NYT David Pogue: Should e-Books Be Copy Protected?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by perversity

. When the file is opened with a front-end program like iTunes, Reader, Cailbre... there should be some kind tracking on these watermarks, and reporting for A)Users who had too many files from different owners to be considered legit, B) Ownership watermarks that show up in too many places.

Really? Internet connections required to play files? processing cycles lost to spyware. And do you intend to provide these programs and machines running them on free? People own technology that plays files without this nonsense now.

You might try looking into how a similar scheme went over in the marketplace previously. Google "Sony Root Kit"

Been there, done that.

[perversity]

I understand that the idea I proposed is far from flawless. I do beleive watermarking would hinder piracy, in much the same way as a locked door keeps a person honest. If a person really wants in, of course he could get in and no amount of security will keep a persistant theif out.
I agree that the tracking system I imagined would be somewhat communitistic and hard to impossible to implement, but as a content creator I dread the idea of totally DRM-free files; whether they be books, music or movies.
Something that most people tend to forget is that they don't actually OWN any of the digital content they use unless they CREATED it. You only own a lisence to use the product as the owner(s) sees fit.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by perversity

I understand that the idea I proposed is far from flawless. I do beleive watermarking would hinder piracy, in much the same way as a locked door keeps a person honest.

It has the same workaround as the previous iTunes device limit:
Burn the files to disc, then rip from the disc, which removes the metadata. A clever audio technician might have a way to bypass the physical disc, but the other's open to anyone. (And hey, side effect of producing a disc full of music you already have copies of, which can be handed off to whoever via sneakernet.)

Watermarking, like most DRM, only identifies, only *punishes*, those users who don't understand the technology they're using.

I don't exactly have ethical problems with punishments that are only aimed at the clueless and stupid, as a kind of Darwinian process of raising tech-awareness, but I suspect that that isn't actually the RIAA's goal.

Something that most people tend to forget is that they don't actually OWN any of the digital content they use unless they CREATED it. You only own a lisence to use the product as the owner(s) sees fit.

That's not quite true. You OWN the books you buy. You OWN the records. And legally, you OWN the digital files as well, even though their only existence is 1's and 0's on a disc somewhere. You have the right to manipulate and change them any way that strikes your fancy... just as, when I buy a book, I may read it, use it for kindling, or set it to prop up a table leg, and the author has no right to tell me otherwise.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Music is'nt tanking though. Just the old line recording industry.

There are thousands and thousands of small time musicians taking a piece of the pie. Which is pretty much what existed before the rise of recording technology.

I'm all for this, and have been buying mostly smaller artists through independant chanels since 1998. Green Linnet's high prices got me searching for more affordable celtic music to launch this.

And I will most likely buy heavily from writers directly in the future, just as I buy my music that way now.

I doubt if you buy your music directly from the writers-I rather suspect you mean you buy it directly from the studio. (Which might be an independent studio operated by the writer, but more likely by the band if it's truly 'direct'.)

The analogy here, I think, would be buying your music directly from the song writer rather than from the band. Thinking that publishers add no value to an author's work is like thinking the song is 'finished' when the song writer finishes writing it. IMO it's not 'finished' until it's performed & recorded-and even then it's usually performed & recorded many times, with tweaks, before it's released. (Consider the input of the publisher's editor & proofreader for books.) The analogy fails, of course, when the song writer is him(her)self a member of the band.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by perversity

I understand that the idea I proposed is far from flawless. I do beleive watermarking would hinder piracy, in much the same way as a locked door keeps a person honest. If a person really wants in, of course he could get in and no amount of security will keep a persistant theif out.
I agree that the tracking system I imagined would be somewhat communitistic and hard to impossible to implement, but as a content creator I dread the idea of totally DRM-free files; whether they be books, music or movies.
Something that most people tend to forget is that they don't actually OWN any of the digital content they use unless they CREATED it. You only own a lisence to use the product as the owner(s) sees fit.

As with most who promote selling licenses rather than copies, you overlook the fact that licenses themselves are property. Licenses carry both rights & obligations-and those rights/obligations work in both directions. Your right is the buyer's obligation-and the buyer's right is your obligation. An attempt to prevent the buyer from transferring property that (s)he owns (the license-not necessarily the copy) will fail a court challenge in most jurisdictions. Your obligation, therefore, is to continue to allow the current owner of the license, whoever that might be, to continue using the copy for which the license was issued. The buyer's obligation (both original & subsequent buyers) is to only use the copy in ways allowed by the license.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by perversity

I understand that the idea I proposed is far from flawless. I do beleive watermarking would hinder piracy, in much the same way as a locked door keeps a person honest. If a person really wants in, of course he could get in and no amount of security will keep a persistant theif out.

No it wouldn't. With digital piracy, the owner of the house and the thief are the same person. Locked doors are useless.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by perversity

Something that most people tend to forget is that they don't actually OWN any of the digital content they use unless they CREATED it. You only own a lisence to use the product as the owner(s) sees fit.

Good thing the government and laws don't agree with you.

[perversity]

I've obviusly stirred the pot more than I intended here.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Good thing the government and laws don't agree with you.

So your saying that the US government doesn't recognize copyright laws?
We're both right and wrong here. You can indeed burn your books, color your books, sell your one original copy of a book, but you cannot make photocopies of your book and distribute them, for free or for sale. You can't copy the words from a book and pass them off as your own. Your not even allowed to steal the story and modify the verbage and pass it off as your own. Even the building upon of an idea that has already been presented requires some sort of citation of original authorship.
I'm done beating this horse

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by perversity

You only own a lisence to use the product as the owner(s) sees fit.

