People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, I'm saying there's rather large filesharing going on now, on both DRM'd and non-DRM'd content. I'm saying removing DRM will have no notable impact on filesharing, which is already widespread, nor on sales, except to make them increase in most cases.


.....

Exactly.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Finally, you admit that only significant success of non DRM publishing has been a single publisher offering fiction in one genre, a speciality non fiction house plus a few indie authors. If you think that's evidence enough to risk the future of publishing industry, fine. I don't-and the folks with actual skin in the game don't either. It's easy for some guy on the Innternetto commit the livelihoods of millions in the publishing industry to gamble. Not so easy for the people in the industry .

OK, so, according to you, the publishing industry needs proof that eliminating DRM will not be harmful to their bottom line, and such proof is impossible unless they actually do eliminate DRM, which they won't do because they don't have proof that it won't be harmful, which they can't get unless they eliminate DRM ...

[wodin]

Call me a cynic, but I’m thinking the biggest reason the publishers are invested in DRM is that they don’t want anyone to find out just how irrelevant they’ve become. They used to provide value added by editing, typesetting, printing, binding, warehousing, shipping, etc. Things that your average author had neither the resources nor skills to do himself.

In today’s digital world, all those things are well within the realm of not only being possible, but not really very hard, and the only real value added that the publishers provides is marketing the products. And with places like Amazon and Baen even that is not beyond the realm of possibility.

If Publishers can convince everyone that only they can provide the NECESSARY (sic) DRM, well, maybe their cash cow will last a little longer.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by wodin

Call me a cynic, but I’m thinking the biggest reason the publishers are invested in DRM is that they don’t want anyone to find out just how irrelevant they’ve become. They used to provide value added by editing, typesetting, printing, binding, warehousing, shipping, etc. Things that your average author had neither the resources nor skills to do himself.

In today’s digital world, all those things are well within the realm of not only being possible, but not really very hard, and the only real value added that the publishers provides is marketing the products. And with places like Amazon and Baen even that is not beyond the realm of possibility.

They're not irrelevant. They're just no longer the only option. Many authors would prefer to hand over everything but the book-writing to someone else; going through a publisher means not having to find an editor, a formatter, a cover-designer, a marketing person and so on. It costs a lot, but for some authors, it's worth it.

But for those who'd rather arrange those parts themselves, and keep the profits--heh. Now they have real choices.

Publishers haven't been tech'd out of the book industry; they've just lost their monopoly. And they'll get to find out exactly how much of their business model was contingent on being a monopoly, instead of the quality of the services they had to offer.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They're not irrelevant. They're just no longer the only option. Many authors would prefer to hand over everything but the book-writing to someone else; going through a publisher means not having to find an editor, a formatter, a cover-designer, a marketing person and so on. It costs a lot, but for some authors, it's worth it.

What's interesting is the extent to which many of the differences between the vanity and conventional publishers is narrowing. It's actually getting so writers can get more services from a vanity publisher, at least in all but the respect respect, if they're willing to pay for them; the major difference is how the publisher gets paid. From a reader's point of view, about the only thing real publishers still offer is selectivity, and with excerpts of ebooks available, that's much less of an issue than it was a couple of decades ago (well, the staggering advances paid to celebrities for worthless books hasn't helped either, especially when word gets out and the books tank). I suspect the publishing landscape ten years from now isn't going to look much like what we see today.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They're not irrelevant. They're just no longer the only option. Many authors would prefer to hand over everything but the book-writing to someone else; going through a publisher means not having to find an editor, a formatter, a cover-designer, a marketing person and so on. It costs a lot, but for some authors, it's worth it.

But for those who'd rather arrange those parts themselves, and keep the profits--heh. Now they have real choices.

Too many authors think they don't need professional help; they think they can do everything themselves, with a spellcheck and a graphics program. Or if they admit they need help, they think they can get it from some relative or neighbor, because they don't want to pay for a professional.

Publishers haven't been tech'd out of the book industry; they've just lost their monopoly. And they'll get to find out exactly how much of their business model was contingent on being a monopoly, instead of the quality of the services they had to offer.

That's total bunk.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Too many authors think they don't need professional help; they think they can do everything themselves, with a spellcheck and a graphics program. Or if they admit they need help, they think they can get it from some relative or neighbor, because they don't want to pay for a professional.

But authors who are aware they need professional help, and are willing to pay for it, no longer need to sign away 70-90% of their profits for it. They can pay up front, or work out a contract for the specific services they need, and have the option of self-publishing, and a reasonable chance of making a living at it.

Ten years ago, it didn't matter how good they were; self-publishing was a lost cause. Now, it's a potential source of thousands of dollars a month. True, only for those authors who are both talented and lucky enough to catch the right type of attention--but ten years ago, that option didn't exist at all; those authors had no way to sell millions of books.

That's total bunk.

You don't think publishers have lost their monopoly? You think the authors who're making a living self-publishing are a tiny anomaly that's not going to get bigger over time?

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well I acknowledge that you CLAIMED that. The evidence of the music industry is quite the contrary. Hell, the strudy that YOU cite says grudgingly admits that piracy is responsible for 20 % of the decline.

You can't use the numbers for *piracy* to justify using DRM to stop *casual sharing.*



I would also submit that anyone who has what it takes to share dozens of copies also has what it takes to strip DRM.

The only people DRM stops from sharing are people who don't understand it except that they can't give a copy to a friend or family member or read it on their new device.

If someone wants badly enough to share a book with lots of people, they can easily google up that stripping is a few clicks away - easier than setting up their printer and no harder than installing a browser.

