Hachette UK asking writers to require DRM

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't care about DRM one way or the other. It doesn't affect my reading.

But what Hatchette wants will affect things big time if they get their way. So the answer is for Hatchette not to get what they want.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think the relationship is in the price. If people think they could easily get the book for free, they will feel like suckers to pay more than a low price

I think that's true for books that don't end up making a good impression (the old "I can't believe I paid good money for this" feeling). For good books, though, I think most readers want to reward the author and encourage further similar works. I would guess that those flogging crap are the ones most threatened by the rubes exercising "try-before-you-buy".

For works by dead authors, though, I think you're probably bang on.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But what Hatchette wants will affect things big time if they get their way. So the answer is for Hatchette not to get what they want.

It won't stop me from reading books. So I don't care what they do.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If DRM was more effective, perhaps Hatchette would feel comfortable licensing their eBooks to libraries.

If DRM were *capable* of being more effective, the digital marketplace would be very, very different.

DRM does not and *cannot* do what Hatchette and several other companies want it to do: restrict readers (or listeners, or watchers) to 1 person, or 1 family, per purchase. And the stricter the DRM, the more creative the evasions will be.

This starts with the obvious "scan the book & release the scans," which is what happens with books with no legit digital version. If there's enough interest, someone runs OCR on them. More interest than that, and the OCR text gets corrected, and maybe formatted into epub or mobi.

Also: If Hatchette were worried that DRM doesn't work well enough for libraries, why does it work well enough for their books for sale? It's not like the Overdrive DRM is easier to crack. Seems that their objection to libraries is based on unpaying readers having legitimate access, rather than worries about unauthorized unpaying readers... because they get plenty of those from their books for sale. Do they really think people who borrowed a library book are more likely to crack and distribute than people who bought it?

This is nothing more than an attempt to force authors into a single business model, so they can continue to blame "piracy" for their failure to adapt to the modern market.

I do hope authors are watching out for this clause in upcoming contracts, because it's the kind of thing that can destroy an author's career. Hatchette, of course, doesn't mind at all if an author can't sell their backlist on Smashwords and can't sell the movie rights because they can't guarantee the movie will be released with DRM.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I do hope authors are watching out for this clause in upcoming contracts, because it's the kind of thing that can destroy an author's career. Hatchette, of course, doesn't mind at all if an author can't sell their backlist on Smashwords and can't sell the movie rights because they can't guarantee the movie will be released with DRM.

On that note, there's still a surprising number of authors who feel that the ultimate goal is to be published by a Big Six company, and probably will fall for it. These would be the same people who claim to not like Smashwords because (they claim) they can't revoke Smashwords' non-exclusive license.

[Josieb1]

I read in a small genre that has a lot of small independent publishers that sell ebooks, I have bought books from nearly 20 separate sources and the only one of those that uses DRM is Amazon. As a result less than 1% off my ebooks come from Amazon, and most of those were free. With the independent publishers most of them also offer me ePub, PDF and mobi files for the books I buy.

By choice I Never buy a DRM book.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

This starts with the obvious "scan the book & release the scans," which is what happens with books with no legit digital version. If there's enough interest, someone runs OCR on them. More interest than that, and the OCR text gets corrected, and maybe formatted into epub or mobi.

Then there will be a bunch of different versions floating around, some with a good proofreading job, and some with a bad, and it will be hard to know which to trust. OCR-scan based piracy means less piracy.

Do they really think people who borrowed a library book are more likely to crack and distribute than people who bought it?

I don't know what they think. Maybe they have a variety of views. But I think it. People who paid good money for the book are going to be more likely to think others should also pay. (It's true that library borrowers did pay for the book, through their taxes. But some forget that.)

Hatchette, of course, doesn't mind at all if an author can't sell their backlist on Smashwords and can't sell the movie rights because they can't guarantee the movie will be released with DRM.

You really think they will stop their books from being made into movies? I don't. If that's what the contract says, it is mistaken and can be changed or ignored.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I do hope authors are watching out for this clause in upcoming contracts, because it's the kind of thing that can destroy an author's career. Hatchette, of course, doesn't mind at all if an author can't sell their backlist on Smashwords and can't sell the movie rights because they can't guarantee the movie will be released with DRM.

As it turns out, movies *are* DRM'ed. Going into theaters, on DVD, on Blu-Ray, on Ultraviolet, everywhere...

But yes, authors *are* being warned and as pointed out above some agents are not sending manuscripts to Hachette over the clause.

[din155]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then there will be a bunch of different versions floating around, some with a good proofreading job, and some with a bad, and it will be hard to know which to trust. OCR-scan based piracy means less piracy.

Isn't it a better approach to curb piracy? Float many versions of the same book in dark net and cry out loud saying the surest way to get the real book is to shop from us or the retailers rather than pirating. Might work better than DRM :-)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't know what they think. Maybe they have a variety of views. But I think it. People who paid good money for the book are going to be more likely to think others should also pay.

I don't. I remember all the books I borrowed from friends as a teenager, all my time as a starving college student when someone gave me the book they were done reading, and I think I have an obligation to pay that forward--to share the books I buy, now that I'm the one with disposable income.

I grew up on secondhand books. I don't buy as many ebooks as I could because I can't share them; it feels very selfish to buy a book that I'm just going to throw away when I'm done.

Library books, however... if I borrowed it from a legit source, so can someone else. I don't feel like I'm being wasteful by not sharing it; someone else is taking care of that part for me.

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think the relationship is in the price. If people think they could easily get the book for free, they will feel like suckers to pay more than a low price.

Never felt that way myself but I guess it's possible.
What definitely makes me less likely to pay full retail price however is DRM. Not so much for e-books, because it's laughably easy to circumvent, but certainly for games.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I am all for DRM. I realize it is a low fence, and that millions of people around the world jump over fences, whether digital or physical, every day.

More like one person removes the fence, and then millions of people walk back and forth without caring that there used to be a fence there. However, the actual paying customers keep tripping over it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then there will be a bunch of different versions floating around, some with a good proofreading job, and some with a bad, and it will be hard to know which to trust. OCR-scan based piracy means less piracy.

It gets especially confusing when the OCR-scan with bad proofreading is the official version, and the higher quality copies are the pirated ones.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It gets especially confusing when the OCR-scan with bad proofreading is the official version, and the higher quality copies are the pirated ones.

Which is often enough the ugly truth.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It gets especially confusing when the OCR-scan with bad proofreading is the official version, and the higher quality copies are the pirated ones.

One thing that happens is errors in the official version get fixed and the fixed version then gets rereleased for free downloading.