Are there any studies PROVING that DRM works?

[Psykhe]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I wonder where you got the idea that there was any "waiting time", since DRM removal is very nearly instantaneous?
For instance, Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" was available on the "darknet" the very same day that it was released in the USA. DRM definitely did not limit or slow down the spread of digital content in that case. In some sense it even seems that DRM actually encourages piracy since the pirates seem to compete among themselves to see who can get something out the fastest, especially in the case of highly hyped releases.

But not that much in other books. There isn't really (so far) any serious piracy community to release ebooks. It is no real issue for the top10, but below that you get pretty large gaps pretty quickly.
Without DRM *anyone* could fill them. With it only people willing to learn how to remove it can, which is a far smaller group (not because it is hard, but simply because people just cannot be bothered).

And DRM is not = DRM. To take the in this apsect more evolved game industry - there are games which are available at the day of commercial release. And then there are (major, top10) games which take literary *months* to get cracked.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One of the best Dracula stories is the movie Love at First Bite.

I liked it!

[jeffcobb]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

But not that much in other books. There isn't really (so far) any serious piracy community to release ebooks. It is no real issue for the top10, but below that you get pretty large gaps pretty quickly.
Without DRM *anyone* could fill them. With it only people willing to learn how to remove it can, which is a far smaller group (not because it is hard, but simply because people just cannot be bothered).

And DRM is not = DRM. To take the in this apsect more evolved game industry - there are games which are available at the day of commercial release. And then there are (major, top10) games which take literary *months* to get cracked.

Sorry maybe I am dense but what does "And DRM is not = DRM" mean? Isn't that like saying "And 2 is not = 2"? Honest question.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

Sorry maybe I am dense but what does "And DRM is not = DRM" mean? Isn't that like saying "And 2 is not = 2"? Honest question.

Good! I'm not the only one who didn't get it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

Also, "got it the day it comes out if not before"? I am calling BS on that (bolded) one.

The most recent Harry Potter book was available as an (atrocious photos) ebook a few days before the release date; someone had gotten a copy from a store (maybe an employee?) and photographed the whole thing, one page at a time, and uploaded the photos to the net.

Sometimes the official digital copies get leaked by publishing employees, on or before the official release date. And very popular books have scanned versions available as soon as the print version gets to the stores, before they're allowed to sell them.

[Worldwalker]

Elfwreck, I believe an employee of the distributor was involved.

Psykhe, it is clear from your terminology ("stolen", "protected", etc.) as well as your points that you are here for the specific purpose of presenting the publishers' case in the DRM situation. We've heard that; we don't need to hear it again. Insisting that you have the right to pick and choose what will be discussed, "calling BS" on things that are well-known, deciding for all of us what effects DRM has and what it doesn't -- and the whole business with the tiny print -- that's not something I expect from a fellow participant in MobileRead. That's what I expect from a publisher's representative, which you increasingly appear to be.

Your statements have gone from disingenuous to insulting. I have stated my position, and stated it very clearly. I cannot see a good reason to further discuss it with you.

[EowynCarter]

And DRM is not = DRM. To take the in this apsect more evolved game industry - there are games which are available at the day of commercial release. And then there are (major, top10) games which take literary *months* to get cracked.

And games I didn't buy because of DRM. I delayed buying sims3 because the that. Then I played with my sister's cracked copy, and went buying the game some time afterwards.

[Psykhe]

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

Sorry maybe I am dense but what does "And DRM is not = DRM" mean? Isn't that like saying "And 2 is not = 2"? Honest question.

The point is that there is not an universal "DRM" like there is an universal "2". Their nature/efficiency can vary wildly, it can go from the "putting object in a cardbox" from "putting object in a nuclear-bomb-proof-safe".

If you handle it like there all are the same you get fallacies like "A DRM can be cracked at the same day as a product with it is release, therefore all DRMs can be cracked in that time.".

[Psykhe]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Psykhe, it is clear from your terminology ("stolen", "protected", etc.) as well as your points that you are here for the specific purpose of presenting the publishers' case in the DRM situation. We've heard that; we don't need to hear it again.

