Arguments For And Against DRM

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

That's actually an interesting argument. And I can understand how watermarking would be similar to putting a lock on your door. But how do you justify DRM that prevents you from transfering your purchases across devices or prevents you from storing it on a media of your choice? Thats like putting a lock on your door that even you can't open...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

To a point. I can steal an audiobook from the library by "forgetting" to delete the files on my MP3 player at the end of the loan period. Not only did DRM fail to protect the book, but it didn't require me to jump through any hoops to keep it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

The honest passerby isn't going to wander in and take stuff, regardless, and doesn't have the right to, whether or not there's a lock.

DRM isn't protecting the library book any more than it protects any other book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The honest passerby isn't going to wander in and take stuff, regardless, and doesn't have the right to, whether or not there's a lock.

DRM isn't protecting the library book any more than it protects any other book.

We must agree to differ. I firmly believe that library DRM is both necessary and useful.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

That's actually an interesting argument. And I can understand how watermarking would be similar to putting a lock on your door. But how do you justify DRM that prevents you from transfering your purchases across devices or prevents you from storing it on a media of your choice? Thats like putting a lock on your door that even you can't open...

I don't justify it - I don't like it at all.

However, given a choice between an ebook with encryption-based DRM, and no ebook at all, I'll take the ebook with DRM, thank you very much. Some publishers - regardless of how misguided they are in their belief - simply will not publish ebooks without DRM.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We must agree to differ. I firmly believe that library DRM is both necessary and useful.

It's necessary only because publisher's require it.

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given a choice between an ebook with encryption-based DRM, and no ebook at all, I'll take the ebook with DRM.

The context in which I'm looking at this is somewhat off topic but...

I would also choose the DRM-ed ebook over none at all; I can't help but wonder though... what happens when it comes down to a choice of DRM-ed ebook versus no ebook vs pirated ebook? For some people, the willingness to pay for an ebook may be over-ridden by the convenience of simply downloading a DRM stripped file.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

The context in which I'm looking at this is somewhat off topic but...

I would also choose the DRM-ed ebook over none at all; I can't help but wonder though... what happens when it comes down to a choice of DRM-ed ebook versus no ebook vs pirated ebook? For some people, the willingness to pay for an ebook may be over-ridden by the convenience of simply downloading a DRM stripped file.

I'm not a thief. I can't put myself into the mindset of people who are.

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not a thief. I can't put myself into the mindset of people who are.

Woah! Lighten up. Debating a point does not imply that you subscribe to everything that is said. But you do discuss different viewpoints. Thats the point of a debate.

[Marbles]

I can live with DRM'd books but what I don't like is the fact that many publishers are now putting on DRM that only allows the book to be placed on say a Kobo ereader or a Kindle. You therefore have to either read on a tablet where you can get the app or you must purchase the appropriate ereader. I have noticed this alot with Kobo lately

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

It do have an effect. I feel annoyed that the publisher consider me as dishonest, when i'm not.
Not a nice thing to tell your customers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

It do have an effect. I feel annoyed that the publisher consider me as dishonest, when i'm not.
Not a nice thing to tell your customers.

Unfortunately it's the minority of thieving scumbags who make it necessary. If everyone was as honest as you, there would be no need for DRM. Blame the thieves, not the publisher.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

Which sort of brings me back to the original question... Does DRM actually have any utility? Because as far as I know, there isn't any method of protection out there that is 100% unbreakable. Its just more difficult or less difficult for a determined individual to break it.

Does it have to be 100% effective to be useful? No. It only has to generate more additional income that it costs. If we accept the claim that piracy costs billions a year (it doesn't), then DRM that reduces it by 10% (it doesn't) would produce hundreds of millions a year in additional income (it doesn't). If it costs less than that (it does), it's a net gain, and as far as the publishers are concerned, it is useful.

The implication that it has to be 100% effective to be useful is a straw man.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

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

I'm wondering if you lock your door when you're away from home. Because if you do, by your logic, you are accusing all your neighbors of being thieves, aren't you?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The honest passerby isn't going to wander in and take stuff, regardless, and doesn't have the right to, whether or not there's a lock.

There are centuries of crime statistics that suggest otherwise. There are people who are never going to steal anything, ever, under any circumstances. And there are people who are never going to do an honest day's work in their lives, ever, under any circumstances. And there are a lot more in the middle, who will not pass up a crime of opportunity if they get the chance, with infinite shades of gray along the way. Some will steal small things if they know they won't get caught - who hasn't swiped a pen or pad of Post-Its from work? - but would turn a wallet found on the street in to the police. And others who would turn in the wallet (and credit cards) after taking all the cash out of it, and claim they found it that way. And others who would keep the wallet, use the credit cards, and use the driver's license to write bad checks.

Human behavior is a continuous spectrum, not a binary equation. Everybody has some slight trace of dishonesty in them, and everybody has some trace of nobility and altruism in them. That's human nature.

The aim of DRM isn't to stop all piracy, it's to reduce it. Reducing it even a small amount can involved big dollars. That reducing piracy isn't the same thing as increasing sales is a point missed by a lot of publishers, but their logic is internally consistent, even if it is beside the point.