Replies follow to Ron, Segatang and Jorgen.
RON: There are plenty of other ways in which OpenReader will stand apart from other formats--this transcends the DRM issue. Meanwhile let the standard setters work the DRM out.
My personal *preference* would be for a nonproprietary solution. But another solution would be a semi-proprietary system with many different organizations involved, so as to avoid the possible security problems of a fully open approach, while at the same time avoiding Microsoft II or Adobe II chokeholds.
All kinds of companies within reason could have access to the DRM technology to one extent or another, as long as they signed NDAs, etc., and meanwhile no restrictions would exist on the nonDRMed format.
There could also be limits on fees charged so as to keep the DRM costs a fraction of what they are now.
Beyond security, bear in mind that the big DRM issues are usability and continued access, just as you seem to think; and both are on our radar screens. We enjoy close relations with the library world and have some very specific ideas in terms of making DRMed books forever accessible to their owners.
One of OpenReader's founders is even an archival consultant who formerly oversaw record-keeping via his job as information services manager at the World Bank.
As for ownership transfers, yes, we care about that topic as well, and if I have my druthers, OpenReader DRM will allow that option to be enabled. If it isn't, then book prices should reflect this.
Now--about future devices reading OpenReader format books that are DRMed. Our first implementer, OSoft, is fervently committed to a crossplatform philosophy. And we'll encourage other implementers to feel the same way. The fact that the core format is nonproprietary and that we want to avoid a DRM chokehold should help.
Ron, I can see that DRM is your major issue, and if that's the case, I'd suggest you keep in mind our personal hostility toward the technology.
Also, remember our eagerness to let publishers avoid DRM, while at the same time having better, gentler DRM for pubishers insisting on it.
Follow the pointer to Jon's piece on DRM overkill. With scanning of p-books as an option for pirates, DRM, as we see it, is rather silly as a rule. But big publishers disagree.
And so, without DRM, there's no hope of an e-book standard that the big publishers will go for, alas, and that's of big concern to me since they hold the rights to so many modern classics.
Meanwhile, at least with OpenReader around, you'll *know* that DRM will be just an option for publishers. With the proprietary formatters, you don't know what the future will hold--whereas with the OpenReader scenario your "vote DRM out" approach would work just fine if that's what users wanted.
Let the market prevail. Some users may tolerate DRMed books but insist on paying less for them. In fact, as I recall, an unscientific TeleRead poll seemed to suggest that many would be interested in those terms. (See
http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=5369.)
Then again, publishers may find that the tolerated prices of the DRMed versions will be so low that they might as well drop DRM. Hard to say.
Meanwhile OpenReader is committed to offering different options.
SEGATANG: You write: "The format and layout of book will lose without careful re-edit."
Actually dotReader, our first implementer, can work with an image-based approach. But that's inappropriate, as we see it, in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Here's to reflowability and readability! Why replicate the present negatives of PDF?
JORGEN: "What the world needs is less people making standards." Exactly. Let's have trains run on different gauges and electricity being AC or DC, depending on whether in your home or your neighbors. That's about the way the world would be if the IDPF did standard setting in those cases. Since we prefer a single gauge for railroad tracks in a typical case, etc.--well, the e-book equivalent--OpenReader exists.
Thanks,
David