Too bad - because their is the only case which matters.

Because they create the product. The DRM something they use to protect said product. They decide to implement it or not. The questions "if it works or not" - which last time I looked is this thread about - is important for them and meaningless for the customer.

For those the question is "Is the DRM hindering me using the product?". That is something utterly independant to the efficieny of said DRM. A bad, easily removed DRM can be a real pain for an "honest" (aka someone who does not remove it) customer, a very efficient DRM can be unnoticable to the buyer.

Insisting that you have the right to pick and choose what will be discussed

And I did that where please? Honestly, please quote me there.

Because I didn't. I said that your comparsions are invalid because what they compare have nothing to do with DRM (and simply condradict each other or are comparing different situations). If you can THAT "Insisting that you have the right to pick and choose what will be discussed" then you did the very same thing by saying that "You're being very selective." to what I wrote.
Hell, you even do it in the very same post you accuse me of it - "we don't need to hear it". Hypocrisy much?

[Psykhe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The most recent Harry Potter book was available as an (atrocious photos) ebook a few days before the release date; someone had gotten a copy from a store (maybe an employee?) and photographed the whole thing, one page at a time, and uploaded the photos to the net.

Sometimes the official digital copies get leaked by publishing employees, on or before the official release date. And very popular books have scanned versions available as soon as the print version gets to the stores, before they're allowed to sell them.

Yes, but there are two things here:

Said atrocious quality you mentioned yourself. Most books on my kindle I did not pay money for. One of those is a pdf. Of actually pretty good quality, it is well scanned. But I have no motivation whatsoever to read it because it is compard to "normal" ebooks rather annoying because I constantly have to pan the page I am on. I will very likely leave it be until I have really nothing else to read or until I can find a "real" ebook of it.
It isnt really compareable to a real ebook. And that is one of the *good* examples of such a type of "ebooks".

Basically, the "readability" of an ebook version is important. When you compare two ebook "versions" and do *not* mention the readability you either

- "forget" to mention it, in which case the whole comparsion is deeply flawed
- assume it to be identical and as result has no impact

And, sorry, that - getting a free ebook *in the same quality* (or at least compareable quality) as the pricey version *before* the release day - is something extremly uncommon.
What I take offense of - and what I still call BS - is Worldwalker stating it like it is the norm or in any way a semi-common occurence. Which is quite simply not the case.

From my personal experience I would say from the books I read (fantasy/scifi) I can find very few at release day. A good amount a few days after release. Another (bigger) amount in the weeks after that. And a small amount (but still far far bigger than that of the release day ones) I find never (And, yes, they are available es pricey ebooks. And, yes, I bought some of those due to that.).

That you have "waiting time" as factor for your average free ebook isn't really something which should be open to discussion because it is about as clearly present as gravity.

Of cource it isn't for every ebook, but the only sensible way of talking about stuff like that is to assume you are talking about an "average" version of the subject your are discussing.
Maybe I should have made that clear, but isn't that kinda obvious...?

[MrPLD]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

a very efficient DRM can be unnoticable to the buyer.

Until something goes wrong. Either the DRM management servers breakdown for an hour or two, or the company holding the certs/keys folds or they decide to deprecate the system in favour of new hardware/systems. Things do go wrong, things do get old, things do get deprecated, and when they do the consumer has to reacquire their collections.

I can appreciate media distribution corps loving DRM, when you take away the "piracy" factor, having DRM is a very convenient manner in which to usher people to buy all their old media on new formats - brilliant marketing "Sorry people, we don't support this anymore". These statements are backed up by the fact that media distributors now have rewritten terms-and-conditions to indicate that the end-user is just buying a licence of the media, not a copy.

The piracy slant is just a red herring. It's the excuse, the great spectre, used to justify driving the consumer into a new holding area where they no longer actually own any media, they merely licence it under retractable terms.

DRM is about consumer control, not prevention of privacy.

Paul.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

The questions "if it works or not" - which last time I looked is this thread about - is important for them and meaningless for the customer.

