MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Password-based DRM has a dim future

Steven Lyle Jordan · 06-14-2011, 01:42 PM

People keep putting words into my mouth. I do not call pirates "terrorists," nor do I think of them as such. And I don't treat anyone as a criminal: My books are all still available with No DRM.

I don't even assume that the only reason I'm not "independently wealthy" is that everyone is stealing and file-sharing my books.

So kindly Climb Off.

I am saying that lack of security on all digital documents is a serious threat to the income-earning potential of any digital artist... and that since it is in the best interest of consumers to make sure they can do what they want (which includes getting digital products for free wherever they can), they naturally rail against the application of any such security that would prevent their doing whatever they want. This is being unfair, essentially treating artists like me as lepers because they had the dumb luck to choose digital content to produce, and (gleefully, apparently) leaving us as the victims of an insecure system.

I am also saying that, at some point in the future, I expect a reasonably reliable form of digital document security to surface, providing the same protection of digital property as people have of physical property. Not perfect, but roughly as effective as the key to your car or the lock on your door. I base this on history, of valuable products evolving security measures to protect the products, their creators and purchasers.

And finally, a believe I have a right to be compensated for my work, just as you are compensated for your jobs. As corollary, I believe I have a right to protect that work, just as you protect your positions from being taken by strangers off the street.

That's all I'm saying. No terrorists, stormtroopers or firing squads involved, just workable security to protect my products and my property. I fail to see what's so horrific about that, nor why I am painted as a bad guy because I want the same protections for my property and income that you already have for yours.

(Supplementary: If I have been blunt or less than careful about my comments and statements in the past, I apologize to all; obviously, when it comes to losing something you've worked hard at, it can be difficult to be diplomatic. OTOH, as others have been as equally blunt, and as often outright abusive, in their comments to me, I don't feel I'd be out of line to ask for a little slack.)

06-14-2011, 01:42 PM	#76
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	People keep putting words into my mouth. I do not call pirates "terrorists," nor do I think of them as such. And I don't treat anyone as a criminal: My books are all still available with No DRM. I don't even assume that the only reason I'm not "independently wealthy" is that everyone is stealing and file-sharing my books. So kindly Climb Off. I am saying that lack of security on all digital documents is a serious threat to the income-earning potential of any digital artist... and that since it is in the best interest of consumers to make sure they can do what they want (which includes getting digital products for free wherever they can), they naturally rail against the application of any such security that would prevent their doing whatever they want. This is being unfair, essentially treating artists like me as lepers because they had the dumb luck to choose digital content to produce, and (gleefully, apparently) leaving us as the victims of an insecure system. I am also saying that, at some point in the future, I expect a reasonably reliable form of digital document security to surface, providing the same protection of digital property as people have of physical property. Not perfect, but roughly as effective as the key to your car or the lock on your door. I base this on history, of valuable products evolving security measures to protect the products, their creators and purchasers. And finally, a believe I have a right to be compensated for my work, just as you are compensated for your jobs. As corollary, I believe I have a right to protect that work, just as you protect your positions from being taken by strangers off the street. That's all I'm saying. No terrorists, stormtroopers or firing squads involved, just workable security to protect my products and my property. I fail to see what's so horrific about that, nor why I am painted as a bad guy because I want the same protections for my property and income that you already have for yours. (Supplementary: If I have been blunt or less than careful about my comments and statements in the past, I apologize to all; obviously, when it comes to losing something you've worked hard at, it can be difficult to be diplomatic. OTOH, as others have been as equally blunt, and as often outright abusive, in their comments to me, I don't feel I'd be out of line to ask for a little slack.)