is how goods have been traded for the past few thousand years, on every continent on the planet, and electronic or not, I see no reason why the practice cannot continue unchanged.

The issue of making copies of files you already own, for your own use, is a separate one, and one I personally don't have problems with. I restrict my considerations to obtaining copies of documents you do not already own, and whether a creator deserves payment for that file.

Originally Posted by Format C:

The only way to definitely stop what you call "piracy" and what millions of people call "fair use" [and what I call strife of greeds] is to have an Authority knowing and controlling what everybody reads, watches and listens. And even if it's done with the best of non invasive DRM and with the purest of intentions, it's a damage for democracy, however you call it.

You're right... I would not call that "damaging democracy"... I'd call it "testing democracy." One of the powers of democracy is that it is designed to be malleable and self-correcting as the world changes around it (pending proper public participation in the system, of course). You can argue that we have such an authority over what we see and hear already... and we haven't devolved to anarchy.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The ease of production has absolutely no bearing on the cost, because the value is not in the production... the value is in the literature, and I have the right to choose what value to place on my literature.

Well, that's a bit wrong. You can set a "price" at which you want to sell your IP.... however it's value is technically what the market will bear. If you set the price at $300 a copy, that's not it's value if no one buys it.

The cost of your producing the book minus the revenue you get from selling it is your profit. Of course the US government as far as I know puts no value on the time that went into creating your book since you can't expense it. Unless I did something wrong... I reported the royalty checks from my publisher however I wasn't able to deduct my expenses (time spent researching/writing/editing) the book. However, I was able to deduct the expenses to provide the office, pay for software, paper, etc.

BOb


EDIT: I always laugh at those TV commercials where they say, "ALL THIS (stuff thrown in with the sale) FOR $19.99... That's a $200 'value'" Wait, no it's not. If I can get if for $19.99 then it's value is $19.99.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, no... there's no point in doing that if there is no way to take action. DRM's only purpose is to guarantee payment for/prevent theft of a product.

Alas the heart of our difference of opinion. There are no guarantees in life. Technology can't guarantee payment or prevent theft, laws can't guarantee it and the government can't.

If it's socially acceptable to steal something then no technology or law can enforce it. The idea of social DRM is to influence people socially to respect the copyright. Today when people don't respect the draconian DRM technology they are Robin Hood.