Since all current DRM is only a minor nuisance to remove, it is a bit baffling why it should be an important consideration for the producer? Also, all current DRM is far more than "meaningless" to a customer who is robbed of their purchase price by foibles of a DRM system like Adept. That is one DRM system where it is only prudent to remove the DRM immediately after the product is purchased.

Originally Posted by Psykhe

For those the question is "Is the DRM hindering me using the product?". That is something utterly independant to the efficieny of said DRM.

Your definition of efficiency seems to be unique to your position as a publishing industry advocate. An honestly efficient DRM system should protect the interest of the publisher AND the purchaser, which no current DRM system accomplishes. Since current DRM systems do little to protect the publisher and cause many problems for unknowledgeable users, it is apparent that current DRM systems do not work for the purpose of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Psykhe

A bad, easily removed DRM can be a real pain for an "honest" (aka someone who does not remove it) customer, a very efficient DRM can be unnoticable to the buyer.

Well, the first half of you above sentence is a pretty good description of all current DRM forms, but the last half of your above sentence describes a non-existent and highly unlikely to ever exist form of DRM. If such a DRM currently existed, then this thread probably would never have started.

[Ken Maltby]

DRM does not = protection against piracy or copyright infringement.
If that were it's purpose, then it is an abject failure.

DRM does infringe on what an "honest" customer (aka someone who buys the product
and does not sell or give away more copies than he buys) can do with the purchase.
If that were its real function, it is just arrogant and pointless.

If DRM's real purpose were to force the customer to make all purchases through a
particular distribution channel, then the data to evaluate that is closely held and
would be interesting. I don't think it worked for iTunes but without the data, who
knows.

The removal of the DRM from purchases, for your own use, is in no way "dishonest".
(It may be illegal, in some jusrdictions.)

Luck;
Ken

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

...a very efficient DRM can be unnoticable to the buyer...

...choke...gasp...:r ofl:...cough, cough...gasp...

Puh...leese! The fact a buyer would have no way of using an e-book on the reader of their choice, keep back up copies, and always have the worry their book could become unreadable should the reader the DRM limits the book to should become unavailable or have the DRM scheme changed would hardly be unnoticeable to anyone.

[jeffcobb]

Originally Posted by Psykhe

The point is that there is not an universal "DRM" like there is an universal "2". Their nature/efficiency can vary wildly, it can go from the "putting object in a cardbox" from "putting object in a nuclear-bomb-proof-safe".

If you handle it like there all are the same you get fallacies like "A DRM can be cracked at the same day as a product with it is release, therefore all DRMs can be cracked in that time.".

DRM as it is commonly-understood presents no deterrent to the pirates. They either get the product before it is protected or they use any of a 100 methods to remove it after acquisition and then distribute. I did another thread here on this subject which got too detail-oriented for some so I let it go but the upshot is that for anything that is worth anything (in actual value, not money) it is going to be pirated and fast. Are some new books going to be slower than others to make it to the pirate scene ("darknet" as people here refer to it)? Sure but that is less of an issue than it is for games/movies. Put it this way: if you were to be (say) stranded on a deserted island and you had to make a choice of what to read for the rest of your life, which would it be:
A. All free books ever written (say public doman/creative commons) or
B. Every single book ever printed before 2007?

Note: For the purposes of this analogy, since you are on a deserted island with no hope of rescue, there is no danger of the police coming after you for your booty of purloined books).

That is what the situation is like out there and it will be each persons character, not DRM that halts the spread of books. DRM as a whole is easier to remove than most things of that nature for a lot of technical reasons I would be glad to discuss offline but at the end of the day, what DRM has done to me is antagonize me, the very person they need to "do the right thing". It hasn't stopped anything. I bought one book in a series and went through hell (8 hours of fiddling with stuff) just trying to get it viewable ("authorized") on my poor wifes ereader. Never again. For the next volume in the series, it took 60 seconds to find a good copy on the net, 15 seconds to convert it to our favorite format and drop it onto her reader where it works fine.

So I ask you: has DRM worked in this case or has it caused damage?