DRM is necessary and good, stop complaining

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by PHugger

This sounds exactly like ALLOFMP3. They also claimed to pay royalties to the copyright owners, but this was a lie. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this new Russian eBook store is legitimate.

Except numerous authors confirm the story. They pay royalties directly, not to some collection agency like Allofmp3 did.

[ashalan]

Legal Aspect
Living in Switzerland I face a copyright situation which might be a bit out of the norm: as things stand, DRM of any sort infringe me legal rights.

According to the Swiss Copyright Law (Art. 19 Abs. 1 URG) I have the right to make copies of digital media I

• bought
• did rent (commercially)
• borrowed (privately from a friend)

for private use.

Private use meaning:

• I am allowed to make copies for myself
• I am allowed to make copies for members of my family (and give the copies as a gift)
• I am even allowed to make copies for close friends (and give the copies as a gift)

It is illegal - however - to sell such copies or give them away as a gift in masses.

Most DRMs that are being used these days prevent me from doing this without the use of third party tools. If someone is not too versed in things technological he / she is de facto hindred in executing his / her legal rights.

Sources:
http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/231.1/231.1_006.htm
http://www.konsumentenschutz.ch/down...ikdownload.pdf
http://www.ifpi.ch/docs/cdcopy.html

Commercial Aspect
The question arises if a copyright situation like the one in Switzerland has a negative effect on sales of electronic media?

Of course a thorough research is out of my scope here. Hence I am taking a rather simplistic approach comparing the per head sales of music media in Switzerland to those of Germany (which has a very similar cultural and economical situation).

In 2006 people spent on music media (in millions of dollars):

• 182 Switzerland (3% digital downloads): 176
• 1,411 in Germany (5% digital downloads): 1340

This comes down to spending the following amounts of dollars on music media per head:

• Switzerland (7523934 inhabitants) : 2.339 US$
• Germany (82422299 inhabitants) : 1.6257 US$

People in Switzerland spend 1.438 times more money on music media.

Hmm, well - maybe people in Switzerland have more cash to spend on CDs, DVDs etc. Let us take the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head and see the difference

• Switzerland (52879 US$)
• Germany (35075 US$)

Per Head GDP in Switzerland is 1.50 times larger than in Germany. Which would kind of even out the difference in per head sales.

Sources:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/...ata%202006.pdf
http://www.geographixx.de/


Of course, as I already pointed out, a comparsion like this has many flaws (a CD in Switzerland costs about 18 Euroes, in Germany they are sold for around 16 Euroes, etc etc) and would not stand any closer (more thorough and empirical inspection).

Yet, if the absence of a rigid enforcement of copyright (via DRM or laws) would indeed have such a terrific effect on media sales, shouldn't CD sales in Switzerland be considerably lower?

Isn't it more a question of quality which leads a customer into buying something? I take pride in not owning a single piece of illegally copied digital media, be it music, videos, or software. If I find something worth-while having, I gladly spend money on it.

I salute people like those guys over at BAEN who - in my opinion - are leading the right way. I don't like being treated like a criminal. I spend trust on companies I do business with, and I expect the same type of respect and trust from them.

[andyafro]

Really it's down to the company's selling ebooks get rid of DRM and introduce a product number system where as every copy sold of a book should come with a security number thats locks it to the buyer, so if it turns up on a illegal website or torrent site it can be traced back to the buyer.

any illegal activity or copyright infringement would then be the owner of the copies responibility. DRM hurts mainly the people that are legally buying books but lose out in end because DRM not only limits there ability use there bought book as they want but limits such things as being able to edit it the way you want it.

Instead of restricting the legal customer that only wants to read the book and keep it in his collection(which he is righly allowed to do for life since he bought it) and product code system would be best because it gives you that freedom plus it puts the responsiblilty on you personly as to keeping your book from being copied and will allow illegal activity to be traced back to you.

Thats Fair

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

The Kindle, on the other hand, is a closed system. The Kindle's serial # is tied to the user on the Amazon website. A record of all DRM ebooks purchased is also stored on Amazon, and associated with both the customer and the specific Kindle. Amazon could institute a firmware feature that would automatically verify each DRM ebook on the system with Amazon's server on a regular basis, and inform Amazon if a pirated file were found. Maybe they're doing that now. Who knows what data goes up to Amazon?

