More Eric Flint on DRM - salvos 6 excerpt

[Liviu_5]

From the "Salvos Against Big Brother 6" - There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch - in the 6th issue of Jim Baen's Universe (April 2007 e-arc)

http://www.baens-universe.com/

Excerpt:

"Now apply that toll road principle to the problem of electronic copy infringement. Is it absolute nonsense to claim that "pirating" an electronic text means that you got it for "free." Uh, no, you didn't. You may have saved some money—but you did it at the expense of spending time and labor to circumvent the legal process. Your time and labor—not the victim's.

In the real world, criminals do not do everything in a criminal manner. Whatever you or I think of their morals, they are just as capable as anyone else of gauging an enterprise from the standpoint of its cost-effectiveness.

Bank robbers do indeed rob banks. But here's what they don't do, or do very, very rarely:

They don't illegally siphon gas from a neighbor's car to fuel the getaway vehicle. Instead, they buy the gasoline.

They might steal the gun they're planning to use to rob the banks, because guns are expensive. But they're not likely to steal the ammunition—much less try to make the ammunition themselves. Why bother? They're not planning to fight a war, they simply need enough ammunition to load a gun. So they buy the ammunition.

I would think the point is obvious. Pirates rob bullion ships, they don't rob grain ships. Electronic copyright infringement is something that can only become an "economic epidemic" under certain conditions. Any one of the following:

1) The product they want—electronic texts—are hard to find, and thus valuable.

2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them.

3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with.

Those are the three conditions that will create widespread electronic copyright infringement, especially in combination. Why? Because they're the same three general conditions that create all large-scale smuggling enterprises.

And . . .

Guess what? It's precisely those three conditions that DRM creates in the first place. So far from being an impediment to so-called "online piracy," it's DRM itself that keeps fueling it and driving it forward.

Let's start with the third point. A DRM-crippled text is a royal pain in the ass for legitimate customers. First of all, because you have to have the right software (and often hardware) to use Product A as opposed to Product B—since the publishing and software industries can't agree on a common standard. And, secondly, because you have absolutely no guarantee that next year those same industries won't make the software you purchased from them obsolete and thereby make the books you bought unreadable.

Can we say "eight-track tape?" "Beta-Max?" "Vinyl LPs?"

The buying public, by now, has long and bitter memories of the way the entertainment industries have shafted them over and over again, by introducing one technology, forcing everyone to adopt it—and then scrapping that technology in favor of yet another.

It's no wonder the reading public had so stubbornly resisted electronic reading. As I said above, they are not morons. Contrast the ridiculous demands that the publishing industry tries to place on their electronic text customers to the joys and splendors of buying a paper book:

You do not need an "end user license." Nope. Just buy the book with legal currency and you own it outright.

You do not need to buy separate software or hardware to read it. Nope. The only "software" you need is a pair of functioning eyes and a knowledge of the language the book is written in. Thazzit.

You now own a product that you can do any damn thing you want with. You can lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, use it for a doorstop or to swat a fly.

And, finally, you are in possession of a product whose technological durability and reliability has been tested and proven billions of times, and for centuries. Even a cheap paperback, with any degree of reasonable care, will still be readable half a century after you bought it—whereas not one piece of software has yet demonstrated that it can last much more than a few years.

Now let's move to the second point. Precisely because DRM has made electronic reading such a distasteful idea for most of the reading public—even a loathsome one, for many—it has strangled the market in its crib. Despite all the rosy projections and predictions, year after year after year, the electronic reading industry has remained miniscule compared to the paper book industry. Is it any wonder?

But certain things go along with that. If you can only sell a few units of a product, you will have to charge more per unit to cover your operating costs and hope to make a profit. So . . .

We now have the grotesque phenomenon where publishers typically charge more for an electronic book than they do for a paper book—even though everyone knows perfectly well that electronic texts are far cheaper to produce and distribute. That's mostly because the distribution costs that typically swallow about half of all income generated by paper books sales—and a higher percentage for paper magazines—is relatively tiny for an electronic publication.

And, so, dragged by the inexorable logic of this DRM lunacy, we arrive back at point one. Because electronic books are disliked by most of the public, and are then further constricted in terms of the market by being over-priced, they also become relatively rare. And it's probably rarity more than anything that fuels most book-stealing, whether of paper or electronic editions."

[igorsk]

Very, very insightful. Thanks for sharing!

[NatCh]

That Eric Flint is a pretty sharp fellow, isn't he?

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by Eric Flint

It is absolute nonsense to claim that "pirating" an electronic text means that you got it for "free." Uh, no, you didn't. You may have saved some money—but you did it at the expense of spending time and labor to circumvent the legal process. Your time and labor—not the victim's.

This statement (which I don't see as related to the rest of the text) works only if the buying the text legally requires significantly less time and effort than downloading a pirated copy. I don't see that.

Legal case: You go to some web site, you search for an author or title. If the worj you want is available in legal ebook form, you click on the one you want, you fill in name and credit card info, you download it. A couple of minutes.

Other case: You go to a torrent or usenet search site, you enter some search terms, you get an nzb or torrent file. You feed that into a download program, you download the result. If the file was posted to a newsgroup within the last few months, it downloads in a minute. A torrent will generally take longer.

In both cases effort is minimal, and time is often about the same. Selection differs, as does cost, but it's not like going the p2p route is significantly more difficult.

The rest of the text makes sense, but this bit doesn't seem to.

[slayda]

If you look at it from the viewpoint of the hacker, it makes sense. The hacker has to work to hack the DRM. That takes significant time & knowledge. He is "paid" by his reputation as a hacker increasing and perhaps his knowledge increasing. Those who download the hacked version are "paying" his reputation. Admittedly it is a minor point and I agree that it doesn't fit a nicely as his other arguments.

