Arguments For And Against DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Has any legal action ever been taken against anyone for lending out a physical ereader?

I doubt it, but that still doesn't make it OK to enter into a contract, and then ignore it when it's convenient for you to do so.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The thought process is not deep or malicious. To many readers it's like sending a recipe.

And by this you show yourself to suffer the same faulty thinking. Many recipes are also copyrighted.

(not judging, just pointing it out)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I doubt it, but that still doesn't make it OK to enter into a contract, and then ignore it when it's convenient for you to do so.

But every time DRM stripping gets debated here, your final justification for it being OK is that no one is ever prosecuted for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

But every time DRM stripping gets debated here, your final justification for it being OK is that no one is ever prosecuted for it.

Totally different situation. Stripping DRM for personal use isn't depriving anyone of anything. Buying a book for your personal use only, then giving it to Aunt Jane to read is, if Aunt Jane would otherwise have bought her own copy.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally different situation. Stripping DRM for personal use isn't depriving anyone of anything. Buying a book for your personal use only, then giving it to Aunt Jane to read is, if Aunt Jane would otherwise have bought her own copy.

Who said Aunt Jane was going to buy a copy? I thought the case was that she would not otherwise buy a copy.

Also stripping DRM deprives publisher of money in the case were you want the book in a different format and would have bought it if you did not strip DRM. Or in the case when the DRM maintainer disappear and you loose the book and have to buy a new one. I would suspect that it is not uncommon for people to buy the same book in different format since they need it on a new reader.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately it's the minority of thieving scumbags who make it necessary. If everyone was as honest as you, there would be no need for DRM. Blame the thieves, not the publisher.

Yeah, but the thieving scumbags know how to get around the DRM anyhow. So the main result of DRM seems to be to inconvenience paying customers, not the stopping of thieves.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

That's what you feel. Do you know what your readers feel?

I've asked quite a few of them. I have yet to find someone who isn't understanding. The vast majority don't understand DRM or care.

That said, I've seen several people say they won't buy a book with DRM. Again, I generally make both available so I have done what I can do. If they find the book on Amazon and avoid it because of DRM, that is their choice and if they feel I am accusing them of being a thief, I cannot change that. I will likely never see or speak to the person. That's fine. That is their shopping choice.

To be honest, I have only ever had ONE reader ask me about DRM and I've been at this going on 8 years. I removed it so that she could download from Kobo and tell a few friends about the book since that was her concern. She was not upset about it, she merely asked a few questions and I did what I could to accommodate her request.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by twowheels

And by this you show yourself to suffer the same faulty thinking. Many recipes are also copyrighted.

(not judging, just pointing it out)

No, that was my point, although made badly. People do not know or care that recipes are copyrighted--they do not even ASK if they are. Same with a book. My point was they do it all the time with copyrighted material, non-copyrighted material, etc, and don't have to think twice. With DRM, they not only have to think, they probably can't mail it without some effort.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally different situation. Stripping DRM for personal use isn't depriving anyone of anything. Buying a book for your personal use only, then giving it to Aunt Jane to read is, if Aunt Jane would otherwise have bought her own copy.

What does that have to do with entering a contract then ignoring it when it is convenient?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think your relative was doing you a favour. People discover new authors through recommendations. I do understand that you don't share this view.

And this is where I think good watermarking can help. Not the part of watermarking that's hidden but a nice big up-front 'Ex-Libris' page with a pretty graphic, details of the original purchasor, ebook store, perhaps even price paid, and an author's signature.

Remind people that the copy they've been given to read isn't really theirs - that it's effectively a loaned book.

I would actually LIKE to have well-done watermarking in this way, so that I don't have to keep track of where I bought an ebook myself! And a pretty graphic and signature of the author to make it a feature. I was disappointed by the watermarking in the HP books, which was very dull.

I agree--If the aim is to stop casual sharing, then a hidden watermark isn't going to do that...all it's going to do is get Aunt Sally sued by the publisher for sharing with her book club, because she didn't know any better. If there must be watermarking, make it big and obvious and beautiful at the beginning of the book. All of my paper books have a sticker on the inside cover with a picture and my name and the date I bought the book. I would love to have something like that automatically inserted into my e-books.

Also, in that same theme, maybe putting in a statement from the author, something like "I hope you enjoy reading this book as much as I enjoyed writing it. Please know that a lot of work went into creating this book for you, and if you didn't pay for the book, I'm not getting compensated for it. Just as I wouldn't expect you to work for free, I hope you don't expect me to. Please send $5.99 to <author's paypal>" (or the publisher's account, or whatever. Don't accuse, just remind and suggest.

Again, this wouldn't stop the dedicated pirate, but it may deter casual sharing.

Shari

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by taustin

Are you as offended by stores that lock their doors at night? Because if they didn't feel that you might be dishonest enough to steal from them, they wouldn't do that.

There's a huge difference between a store locking its doors and DRM on eBooks. A store can go out of business and I still own and can use whatever item I bought from them. If a DRM bookstore goes out of business and my DRM capable device dies (depending on the DRM scheme of course) the DRM encrypted book I bought can now become worthless.

They say, locks "keep honest people honest," but I don't buy it. Honest people don't have to be "kept honest." I say that the vast majority of eBook readers are honest and that the DRM "locks" are almost completely worthless in stopping piracy. They are very useful in being a pain in the butt, however.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

Also stripping DRM deprives publisher of money in the case were you want the book in a different format and would have bought it if you did not strip DRM. Or in the case when the DRM maintainer disappear and you loose the book and have to buy a new one. I would suspect that it is not uncommon for people to buy the same book in different format since they need it on a new reader.

You really can't claim a lost sale for situations that have only arisen precisely because of the application of DRM. That's double-dipping, meta-crap right there.

"Without DRM, no one would be forced to buy the additional copies of books that DRM was forcing them to buy. Those are lost sales!"

That's just silly--no matter which side of the DRM argument you come down on.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant View Post
I think your relative was doing you a favour. People discover new authors through recommendations. I do understand that you don't share this view.

I completely do not share this view. The other lady was already aware of my books and had read at least one and follows me on facebook. It was convenient to get it from another source--she may have planned on buying it, but when talking with someone was offered a copy. This was not "discovery" via a recommendation. It was just "Oh I have that, let me send it to you. You'll love it." And she did. And that's nice. But in no way was it okay with me and in no way does 'Discovery' somehow make it okay or help me pay bills.

In addition to that, it's a huge morale issue. If people close to me do not even understand my livelihood how much easier is it for mistakes to be made by others? Pretty easy.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

This was not "discovery" via a recommendation. It was just "Oh I have that, let me send it to you. You'll love it." And she did. And that's nice. But in no way was it okay with me and in no way does 'Discovery' somehow make it okay or help me pay bills.

While I agree that giving someone an eBook is not "recommending," I will mention that -- in the old days -- when someone was done with a paperback book, it was often passed on to the someone else. And while that may have been, technically, a "lost sale" it was also introducing a reader to a new author which, in turn, could lead to a new customer for the author.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally different situation. Stripping DRM for personal use isn't depriving anyone of anything. Buying a book for your personal use only, then giving it to Aunt Jane to read is, if Aunt Jane would otherwise have bought her own copy.

Why would anyone need to strip the DRM in the first place? They don't own the ebook, they license it. Therefore, they can't strip the DRM. If the publisher wanted people to have DRM-free ebooks, then they would've provided them that way.

If someone strips the DRM from their Kindle book, converts the file to ePub, and then loads it to their Kobo, they have just deprived the publisher of a sale.