DRM is necessary and good, stop complaining

[ashalan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Indeed. This, however, covers only the author's rights. What really matters to a consumer are the rights a copyright law grants him / her.

[hacker]

As long as the same physical device that is required to read the work is available in 200 years still exists, the same operating system used to interface (i.e. "sync") with that device still exists in 200 years, and the same processes used to "unlock" that work covered by that version of DRM provided by that manufacturer, then I suppose it would be acceptable.

In other words: It is completely unacceptable.

We have books that were written 200, 500 and 1,000 years ago and are still completely readable, legible and available in digital format for those that wish to read them.

Will these DRM-enabled works follow the same path? Highly unlikely.

If the DRM (or a proprietary device or format) impedes the ability to read the work in 10, 50, 200 years, then it should not be used. Period.

When everything is digital first, with the possibility of a paper/printed version coming later, it becomes even MORE important to make sure that it is NOT restricted by DRM or other means, if you still wish a wider audience to continue to benefit from reading the work.

Lastly, where is the DRM in the paper/printed versions of books today? How has the "IP" in any way been diluted by using digital vs. paper? Answer: It hasn't.

You've made the same mistake thousands upon thousands of people have made over the last several years, by confusing Copyright with the need to implement DRM to protect it.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by hacker

You've made the same mistake thousands upon thousands of people have made over the last several years, by confusing Copyright with the need to implement DRM to protect it.

Very well put!!!

Nobody has yet shown what drm has to do with protecting copyright in practice not in theoretical arguments...

[JSWolf]

What DRM is upposed to do in theory is protect the digital content from being copied/shared with others. It means that if you cannot break the DRM, then you are unable to give a copy to just anyone. However, the people most likely to share their electronic content with others are the ones who already know how to remove/break the DRM. If we are going to have DRM, then the DRM needs to go away once the content goes from copyright to public domain. If it cannot do that then the DRM is keeping legitimate content from the public. DRM in nothing but useless. It can very well prevent people from enjoying their legally purchased content while the thieves get away with stealing the content because they can break the DRM. Just look at the problems with Adobe DRM. It's tied to one computer/program. If you have a problem with your computer, you lose the ability to view they content you legally paid for. Also, Mobipocket is another DRM problem. Let's say you upgrade or change your computer, how do you setup the new computer so the PID is the same as the previous computer so you can still view your content? There may not be a way. And in that case, that makes Mobipocket a very bad idea. Any DRM where you need to redownload content to move it to a different device or computer is a bad idea. Any DRM that locks content from being legally used when it passes out of copyright is a bad idea. There is not one good thing about DRM.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Also, Mobipocket is another DRM problem. Let's say you upgrade or change your computer, how do you setup the new computer so the PID is the same as the previous computer so you can still view your content? There may not be a way. And in that case, that makes Mobipocket a very bad idea.

You don't. You replace the old PID with the new PID in the bookstore that you bought the book from and you re-download your books. Takes about 30 seconds to do that with "Fictionwise".

There is not one good thing about DRM.

What about libraries which want to issue time-expiring e-books. Isn't that a good use for DRM?

[dugbug]

Originally Posted by hacker

As long as the same physical device that is required to read the work is available in 200 years still exists, the same operating system used to interface (i.e. "sync") with that device still exists in 200 years, and the same processes used to "unlock" that work covered by that version of DRM provided by that manufacturer, then I suppose it would be acceptable.

Seriously. 9 bucks. Come on.

I think Ill still get a kindle, thanks. The DRM game will play itself out in a few years and we will have a standard ebook form at some point.

-d

[JSWolf]

But if you have hundreds of ebooks say, then you have to go back to every site you purchased these books and change the PID and then redownload. Thats not a prospect that will be much fun at all.

Even time-limited DRM is a pain. If you are reading a book and not finished with it, you have to go back to the site and if it is available, you have to check it out again, redownload it, delete all the other copies that have expired, install it on your portable reading device (Unless it's just the computer) and continue from where you left off. That is annoying. If I had a pbook, I'd just go to the library website, renew it and all is well.

But, as far as DRM goes overall, time limited DRM for libraries only is not too bad.

[davetweed]

Just to make two points that I haven't seen anyone make yet. Firstly, there's a big difference between "not buying e-books" and "not buying e-books and complaining about DRM". In the former case the publishers can't tell exactly why they aren't selling. So I'd encourage anyone who has problems with current DRM strategies to complain, not to stop complaining as the first poster requested.

Secondly, my problem with current DRM schemes is not that they make me "feel like a criminal" but that, in order to stop me commiting civil law infractions they stop me doing lots of useful, legal things. For example, I've used speech conversion software to put Gutenberg texts into audio files for a media player which isn't going to be supported technically by the publisher, I've used better search software to check through texts I've got on my machine than is available on mobile readers, etc. I've been lucky enough not to have bought any locked data that the producer suddenly couldn't be bothered to support when they bought out a different format, but that has been luck.

The publishers just take the easy way out: there's something illegal a person could do but the can't be bothered to find and deal with those who actually do that, they instead proscribe any action which might lead to an illegal act. This principle isn't applied in other areas: I'm not put in a controlled environment like prison because I have the capacity to commit a mugging, only if I actually do. If you come up with a DRM scheme that helps you _catch_ people who break copyright as defined currently then I'd be supportive, but DRM which attempts to control everyone's control is something where I'll put my money elsewhere, even if it means missing out on the author I really want to read. (Since I don't live on credit and don't earn huge amounts of money, arguments about "oh it's only x dollars to just rebuy books in different formats/for different machines" don't work with me.)

