Are DRM infections dying out?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Very good. Of course, I never have to worry since I neither share nor lend.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
Take all the gifts that you can get.
Steal what isn't free."

Or, to put it another way:

A Yorkshireman's advice to his son
Eat all, drink all, pay nowt
See all, hear all, say nowt
And if ever tha does owt for nowt, allus do it for thisen

My dad, a proud Yorkshireman, gave a mug to my uncle, an equally proud Devonian, with that poem on it. My uncle used it until the day he died.

[rkw]

By dropping DRM wouldn't publishers actually increase profit per copy sold? They're still charging the same price for the book only they're not paying the per copy licensing fees for the DRM itself.

To my mind it's that's simple. Decrease overhead equals higher profit per copy. It seems that basic to me.

Yeah I'm aware of all the arguments for the pro DRM camp. But those of been discussed often around here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkw

By dropping DRM wouldn't publishers actually increase profit per copy sold? They're still charging the same price for the book only they're not paying the per copy licensing fees for the DRM itself.

Amazon don't charge for DRM; they own the DRM system.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Amazon don't charge for DRM; they own the DRM system.

That's an extra 2-20% profit per ebook right there.

[fjtorres]

Re: music industry revenue streams:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...259031536.html

Georgia singer/songwriter Corey Smith has never had a traditional record contract, but in 2008 he grossed about $4 million from touring, merchandise and other revenue, yielding roughly $2 million that was reinvested in the singer's business, according to his manager, Marty Winsch. Mr. Smith makes his recordings downloadable at no cost from his website, and Mr. Winsch emphasizes that they are promotion for his live shows, not the other way around. "We don't look at it as 'free,' " he says. "When people come to the website and download the music, they're giving us their time, their most valuable commodity."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That's an extra 2-20% profit per ebook right there.

Yep. If you're selling a book for 99c and get 70% of the selling price, the 22c that an ADE bookstore charge for DRM would cut your income from 70c to 48c; a reduction of 31%.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Amazon don't charge for DRM; they own the DRM system.

Very true. I neglected to include that in my thought process. However that's not the case with Adobe's DRM correct?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkw

Very true. I neglected to include that in my thought process. However that's not the case with Adobe's DRM correct?

Correct. Adobe charge 22c (which the author/publisher pays).

[rkw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Correct. Adobe charge 22c (which the author/publisher pays).

thanks Harry. That was kind of the direction I was thinking, the publisher could save some cash and increase profits without lifting a finger by getting rid of DRM.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by rkw

thanks Harry. That was kind of the direction I was thinking, the publisher could save some cash and increase profits without lifting a finger by getting rid of DRM.

This assumes either no change or an increase in sales after getting rid of DRM. Now I don't argue my belief that getting rid of DRM will increase sales-but that's belief. What's needed is to prove the assumptions behind statements purporting to be fact. Can you prove that getting rid of DRM will not decrease sales?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rkw

thanks Harry. That was kind of the direction I was thinking, the publisher could save some cash and increase profits without lifting a finger by getting rid of DRM.

Overly simplistic. They could increase profit per book sold, but the question is whether they would increase profit overall.

They have very highly paid financial analysts and executives who believe that the extra 22 cents is compensated for by the losses they avoid by blocking casual sharing. We can argue our opinions and anecdotal evidence, but they are banking their business on it, so I presume their research is, um, at least as thorough as those who post about it here.

Clearly they see the money spent on DRM to be an investment to increase profits. Just like paying a customer service person has the intent of hopefully getting more money out of happy customers. Eliminating that expense would not necessarily result in more profit.

That being said, analysts have been wrong, and business models have been changed as research results change, and people do take chances and try new things sometimes.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Correct. Adobe charge 22c (which the author/publisher pays).

Are you sure about that? I thought it might come out of the reseller's cut.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Are you sure about that? I thought it might come out of the reseller's cut.

I thought that it was paid by the publisher, but I'm very happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I thought that it was paid by the publisher, but I'm very happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

To the best of my knowledge, the retailer pays the $0.22. Of course, if the publisher acts as their own retailer, they'll be the ones paying the fee.

[HarryT]

Thanks for the correction!