This is one reason that Kindle is so misguided in my opinion though due to the publicity effect and e-book prices dropping overall it's still a positive development. The privacy issues that this thing raises are very scary (remember the recent story about an overzealous prosecutor investigating some minor fraud in MN and trying to get Amazon records for random customers - slapped down properly by a judge).

[PHugger]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Except numerous authors confirm the story. They pay royalties directly, not to some collection agency like Allofmp3 did.

This claim is likely just more proof of it's illegitimacy. They can claim anything they want - even if it's not true. It bothers me that so many honest people get taken in, thinking that it's legitimate and unknowingly become pirates. Most authors don't retain the the publishing and distribution rights when they 'sell' a book. Sending them money directly and bypassing the publishers, as you claim, would be illegal. Once an author decides to sell a book to a publisher he can't then go and sell it someplace else too. Publishing deals are exclusive. Maybe one of our resident authors could comment on this aspect of publishing deals.

This is easy to prove - pick a new book, a best seller. Contact the publisher and see if they have any arrangement with them for distribution of their book.



PCH

[nekokami]

Re: Russian book seller: international rights are negotiated separately, so the US publisher might have no bearing on Russian rights. You'd need to check with the author's agent. (That being said, the site still sounds fishy to me.)

Re: advertising in books: I used to think this was a great solution. Then I realized that the only ads I'd want to see in books are ads for other books, and if all books are supported entirely by advertising, there's no actual money going into the system, just circular loops of advertisement references.

Re: social DRM (your name embedded in the book): I think this is the best method. People who want to share books normally, e.g. loan to a friend, can do so, and every time the friend looks at the book, they'll remember whose it really is, and if they read it more than once they'll probably buy it. (I'd include an easy link to allow them to do that, right in the book, probably with some kind of discount program to the buyer, and/or a referral bonus to the person who loaned the book.) People who want to strip out the ID and blast the book all over creation are the same people who know how to crack existing DRM schemes, so no difference there. And the original owner of the book maintains the ability to read it on any device they like.

re: Amazon possibly allowing reselling of ebooks: that's the only good excuse I've heard so far for Amazon's proprietary DRM scheme and privacy invasive system. It's not a good enough excuse for me, but then again, I very rarely get rid of books I've read. I like to re-read. Allowing someone to return an ebook for credit, though, would make a lot of sense for Amazon, and I can see that they'd want some way to ensure that the book wasn't still on the device.

re: Microsoft: I don't think two wrongs make a right, and I don't think it's better to steal from the rich than the poor, but there is still the economic question of whether the users of illegal MS software would ever have paid MS, had the illegal sw not been available, and it is still the case that many studies support the theory that sharing content (music, sw, etc.) actually increases sales of that content in the long run. MS may have benefited at least in part from the piracy in the early days, and it might even be the case that if one were able to figure out who would have paid for genuine copies if no pirated copies were available, vs. who would never have heard of MS products back when they were young if pirated copies were not available, MS comes out ahead historically.

But that being said, now that they're the big dog on the block, they don't really get the benefit of the free advertising effect of sharing, and they've worked to wipe out the competition (see RealMedia for an example, or their infringements on their Java license), so I can see where they'd think they need to make everyone pay for their stuff now. Me, I'll stick with OpenOffice.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

Again, I disagree. I know that's what many people think, and what many people say, but this doesn't make it right. For instance, the right to free speech is not protected in North Korea, but North Koreans still have the right to free speech even if that right is denied by their government. Similarly, the right to own the fruits of one's labor is an inherent right, even if it is violated because the violator has a gun.

The ends does not justify the means... or else Hitler was right.

I'd agree that one's Rights are one's Rights regardless of whether they are ever exercised.

However, I also think that micomicon is getting at an important point: if you are prevented from exercising a Right, or even blocked from the means of doing so, do you still truly "have" that Right? I'm not asking if it stops being a legitimate Right or not, only pointing out that unless you have the option and means of exercising a Right, the fact that it is a genuine Right is largely irrelevant: there's a difference between having a Right and being able to exercise that Right.

For instance, the Right of Free Speech is specifically protected in the U.S. Constitution. If the Government came along and amputated my hands and removed my larynx they wouldn't have taken away my Right to Free Speech, but by depriving me of the physical ability to speak or write my Right of Free Speech would effectively be rendered meaningless.