[FixB]

Originally Posted by dugbug

Seriously. 9 bucks. Come on.

Well, if you plan to buy all your books as ebooks, it can amount to much more than that ! (pretty much more )

[ashalan]

Originally Posted by dugbug

The DRM game will play itself out in a few years and we will have a standard ebook form at some point.

To me that standard ebook format is already there and has been there for years. XML. We need nothing else. Any dialect of XML will do. All that's positive about XML as a data format plays out even more so when it comes to books. All the negative aspects of XML are of no relevance when it comes to books.

(Thanks to an XML version of Shakespear's plays and XSLT it took me about 30 minutes today to get all of them formated exactly the way I wanted them).

The digital publishing industry seems to be of the same opinion with their .epub Format. If only they'd get rid of the idea, that locking up documents with DRM was a good idea ...

Sooner or later the firmware on eBook devices will fully support XLS / XSLT / CSS. As far as I am concerned, that will be the end for any non XML-based eBook format to me.

I can't - however - argue with HarryT's point, that some sort of DRM is useful when it comes to some kind of library scheme for e-books. Yet, I am pretty sure there are more elegant ways to do this too.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I believe you're correct, except that I don't think those who set DRM up originally were most concerned with making sure the content creators got paid. Now it's e-books, but it was music before that, and neither industry really has an overall reputation for looking out for the originators' best interests.

I remember a time when the music industry considered it a win any time they got someone to hear their offerings, because, generally speaking, when folks hear music and like it, they tend to seek it out. Now they seem to have switched focus to wanting to make sure they get payed before anyone hears so much as a note. Imagine Name That Tune under present music industry views!

Contestant: "I can name that tune in four notes!"
Host: "Okay, but it'll still cost you 99¢ to hear those four notes ... for each of the 100 audience members, myself, your fellow contestants, the crew, oh, and don't forget the 80 million folks tuned in to watch -- "
Contestant: "Forget it! I can't even afford to play if I win -- first prize is only $20 Million!"

that is exactly how it is with Happy Birthday. The song owners demand to be paid so you no longer see it sung in public.

Dale

[nekokami]

I'm re-thinking what I said earlier about DRM for library books, because it's likely to limit what devices you can read on (to devices supported by the DRM vendor) and it will probably also limit read-aloud functions, etc. But social DRM may work here, too: embed in the book (in metadata, but displayed on the margin of every page, esp. after the due date) "This book is on loan to John Doe, 123 Park Place, NY, NY, Phone US 555-555-5555 until December 2, 2007. Please discard after the due date. To purchase this book, click here."

If most people really don't re-read books, this should suffice for the honest customers. And as we've discussed, no DRM is going to stop the "hardened criminals," anyway.

[Lemurion]

Once more into the DRM breach.

One of my biggest problems with DRM is that it's a way of saying "just because you paid for it doesn't mean you are allowed to use it."

As has been said repeatedly, the only people who are harmed by DRM are honest ones. People who downloaded mp3s or bought pirate copies of Sony CDs did not get rootkits on their computers. People who downloaded a movie that was released in another region rather than having a relative ship them the DVD could actually watch it. The person who downloads illegitimate texts doesn't have to worry about the fact that there is no legal way to read half their collection on the shiny new ebook reader they just bought because it doesn't support the right kind of DRM.

Anything that is available in a DRM-protected form tends to become available in unprotected form on the darknet in short order. Admittedly many such copies are made by exploiting the "analog hole" in one form or another, but it really doesn't matter how they become available because as soon as they are the DRM has failed in its stated purpose.

Where it hasn't failed is in what I see to be its real purpose. DRM exists to provide a mechanism for honest customers to be charged again for something they already own. Its primary purpose is to monetize format-shifting by forcing customers to re-purchase the same content multiple times to keep up with technology. The music industry loved it when everyone re-bought their entire collection of records and tapes on CD. Then came the shift from VHS to DVD; another winner for big content.

No I refuse to believe that DRM is ever a benefit to any customer.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The music industry loved it when everyone re-bought their entire collection of records and tapes on CD. Then came the shift from VHS to DVD; another winner for big content.

There were very valid reasons for customers to replace LPs with CDs and video tapes with DVDs; there was a massive improvement in quality in both cases. It certainly wasn't simply a case of the provider wanting to make money. On the (very) rare occasions that I watch a video tape now I'm appalled at how awful the quality is; one quickly forgets, watching DVDs, just what a huge jump in picture quality they represented.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There were very valid reasons for customers to replace LPs with CDs and video tapes with DVDs; there was a massive improvement in quality in both cases. It certainly wasn't simply a case of the provider wanting to make money.

No of course it wasn't! But they did make a bunch of money off the switchover. If they liked the taste of it, and didn't want to go back to only making money on plain, old-fashioned, first-time purchases ... well, can't really blame them for the sentiment.

But the fact that they didn't set out to make a bunch of money on the cassette to CD switch-over doesn't make it "okay" to try to force their customer base to constantly re-purchase everything. I think that's what Lemurion was trying to get at.