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by slayda

The hacker has to work to hack the DRM. That takes significant time & knowledge. He is "paid" by his reputation as a hacker increasing and perhaps his knowledge increasing. Those who download the hacked version are "paying" his reputation.

I don't believe the majority of pirated works are hacked. Most are scanned texts. Some are DRM works that DRM-freeing utilities have been used on. It doesn't seem to be a case of individual hackers working on individual texts and taking credit for it.

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by Jadon

Other case: You go to a torrent or usenet search site, you enter some search terms, you get an nzb or torrent file. You feed that into a download program, you download the result. If the file was posted to a newsgroup within the last few months, it downloads in a minute. A torrent will generally take longer.

That's assuming you know all the "places" and how to find your way around them. Most people don't want to bother learning how torrents or newsgroups work or get badly formatted files full of OCR errors. For them it's just not worth the effort.

[Cthulhu]

Jadon:
Your own reply refutes itself. A "scanned text"? If scanning a work, like a book that has upwards of ten pages, is not labour-intensive and constitutes real work by someone, what does?

On an unrelated topic, does anyone know how the RIAA and MPAA feel about their members' works being sold to and used by Public Libraries? To follow the DRM argument to a (possibly) ludicrous end, is not every patron of the library "Stealing" that intellectual property?

[NatCh]

According to the RIAA and MPAA, yes, they are.

[Cthulhu]

@ NatCh:

Then why are they not suing public libraries and cities that run public libraries? Do they have immunity that private citizens do not?

By the way, I do not understand how that cartoon was germane.

[NatCh]

Probably because they're not done suing 11 year old girls for not buying enough CDs. Or they just haven't gotten around to figuring out exactly what claim they want to file.

The last frame of the strip was the one I was after (the bit about humming the tune), but the back story starts here (and runs to the strip I highlighted -- Sundays aren't part of the usual story flow, BTW), and perhaps is more relevant. (in any case, it's amusing )

Elsewhere, the same strip suggests that the RIAA would like to broaden the definition of piracy to include getting a song "stuck in your head."

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

A "scanned text"? If scanning a work, like a book that has upwards of ten pages, is not labour-intensive and constitutes real work by someone, what does?

You're looking at it from the back; most people look at it from the front. If you buy a TV, do you care how many people worked how long to make it? Or do you just buy it? If one downloads a scanned book, it doesn't matter if someone else spent hours scanning and OCRing and proofing it. One just downloads it. The downloader, personally, has put no effort into it. It takes one person to scan a book or rip a CD or capture a TV show. The thousands of people who use the output put in no effort.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You may be thinking too deep into this. Go back to Flint's basic 3 items:

1) The product they want—electronic texts—are hard to find, and thus valuable.

2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them.

3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with.

Okay, number 1 may or may not be a good assumption for e-books... they can be hard to find just because there's so much stuff out there, and they're not necessarily valuable.

I concentrate on defeating numbers 2 and 3. Low prices and no DRM make my books easy enough to buy that they're not worth the trouble of stealing. Throw in number 1: They are easy to find (if you know about me, and can set 1 bookmark). That suggests that my books will never be pirated! Cool!

Of course, Flint didn't mention one more point: That copying for a friend or relative is a popular e-pastime, is not done for profit or gain, and still constitutes "piracy." Sure, a friend can recommend an e-book to someone they know. But if they can send a copy, they just saved their friend a couple of bucks.

I know we'll never eliminate "piracy." The key is to render it as harmless as possible, to bring its damage down to a workable level, and keep it there. The print industry does this now, and are satisfied with the system, but they haven't figured out how to control e-books yet. Adjusting the rules dictated by points 1-3 will eventually do that.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I know we'll never eliminate "piracy." The key is to render it as harmless as possible, to bring its damage down to a workable level, and keep it there. The print industry does this now, and are satisfied with the system, but they haven't figured out how to control e-books yet. Adjusting the rules dictated by points 1-3 will eventually do that.

But steve, think if you could sell everyone in the USA a copy of your book for 25 cents. You'd be a millionaire many times over with just the one book.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, number 1 may or may not be a good assumption for e-books... they can be hard to find just because there's so much stuff out there, and they're not necessarily valuable.

Basic economics: If you print 20 copies, but there are 100 people who want to buy them, you've made those 20 copies valuable.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Of course, Flint didn't mention one more point: That copying for a friend or relative is a popular e-pastime, is not done for profit or gain, and still constitutes "piracy." Sure, a friend can recommend an e-book to someone they know. But if they can send a copy, they just saved their friend a couple of bucks.

But that implies that the library has engaged in piracy for a long time. And my giving books that I purchased and read to my dad is also piracy.

The media industry in general seems to have a mentality of "pay for play" when it comes to media. They seem to want you to pay every time you want to hear a song, watch a movie or read a book. The idea that you can purchase it once and then use it many times - even transferring ownership to someone else - seems to really bother them.

The problem is that consumers don't want this. Case in point: the DivX fiasco.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I know we'll never eliminate "piracy." The key is to render it as harmless as possible, to bring its damage down to a workable level, and keep it there. The print industry does this now...

Actually it doesn't. The physical-ness of a pBook make it difficult and time consuming to pirate. It's really not worth the time and money to make copies of pBooks (for the most part).

And the print industry hasn't done a darn thing to keep the latest Harry Potter book off the web hours after it went on sale.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

...and are satisfied with the system, but they haven't figured out how to control e-books yet. Adjusting the rules dictated by points 1-3 will eventually do that.

You've used the right word - "control". That's what the issue is all about. Not just control over the work - copyright already provides for legal action against those copying the work - but over WHAT people read.

Right now, if publishers don't like author "Joe X", they can effectively stop him from getting published - at least in any significant amount. The same for any topic they don't like.