Exhaustion of rights. You cannot dictate to me, if you sell me the product, what I can do with it as long as it's legal. If I want to resell, I have the right to do that. If you are providing it as a service, you have a bunch of obligations to fill which will be expensive in the longer term and I doubt you want to go there.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

True. Although it does work really well for preventing fair use, which is also something the Industry is in favor of.

Either DRM works or it doesn't. You can't really say it doesn't work to stop piracy because it can be broken but then say it does work to stop fair use.

If anything, what works to prevent fair use is the willingness of people to abide by the restrictions of the DRM and not the DRM itself.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No it wouldn't. With digital piracy, the owner of the house and the thief are the same person. Locked doors are useless.

You're correct. It's more like putting my picture on my drivers license to discourage me from lending it to my brother. Yes I can still counterfeit the license but is it worth it?

I don't think that anyone that is advocating watermarking thinks it's effective. Just that it's as effective as the existing DRM implementations but much less intrusive to the legal purchaser.

I think of it as trying to wean a child off of a security blanket. They might think that the blanket is keeping the boogey man away but you can't just rip it away from them. Maybe if you cut a little corner off of it and let them keep it in their pocket it will make them feel better.

The problem that I see with it is that it would probably get implemented over aggressively by using private data in the watermark instead of public. If they put public information like my name, the store I bought it from and the order number I used I would be fine with it. If they used private data like my credit card number I would have a big problem with it and would never buy it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If they used private data like my credit card number I would have a big problem with it and would never buy it.

There are online-only one-use and pre-loaded CC's you could use there.

[SensualPoet]

I think it's worth a backward glance at the issue of software piracy. In the 1980s, companies created really onerous schemes to "protect" software, including physical "dongles" to ensure the registered user was legit.

Twenty-plus years later, we've figured out that software people value will actually be paid for. Yes, someone, somewhere, will steal it: but it's ok -- and folk who actually pay for it agree -- make it hard to steal and share, without impeding all the legit users from easy install and usage is the best compromise.

Correct me if I am wrong: Microsoft and Apple continue to earn billions on software-based strategies. They can be pirated; but most users pay for the product.

This becomes more complicated the older the "content" is. A couple of days ago, Beethoven enjoyed his 239th birthday. Shouldn't his heirs, and publishers, continue to enjoy royalties when PBS FM plays his songs? What about Bram Stoker's descendants getting a piece of Peter Cushing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Twilight royalities?

The monetization of drug discoveries often does not exceed 20 years before generics can enter the market: are we protecting Stephen King's work the same way? Should Cujo, from 1992, become public domain in 2012? Firestarter was published in 1981 ... soon to be 27 years ago ... should it be free? King is 62: he could live to 2040 making his works public domain in 2110. Who are we protecting? His grandsoons could be dead by then -- and likely would be. Care to speculate on Random House?

Writers brought insights into life in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s ... we have access to those who died young or wrote old. Everyone else: locked away until a publisher or an estate thinks there might be a "market". So: Sherlock Holmes is "free" and Hercule Poirot is not to be unleashed till 2066 ... but their literary lives cross paths. Poirot appeared in 1920 (now PD) in the Mysterious Affair at Styles; Holmes was still solving cases into that late 1920s. Conan Doyle died in 1930; Christie in 1976 ... the "life" of their labours vary radically by author, publisher, geography, fan base.

Are we really concerned to line the pockets of the publisher's great-grandchildren?

Software, and drugs, provide some guidance that the public will embrace: it's a combination of "what have you done for me lately" and "author's/producer's rights/ownership". MGM's Wizard of OZ is 80 years old this year: does Time-Warner deserve royalities still? What about Frank Baum's heirs whose books the film is based upon are deemed "public domain"?

Murky waters. Eventually, some combo of "best before date" and "author living" is likely to be enacted.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I doubt if you buy your music directly from the writers-

I buy from small bands in local venues, and singer songwriters like Laura Dare online.

There is a lot of good music locally performed, and most of them hawk their music at the shows.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by phogg

Music is'nt tanking though. Just the old line recording industry....

and

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, I hadn't noticed that the "music industry" is tanking.

I'm guessing that's because you (nor I) are equity analysts at an investment bank whose specialty is in the entertainment industry.

Global record sales are down, CD sales are in free-fall, record stores large and small are closing. Online sales are increasing, they are not making up for the losses in CD revenues, and those sales are highly concentrated into the iTunes music store -- a fate publishers (and apparently, quite a few MR posters ) -- desperately want not to get repeated, especially if Amazon is the "winner." And all of this is likely to accelerate. The only semi-bright spot afaik is the big concerts, which charge increasingly higher ticket fees, and there is no equivalent to concerts in the book field.

You may applaud the troubles the big record labels are in -- that is, if you're a tad short-sighted. Small labels are getting bashed about the same as major labels, and when they fail they will likely need to sell their catalog to pay off creditors. These problems lend to more consolidation in the industry, e.g. the "Big Six" circa 1998 down to the "Big Four" today. And one of the remaining "Big Four" is - surprise! - Sony, whom many MR readers currently tout, among other Great Things, as the potential savior of ebooks as they are innovative in the space and are switching to the open ePub format.

Even if this is primarily an industry adjustment due to the introduction of a disruptive technology, telling the book industry "hey, lookit the music industry!" is NOT going to make them feel all warm and fuzzy about the upcoming changes.