[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(Boy, why oh why do I do this?...)

As I suggested in my post, the fact that we don't presently have a GOOD DRM system for e-books is not an indicator that such a thing is mythical or impossible (as many others posters on this site would, in fact, suggest). The various DRM schemes being used by iTunes, for example, or by other content-rich websites, demonstrate that it is indeed possible to sell content and mitigate loss (again, the point is not to eradicate loss, which is impossible, but to keep it to acceptable levels).

Well, I would begin by saying that the DRM scheme used by iTunes is not even close to what I would consider to be a good DRM system. Certainly iTunes is popular, but since it ties me to the iPod, its not one I would particularly like to lock myself into. Yes, I use iTunes and an iPod Touch, but I don't buy my content from iTunes. I either buy CDs which then are ripped into iTunes or I buy non DRM'd mp3 from Amazon.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a demonstration that any serious piracy has been even mitigated by DRM.

With music, I think it was law suits against Napstar and other file sharers coupled with the relatively low cost of tunes on iTunes that allowed the music industry to mitigate its losses. In fact, even Apple is working to try and get the Music Industry to abandon DRM.

In any case, the DRM'd files that people have bought with Apple will be ok as long as Apple chooses to support them. If they ever stop supporting them, they could run into the same problem that people who purchased DRM'd music from Walmart discoverd; they could continue to play on their existing machines, but not on new ones. Currently the drm'd mp4s cannot be converted to mp3s without possibly loosing some of the sound quality.

The success of the system also requires buy-in, i.e., the paying public must agree that the system works for them, and therefore they do not go out of their way to circumvent it (example: Paid cable TV). Or you allow them a way to circumvent DRM--on iTunes, for example, by CD burning--that is acceptable to your public and your publishers.

Ultimately, I think iTunes works not because of the method of circumventing DRM, but because most people don't fully realize the potential limitations that could occur if they ever try to move their music to a different system (i.e. burn the mp4 to a CD, then rip the cd to mp3s, and you have doubled your compression artifacts, reducing the quality of the music).

With eBooks, in any case, such an option to circumvent DRM, ultimately limits the effectiveness of DRM. If you can make a DRM free copy of a book, then how is the book DRM'd in the first place? Remember, DRM is suppose to make it difficult to duplicate the work.

This requires trust on both ends: Both sides must trust that the other is not trying to rip them off, and that the arrangement is mutually beneficial. If either side does not have this trust, the system will break down--and right now, I think it's fair to say that in most cases there is virtually zero trust between book buyers and sellers in e-book publishing, making any DRM system between them virtually impossible.

Well end users, I think, are rightfully skeptical or any DRM scheme since it has been the source of problems in other types of media. Several DRM based music services have folded leaving former customers with music that could not be easily transfered to new computers or players in the future.

As for the trust of the publishers.. I think they just need to accept the fact that trust is not a method of enforcing copyright protection... nor for that matter is DRM. DRM is far too easy to break. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of the ebook sellers knew how easy it was to break the DRM on their books, but went along with it for the simple reason that the Publishers demand that the books be DRM'd before they are sold.

Finally, DRM does not automatically mean "encryption," as so many assume. It is problems with encryption (tied to old PCs or OSs, mainly) that result in most of the reasons people do not like DRM. DRM systems tied to personal identification have historically worked much better, and allowed document transfer to new devices/readers with fewer problems.

I assume when you placed encryption in quotes, you were referring to the specific type of encryption that ties a book to a device? Without some sort of encryption, there is no DRM by definition.

As far as I am concerned, DRM that simply ties the document transaction to the purchaser is the best system yet. The system ties the link for the e-book to the transaction, to prevent others from downloading the same book... and once the authorized purchaser has the document, the need for DRM is considered over. I get paid. Customers can move or share the files as they wish, or do anything else covered under Fair Use. (This logic also depends on customer buy-in, and a measure of trust on the seller's part, to keep loss through sharing to a minimum.) That's the method I use on my site, it works for me (as an author/self-publisher), and I've heard few complaints.

Steve, I am a little confused here? It seems like what you are suggesting for DRM is simply making sure that books that are downloaded from your website are paid for? No offense intended, but I can't see how that meets any reasonable definition of DRM? That is more like your local bookstore keeping an eye out for shop lifters.

The whole point of DRM, as it is generally understood, is to limit how a user uses the book (or other intellectual property) after it is purchased. Now I am not saying I object to your system described above, in fact, that sounds pretty much what fictionwise has in place for multiformat books. I just don't consider it DRM.

So, if you like, there is your proposed "Good DRM" system, being used today and (so far) achieving relative success. (In fact, on my site I actually refer to it as "No DRM," because my system is so unobtrusive to the user, and have never been challenged about it.) If you have any comments regarding my system, I'm always open to discussion.

As above, my only comment is that I don't see how it is DRM. I only consider it DRM if it actually constrains what the user does after the work is in their possession. What you have described sounds more like a system for running an online store.

(Note: The operative word there is discussion... not flaming, name-calling, insulting or attacking. When it devolves to that, I'm officially done.)

Steve, I have no problems with those terms. I love a good debate . But I think usually when the flames begin, the debate is over anyway.

--
Bill