Arguments For And Against DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

I am interested in how watermarking works and what makes it so difficult to remove.

Watermarking involves incorporating data which identifies the purchaser into the actual book. There are lots of ways that this can be done, and effective watermarking generally involves inserting the information in multiple forms and places. Some of them will be visible - others, not.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

In any case, before I talk to any of the publishers, I need to be convinced whether to use DRM or not. . . . What do you think?

The problem is that, I suspect, you have no data as to what the effect is on sales.

If I was a business person at the publisher, I would want to try multiple schemes to get numbers on what works.

Now, authors may not want to have their books be randomly selected for experimentation. Also, I'm guessing that the ratio of eBook to paper, in indic books, is low, so it will be hard to see how changes in retailing of one type of book affects the other. So getting the data will be challenging. But I can't see basing these kind of decisions, in the long-term, on something other than numbers.

You could go by the idea that the world's biggest English language publishers must have already done studies on this, so we can just follow their lead. This might mean to DRM everything except books that appeal to readers with technical knowledge (computer books and science fiction). However, there could be cultural factors so that what works with English language books is not best for yours.

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Watermarking involves incorporating data which identifies the purchaser into the actual book. There are lots of ways that this can be done, and effective watermarking generally involves inserting the information in multiple forms and places. Some of them will be visible - others, not.

Aaah. You're right HarryT. Commented without knowing the details of watermarking. My bad. Will research watermarking.

@SteveEisenberg:

You're absolutely right on all counts. The ratio of eBook to paper isn't low, its non existent. Well infinitessimally small anyway; I've only found around 100 - 200 ebooks being retailed online and most of those are out of copyright anyway.

Taking the lead from leading global ebook publishers and distributors, it would seem that some form of DRM (=encryption?) needs to be present to satisfy the publisher.

Found this interesting article from 2013 about TOR Books UK going DRM free and finding no discernible increase in piracy. Not sure how relevant or important this is.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The problem is that, I suspect, you have no data as to what the effect is on sales.

Such data doesn't really exist--no matter which side of the argument one comes down on. No one can know what they can't know. We have publishers who believe DRM is absolutely necessary to protect sales and we have publishers whose data seems to support the idea that going DRM-free has not harmed their "overall sales" (compared to an imaginary number that they believe their current sales should be comparable to).

But that data, and that data's "effect on sales" isn't as relevant as many would have us to believe. If there are enough sales, then there are enough sales. That's the salient point. Piracy numbers are irrelevant to whether or not your (the publisher's) book(s) are generating enough sales to be sustainable.

The only real quantifiable data concerning DRM's effect on the industry is the fact that it costs money/resources to add and/or license it. And the fact that it (the encryption kind that restricts the customer's use of the file) pisses some (potential) customers off and inconveniences them. The rest is conjecture that we can't know (until we see if the industry can indeed continue without it--just as it did with other industries who were entirely convinced it couldn't possibly).

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But that data, and that data's "effect on sales" isn't as relevant as many would have us to believe. If there are enough sales, then there are enough sales. That's the salient point. Piracy numbers are irrelevant to whether or not your (the publisher's) book(s) are generating enough sales to be sustainable.

...And that's a solid argument. Cuts right through the bullpoop about sales lost due to piracy.

Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder how many people would actually purchase an ebook if they couldn't find it on their favourite pirate site? I don't have any data to back this up but I have a feeling the answer is "not many" because most people who download pirated material do it because they don't want to spend money on buying it. At least, thats what I think.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

...And that's a solid argument. Cuts right through the bullpoop about sales lost due to piracy.

Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder how many people would actually purchase an ebook if they couldn't find it on their favourite pirate site? I don't have any data to back this up but I have a feeling the answer is "not many" because most people who download pirated material do it because they don't want to spend money on buying it. At least, thats what I think.

I happen to agree with you ... but that's unknowable, too (as well as being unavoidable--with or without DRM).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder how many people would actually purchase an ebook if they couldn't find it on their favourite pirate site? I don't have any data to back this up but I have a feeling the answer is "not many" because most people who download pirated material do it because they don't want to spend money on buying it. At least, thats what I think.

But, on the other hand, if unobtrusive DRM (such as watermarking) discourages people from giving copies of books to other people, that could very well increase sales.

It's an inherently "unknowable" situation. You can never know what the effect of making a decision other than the one you did make would have been.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On the contrary: watermarking is, I would argue, much more effective at preventing piracy than encryption is. It's trivially simply to remove most common forms of encryption DRM; watermarks are not at all easy to remove.

I don't like watermarking either. It's still saying : you're a thief.
NOPE : I'm a paying customer !

DRM, only for actual lending, period.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

I don't like watermarking either. It's still saying : you're a thief.
NOPE : I'm a paying customer !

It has no effect on you, as an honest customer; it only affects people who are thieves. It's not saying that you're a thief. It doesn't prevent you from doing anything with your book that you may legally wish to do with it. It does, however, discourage dishonest people from sharing it with 10,000 of their closest friends on the Internet.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But it's very useful for libraries. Few publishers would allow books to be lent by libraries without time-limiting DRM.

That's a false sense of security because it relies on the honor system to delete any files you have on your devices. For example, I can borrow an audiobook from my library and load it on to my Sansa Clip Zip. At the end of the loan period, that copy of the book is freed so someone else can borrow it. Meanwhile, I still have a completely intact copy of that book sitting on my Clip Zip. I can listen to it any time I want; in effect, I now own that book.

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I happen to agree with you ... but that's unknowable, too (as well as being unavoidable--with or without DRM).

Perhaps someone should do an anonymous poll on the popular download sites! (Pardon me; just being a little facetious!)

I agree with HarryT. Watermarking does not make you a thief. The thief is the person who downloads that book without paying for it. By the by, the person who downloads copyrighted content without paying for it may be a thief; what is the person who uploaded the book in the first place guilty of? I'm sure there's a perfectly obvious answer... just that I don't know what it is!

Thank you to all who took the time to share their opinions; would definitely like to get some more perspectives, though. No end to broadening one's horizons and all that...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

I don't like watermarking either. It's still saying : you're a thief.
NOPE : I'm a paying customer !

DRM, only for actual lending, period.

In principle, I agree with you. In practice ... I only really care about my ability to purchase, format-shift, archive, and read on a device of my choice without hindrance (or flirting with laws depending on location and interpretation). So I'll take watermarking over encryption any day of the week--and twice on Sundays.

[Catlady]

DRM potentially inconveniences paying customers but does not stop piracy. So just what is the upside for authors and publishers?

As far as libraries go, that DRM doesn't stop piracy either.

Here's a question: If the same book were offered for sale with DRM a certain price, and without DRM for a slightly higher price, would you pay extra for the non-DRM book? I would pay a reasonable premium, just for the convenience.

[Nabodita]

Perhaps like tubemonkey says, DRM only gives publishers (and authors) a false sense of security. They have no means of knowing whether DRM has actually converted an illegal download into a sale. They also have no means of knowing if customers are buying a particular book because they had already downloaded and read a copy and liked it.

Piracy exists. Thats a fact. Perhaps publishers need to figure out how to use that to their own advantage.

By the way, I notice no one's got anything to say in favour of DRM...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

As far as libraries go, that DRM doesn't stop piracy either.

Nobody's claiming that it stops piracy, but it certainly discourages piracy. Having a lock on the door of your house won't stop a dedicated thief from breaking in, but it is a sign to the honest passer-by that it's not OK to just wander in and take stuff.