This can be extrapolated to all the other Rights we "have" -- if I have the Right to vote, but somebody rips down all the signs telling folks where the new polling place is when it's moved unexpectedly (this actually happened in my neighborhood one time) then my Right has been effectively taken away. Though I still "have" the Right to vote, I can't exercise it, so I effectively don't "have" it after all.

The point I'm trying to get at in all this rambling is this: in a practical sense, you only truly "have" the Rights which you have the means to exercise, and the ability to protect that exercise.

We do have the "Inalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed, but in a situation where someone has the means to prevent our exercising them, and we lack the means to stop them stopping us, we effectively don't truly have those rights after all.

No, Hitler was not right. But he is an excellent example of why Peoples (no, that's not a typo) should be zealous in guarding their Rights from infringement, even if they choose never to exercise a given Right.

Of course, now that Hitler has been mentioned (not once, but twice), the thread is way overdue to wither and die.

Pity, it's such an interesting thread, too.

[hidari]

Nice points. My favorite though Is ....You will stick with OPEN OFFICE....

SO DO I....


The thread has developed quite nicely so far. I would say both sides have good arguments.

Questions:


1. DO YOU THINK THE BAEN MODEL (DRM FREE) WILL BECOME THE STANDARD IN THE YEARS TO COME FOR DRM?


2. WILL BOOKSHOPS AND MEGASTORES (IE AMAZON) SUFFER AS MUCH AS THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS TODAY?

Originally Posted by nekokami

Re: Russian book seller: international rights are negotiated separately, so the US publisher might have no bearing on Russian rights. You'd need to check with the author's agent. (That being said, the site still sounds fishy to me.)

Re: advertising in books: I used to think this was a great solution. Then I realized that the only ads I'd want to see in books are ads for other books, and if all books are supported entirely by advertising, there's no actual money going into the system, just circular loops of advertisement references.

Re: social DRM (your name embedded in the book): I think this is the best method. People who want to share books normally, e.g. loan to a friend, can do so, and every time the friend looks at the book, they'll remember whose it really is, and if they read it more than once they'll probably buy it. (I'd include an easy link to allow them to do that, right in the book, probably with some kind of discount program to the buyer, and/or a referral bonus to the person who loaned the book.) People who want to strip out the ID and blast the book all over creation are the same people who know how to crack existing DRM schemes, so no difference there. And the original owner of the book maintains the ability to read it on any device they like.

re: Amazon possibly allowing reselling of ebooks: that's the only good excuse I've heard so far for Amazon's proprietary DRM scheme and privacy invasive system. It's not a good enough excuse for me, but then again, I very rarely get rid of books I've read. I like to re-read. Allowing someone to return an ebook for credit, though, would make a lot of sense for Amazon, and I can see that they'd want some way to ensure that the book wasn't still on the device.

re: Microsoft: I don't think two wrongs make a right, and I don't think it's better to steal from the rich than the poor, but there is still the economic question of whether the users of illegal MS software would ever have paid MS, had the illegal sw not been available, and it is still the case that many studies support the theory that sharing content (music, sw, etc.) actually increases sales of that content in the long run. MS may have benefited at least in part from the piracy in the early days, and it might even be the case that if one were able to figure out who would have paid for genuine copies if no pirated copies were available, vs. who would never have heard of MS products back when they were young if pirated copies were not available, MS comes out ahead historically.

But that being said, now that they're the big dog on the block, they don't really get the benefit of the free advertising effect of sharing, and they've worked to wipe out the competition (see RealMedia for an example, or their infringements on their Java license), so I can see where they'd think they need to make everyone pay for their stuff now. Me, I'll stick with OpenOffice.

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

To be honest, I think a lot of politicians do what they think is best for them.

What's best for politicians to do in office is to do what the people want done (at least, if anyone's paying attention to what they actually are doing). I still think the only solution to this DRM issue is through changes in the copyright and patent laws.

One example no one seems to have written about in this thread is illustrated by my own experience. In 1980 my son's science book assured him that "someday man will walk on the moon." The public school district's problems keeping text books up to date is a resource drain that can--and someday will--be solved with eBooks: subscribe to eTexts and update them yearly. The Kindle distribution model addresses this (but wifi would probably work better for school districts).

