MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Lemurion · 10-15-2008, 08:04 PM

I'm a writer; every dollar I make comes from writing, so I have a vested interest in getting paid for my work.

Over the couple of years or so, my opinion on DRM has slowly started to soften; moving from rabid hatred to intense dislike, with a grudging acceptance that there are 'political' factors that sometimes necessitate its use. The only 'valid' reason for the use of DRM is as a tool to convince people who don't understand its wholly parasitic nature to release content for sale in electronic formats.

There is no evidence that DRM has ever prevented piracy, and if the outcry over Spore is any sign there is plenty of evidence that it has hurt sales. It's even spawned a lawsuit over the use of SecuROM DRM.

All DRM works by artificially limiting the consumer's use of the product. This is by design. So-called 'good' DRM is that which has a minimal impact on normal use, while in theory preventing use either by unauthorized persons or in ways the rights-holder does not allow. A classic example of this is the travesty of PDF files that one isn't allowed to print. It's a printing format, so removing that right removes most of its value.

Systems like iTunes and the Kindle DRM work because as long as you work with authorized devices you don't see the restrictions. As soon as you try to work outside the prescribed ecosystems you start seeing the issues.

Another problem lies in the nature of server-based authentication systems: as recent events have shown, once the servers go offline you lose most of the rights you've paid for. At least with ereader the worst situation you are going to be in is that of someone with a huge collection of eight-track tapes. You may have to struggle to find a device that can read them, but once you do you will be able to play them.

It's not going to be that way with mobi: once the servers go down for the last time the party will be over. No more new devices from that time forward.

DRM is not a good idea, and it doesn't prevent piracy. iTunes would have had the same success (if the labels had let them have access to content - see my point above) if it had started with DRM-free content. It's the cool factor of the iPod combined with the convenience of the iTunes store that made it a success. The only benefit DRM provided was 'political.'

Having said all that, there is one way in which DRM does appear to spur sales: by forcing people to re-buy the same content in order to access it on a new device that would have been able to access it but for the artificial limitations imposed by DRM.

As people moved from LPs to CDs with forays into first 8-Tracks and then cassettes, they often ended up buying the same music several times. I know I've bought REO Speedwagon's Hi-Infidelity on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I can't blame the content companies from becoming enamored of the idea of selling the same content repeatedly.

Unfortunately, this isn't the same situation as the music industry faced then. You can't put an 8-track tape in a CD player. It will not and cannot work. There was also the fact that in many cases the new formats brought other advantages as well. The 8-track really gave us the car stereo, and CDs brought their own advantages.

Now consider someone who moves from a Kindle to a Cybook Gen3, or vice versa. If they have any DRM-restricted ebooks they have to buy them again because you can't read secure mobipocket on a Kindle (at least not officially) and you can't read Kindle editions on a Cybook, even though they're essentially the same format!

It's this kind of artificial restriction that really fuels my anger about DRM. It's all about vendor lock-in and has nothing to do with preventing piracy. If piracy were the only concern Amazon could have just used mobi on the Kindle and avoided this artificial divide.

All DRM does is hurt those people who are willing to pay for content.

10-15-2008, 08:04 PM	#65
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	I'm a writer; every dollar I make comes from writing, so I have a vested interest in getting paid for my work. Over the couple of years or so, my opinion on DRM has slowly started to soften; moving from rabid hatred to intense dislike, with a grudging acceptance that there are 'political' factors that sometimes necessitate its use. The only 'valid' reason for the use of DRM is as a tool to convince people who don't understand its wholly parasitic nature to release content for sale in electronic formats. There is no evidence that DRM has ever prevented piracy, and if the outcry over Spore is any sign there is plenty of evidence that it has hurt sales. It's even spawned a lawsuit over the use of SecuROM DRM. All DRM works by artificially limiting the consumer's use of the product. This is by design. So-called 'good' DRM is that which has a minimal impact on normal use, while in theory preventing use either by unauthorized persons or in ways the rights-holder does not allow. A classic example of this is the travesty of PDF files that one isn't allowed to print. It's a printing format, so removing that right removes most of its value. Systems like iTunes and the Kindle DRM work because as long as you work with authorized devices you don't see the restrictions. As soon as you try to work outside the prescribed ecosystems you start seeing the issues. Another problem lies in the nature of server-based authentication systems: as recent events have shown, once the servers go offline you lose most of the rights you've paid for. At least with ereader the worst situation you are going to be in is that of someone with a huge collection of eight-track tapes. You may have to struggle to find a device that can read them, but once you do you will be able to play them. It's not going to be that way with mobi: once the servers go down for the last time the party will be over. No more new devices from that time forward. DRM is not a good idea, and it doesn't prevent piracy. iTunes would have had the same success (if the labels had let them have access to content - see my point above) if it had started with DRM-free content. It's the cool factor of the iPod combined with the convenience of the iTunes store that made it a success. The only benefit DRM provided was 'political.' Having said all that, there is one way in which DRM does appear to spur sales: by forcing people to re-buy the same content in order to access it on a new device that would have been able to access it but for the artificial limitations imposed by DRM. As people moved from LPs to CDs with forays into first 8-Tracks and then cassettes, they often ended up buying the same music several times. I know I've bought REO Speedwagon's Hi-Infidelity on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I can't blame the content companies from becoming enamored of the idea of selling the same content repeatedly. Unfortunately, this isn't the same situation as the music industry faced then. You can't put an 8-track tape in a CD player. It will not and cannot work. There was also the fact that in many cases the new formats brought other advantages as well. The 8-track really gave us the car stereo, and CDs brought their own advantages. Now consider someone who moves from a Kindle to a Cybook Gen3, or vice versa. If they have any DRM-restricted ebooks they have to buy them again because you can't read secure mobipocket on a Kindle (at least not officially) and you can't read Kindle editions on a Cybook, even though they're essentially the same format! It's this kind of artificial restriction that really fuels my anger about DRM. It's all about vendor lock-in and has nothing to do with preventing piracy. If piracy were the only concern Amazon could have just used mobi on the Kindle and avoided this artificial divide. All DRM does is hurt those people who are willing to pay for content.