Publishers know this. They try to use big numbers to pretend all they care about is avoiding serious losses, but everything they do (like disallowing even so much as the lending of a book for 2 weeks, to one person, in that book's entire lifetime) shows that they are trying to stop even sharing with a friend or family.

[OtterBooks]

Baen doesn't have to worry about casual sharing, because most of their customers don't have friends. Kidding.

[EowynCarter]

Dan Brown, Stephen King, Stephanie Meyers and JK Rowling are already massively available through download sites. I firmly believe they won't be *more* shared if they remove DRM (or, in Rowling's case, release a legit ebook version.)

Harry potter is the only book I downloaded.

A few example where drm hurt sales. Hey, Let's watch heroes on TF1 vision. First price a bit high for rental, but well.
Then, mm, what firefox ??? No, use IE ! Then it got me though some time of windows update. After that, still not good enough, i needed to install their software. At that point, I gave up.

Buying stuff must be easy. Safe. Also, to me a book i can't de-drm is considered rental. So, the price I'm willing to put there is a rental price, not purchase price.

We as customers have the right to say "no, i will not buy book with drm". And IMHO, the publishers can't force us to buy. We can be "forced" to buy food or other vital stuff at prices we don't agree with, but we don't need the books to live, so we're going to be more picky. They tends to forget that. Maybe if people don't buy, it's not because they can get for free, but because the proposed product don't fit theirs expectations. Or because other interest have gotten their money.

[OtterBooks]

The helping vs. hurting sales arguments are a bust from either angle. If the evidence from niche market publishers supports the notion that no-DRM helps sales, the runaway growth of mainstream ebook sales leaves the argument that they harm sales eating dust. It's like saying Facebook subscription numbers are being hurt by the ads. DRMed books are selling like wildfire. There are compelling anti-DRM arguments, but sales ain't one of them. imo.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well I acknowledge that you CLAIMED that. The evidence of the music industry is quite the contrary. Hell, the strudy that YOU cite says grudgingly admits that piracy is responsible for 20 % of the decline. The music industry claims an even larger percentage.

Good grief! I was wrong. You haven't understood my point at all.

Read what you quoted again. I'll repeat it here with some emphasis added (I see I have a minor typo - retained above, fixed below):

The presence of DRM or not on the digital files that are sold does not affect the amount of unauthorised copying to any significant extent.

Let me go over it slowly.

Before the music industry sold digital music, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.
When the music industry sold digital music with DRM, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.
When the music industry sold digital music with no DRM, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.

I am not saying that unauthorised copying has no effect on sales.
I am saying that DRM on files for sale has no significant effect on unauthorised copying.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Let's see you answer a question. How do you know that sales of nonDRM books wouldn't have been even greater than they were had they had DRM?

I think sales would not have been greater, because DRM on files doesn't seem to affect the amount of unauthorised copying, and because removing DRM from digital music for sale didn't seem to affect the growth curve of sales digital music files.

No-one can know what would have happened if something had been done differently in the past.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

The helping vs. hurting sales arguments are a bust from either angle. If the evidence from niche market publishers supports the notion that no-DRM helps sales, the runaway growth of mainstream ebook sales leaves the argument that they harm sales eating dust. It's like saying Facebook subscription numbers are being hurt by the ads. DRMed books are selling like wildfire. There are compelling anti-DRM arguments, but sales ain't one of them. imo.

If not for inept, mobiDEdrm and co, do you know how many drm-ed i would have bought ? Zerro. Nada...
There are a few stuff i didn't buy, or postponed buying, because of drm.
Because i expect a book i paid that price to be mine. Mine to keep on my hard drive, to read years later, to read on any device i want. I expect buying book to be easy.

Worse part is, is one time de-drm failed, the reason inept wouldn't work also mean the book was un-readable on my cybook.

Some people don't mind drm, are unaware of it. Until the DRM slap them in the face. Then they think twice before buying books with drm.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe publishers who read the balance sheets and have the inside info about the industry and who are directly responsible of financial success of their companies think that DRM is necessary at this time and is well worth the investment. You -who have no access to the financial records of the companies and have no responsibility to the authors and employees of the publishing houses-want them to abandon DRM.
At this point I'm going to have to go with guys with the inside info and the responsibility. They may be dead wrong, but that's the way to bet.

They are dead wrong, IMO. The next ten years will show which of us is right.

Originally Posted by stonetools

I notice that no one even WANTS to consider a middle way-a better DRM. But then, ideological purists do tend to scorn the middle way. Oh well.

The best DRM at the moment is B&N's system, which at least doesn't rely on a central server to authorise the use of ebooks on new devices. But it still sucks if you want to convert to a different format, or read on a device that doesn't have B&N's reading software.

I can't imagine any DRM system that doesn't impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of the digital files to which it's applied.

Well, one. 'Social' DRM, where the purchaser's name is put into metadata in the ebook, along with useful stuff like date of purchase, and from whom the book was purchased. But with no other restrictions or encryption.

I would not object to such a system. In fact, I would find it very useful.

Originally Posted by stonetools

OK, I think we're done here. Good discussion guys.

You have consistently misunderstood and misrepresented my position on the effect of DRM on unauthorised copying. You might not agree with me, but it would be nice to find out that you've actually understood the argument.

[HansTWN]

I still think watermarking would be the way to go. Sure, this could be removed, too. But you can't stop those pirates. And they will never pay, period. So it makes sense just to write them off. Pirates don't matter in this equation.

However, to the general public, if you buy a watermarked file you are responsible. It can be traced back to the original buyer. So you will only give it to those you consider responsible, too.