Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
And I'm back. Guess you missed me 
I've been busy splitting time between meetings with Apple and the Big Six publishers, of course. That takes up a lot of time. And oh yeah , also posting at "my" blog.....You guys should adjust your tin foil hats, they're getting a bit tight 
OK, what we have learned ?
We've learned that publishers believe they need DRM not because piracy-a popular meme round these parts-but because they fear large scale "casual sharing." Elfmark- one of the few beacons of rationality around here- admits that this is a danger, although he believes it will not happen. His admission is telling as he is an anti DRM absolutist, refusing to buy any DRMED work.
Elfwreck does not really say why he thinks large scale casual sharing will not happen. As far as I can see, casual sharing of news articles is done on the Internet for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Sharing of a non DRMED book would be almost as easily done, and if the book was popular, I can't see why it WOULDN'T done. THe scenario I have in mind would be if the next installment of the Twilight Saga was sold non DRM . What is the likelihood that Twilight besotted teenage girls would buy the book and share it with their Facebook friends, who would share it with their Facebook friends, etc. IMO, the likelihood of that would approach 100 percent. Even Stevie Wonder would see the probability of that. (I'm emphasizing Facebook here, because while most folks don't know anything about Darknet and torrents, even Grandma knows about Facebook these days).
The refusal of the anti DRM folk to admit that possibility shows that they have idealogical blinders on. The Mobile Read idealogy is that publishers are evil, greedy, capitalist dinosaurs who eat puppies for breakfast, so they can't possibly be right about this issue, but IMO they seem right about the danger of large scale casual sharing. I'm willing to be hear argument on this, but what I've heard is "PUBLISHERS EVUUL!!! DRM EVUUL!!! YOU EVUUL BECAUSE YOU MUST WORK FOR PUBLISHERS!!!" I'm not impressed by such blathering.
Maybe someone here can do better.
I was kind of hoping that we could move beyond the Manichean dichotomy between DRM as it exists now and no DRM. I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example. Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well... |
Stonetools:
Your scenario fails to explain why certain NYT hardcover bestsellers* can be available in bits
DRM-free two weeks before publication in dead tree format, and nevertheless hit that NYT bestsellers list. And stay there for significant periods. And sell a ton of copies in DTF (as well as a somewhat-smaller-ton of copies in bits). And all of that happened in spite of the fact that
every one of the hardcovers included a bound-in CD with DRM-free copies of the book itself, along with all previous books in the series.
Your scenario says that this very real example cannot happen, because as soon as the DRM-free copy is out there, "casual sharing" will kill further purchases of the book (whether in DTF or in bits).
*For "certain NYT hardcover bestsellers" read:
- The last 4 books in the Honor Harrington series by David Weber (Published by Baen)
- The most recent book in the Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold (Published by Baen)
- Several recent books in the 1632 series by Eric Flint (Published by Baen)
- Probably more that I've forgotten about (Published by Baen)
You may notice a pattern in that list...
Which leads me to another criticism of your post. You say that "publishers believe they need DRM [...]" etc. I think you really mean
some publishers. There are a number of publishers who have been flourishing, in part, due to their deliberate choice to go DRM-free. See, for example, Baen and O'Reilly.
My personal take is that folks who
actually have some money (which group usually includes most adults) are quite willing to pay for products, even when they could have stolen/pirated/violated-copyright/whatever the product at no expense. Conversely, folks who are
extremely short on money (which group includes many teens, and some adults)
may be more likely to steal/pirate/violate-copyright/whatever. But so what!
The number that matters isn't how many sales you miss, it's how many sales you make.
That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
I would summarize as follows:
- Some publishers percieve a need for DRM, because they believe that it will reduce casual sharing, large-scale piracy, or both.
- Other publishers strongly disagree, and eschew DRM altogether.
- We have plenty of demonstrations that DRM fails to prevent large-scale piracy.
- We have some indication that DRM might reduce casual sharing.
- We have solid proof that DRM cannot possibly prevent either casual sharing or large-scale piracy
- We have a number of real datapoints that indicate that lack of DRM fails to cause the ills that Stonetools predicts.
- We have a plethora of data showing that DRM has a significant negative impact on honest, paying customers.
On balance, I consider Stonetools argument to be inconsistent with the factual record.