Ok, I'll bite...
Quote:
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).
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.
|
Which means that in order to use the file you bought as you see fit, you have to accept a loss in quality.
I do not accept people thinking that iTunes' DRM are in any way fair as a fact. The reason for its success (relative) is the perceived ease of use (real or not, I'll leave that to others to decide) of the Apple integrated model. Basically the commercials have made it cool to own an ipod, and when you have one it's easy to use it with itunes. However, I must remind you that if you divide the number of songs sold by the number of ipods in use, you get less than an album's worth.
I find it hard to believe that most people's ipods (which can hold between tens and hundreds of albums) are filled music obtained through legitimate mean, call me a cynic if you want.
Quote:
|
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.
|
About this, see my comment at the end.
Quote:
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.
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.
|
Again, me and a few others have told you many times: neither what you describe nor what you use is DRM. The purpose of DRM is to prevent the customer to use the file in ways the editor doesn't agree with - which of course includes sharing. If you authorize customers to share as they wish, there are no DRM; a bit of watermarking, maybe.
I'll add that the very idea of DRM means the seller doesn't trust their customers to act within the law. So as long as it's there, there's no trust involved in the sale.