Public school eTexts should erase themselves at the end of the school year (same thing libraries need). But equally important, the texts themselves must be locked so that they cannot be changed without at least sending up an alert. I'm thinking about things like the controversy over natural selection versus intelligent design in some school districts. It brings focus on the school districts' requirement to guide curriculum.

Our American copyrights need to be written in the context of how to make copyrights work with current technologies. Once that is done it will be possible through international organizations to try to get some agreement among nations for a world standard.

[hidari]

That brings up a good point. Copyright laws are quite different in different countries. Should there be a Worldwide copyright law?

Originally Posted by 6charlong

What's best for politicians to do in office is to do what the people want done (at least, if anyone's paying attention to what they actually are doing). I still think the only solution to this DRM issue is through changes in the copyright and patent laws.

One example no one seems to have written about in this thread is illustrated by my own experience. In 1980 my son's science book assured him that "someday man will walk on the moon." The public school district's problems keeping text books up to date is a resource drain that can--and someday will--be solved with eBooks: subscribe to eTexts and update them yearly. The Kindle distribution model addresses this (but wifi would probably work better for school districts).

Public school eTexts should erase themselves at the end of the school year (same thing libraries need). But equally important, the texts themselves must be locked so that they cannot be changed without at least sending up an alert. I'm thinking about things like the controversy over natural selection versus intelligent design in some school districts. It brings focus on the school districts' requirement to guide curriculum.

Our American copyrights need to be written in the context of how to make copyrights work with current technologies. Once that is done it will be possible through international organizations to try to get some agreement among nations for a world standard.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by hidari

That brings up a good point. Copyright laws are quite different in different countries. Should there be a Worldwide copyright law?

There are some international copyright treaties, but like all treaties, countries decide whether to sign onto them or not.

I'd expect the same to hold true for any future copyright changes.

[PHugger]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Re: Russian book seller: international rights are negotiated separately, so the US publisher might have no bearing on Russian rights. You'd need to check with the author's agent. (That being said, the site still sounds fishy to me.)

OK, thanks Nekokami. The US publisher might not hold rights, but someone does. I guess it depends on the deal you make when you get it published. I still say pick one of those books and see if the international sales rights have actually been granted by the copyright holder (whoever that might be). I know that national laws may be different in each country, but there are treaties and the WTO to handle those things. Whether or not those agreements are ever enforced is another matter.



PCH

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by PHugger

This claim is likely just more proof of it's illegitimacy. They can claim anything they want - even if it's not true. It bothers me that so many honest people get taken in, thinking that it's legitimate and unknowingly become pirates. Most authors don't retain the the publishing and distribution rights when they 'sell' a book. Sending them money directly and bypassing the publishers, as you claim, would be illegal. Once an author decides to sell a book to a publisher he can't then go and sell it someplace else too. Publishing deals are exclusive. Maybe one of our resident authors could comment on this aspect of publishing deals.
This is easy to prove - pick a new book, a best seller. Contact the publisher and see if they have any arrangement with them for distribution of their book.

Publishing deals can be exclusive, but that's not always the case (for instance, LitRes mostly gets non-exclusive e-rights). Also, until recently electronic rights [in Russia] were not really mentioned in contracts, so most authors retain them.
As for proof, there was a PRESS RELEASE from a major detective writer about her books "coming back to Internet" (she forced most libraries to take her books down few years ago). Here's a bad translation. LitRes sells books from Sergei Lukyanenko - a bestselling Sci-Fi author and writer of recent major blockbuster "Night Watch". Believe me, anyone trying to sell his books behind his back would hear from him VERY soon.
There are numerous best-selling authors present on LitRes right now. They're fully legit in what they sell.

[AnemicOak]

Even US authors sometimes hold e-rights to there stuff while a publisher holds print rights. I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly or not, but IIRC there was a discussion on the Baen Bar not long ago where it was mentioned Catherine Asaro holds the e-rights to her Skolian Empire books (at least the first few) even though the pbook rights are held by TOR. She's looking at maybe making the first book a freebie through Baen's Free Library.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hidari

That brings up a good point. Copyright laws are quite different in different countries. Should there be a Worldwide copyright law?

The 1990 International Berne Copyright Convention, which virtually every country is a signatory to, guarantees an author the same rights in any signatory country that they have in their own country.

How rigorously that law is enforced does of course different from country to country.