People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I note that neither you or anyone else has proposed a solution, except by saying "It won't be that bad." This is unconvincing . A look at falling music industry revenues shows it can be that bad.

I'VE PULLED YOU UP ON THIS BEFORE.*

Falling revenues across the entire industry says nothing about whether DRM will help or hinder digital sales.

The music industry experience tells us that dropping DRM does not seem to hurt digital sales. I have given the figures for this before.


*Yes, I'm shouting. Because I've pulled him up on this before!

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by stonetools

And I'm back. Guess you missed me
I've been busy splitting time between meetings with Apple and the Big Six publishers, of course. That takes up a lot of time. And oh yeah , also posting at "my" blog.....You guys should adjust your tin foil hats, they're getting a bit tight

OK, what we have learned ?
We've learned that publishers believe they need DRM not because piracy-a popular meme round these parts-but because they fear large scale "casual sharing." Elfmark- one of the few beacons of rationality around here- admits that this is a danger, although he believes it will not happen. His admission is telling as he is an anti DRM absolutist, refusing to buy any DRMED work.
Elfwreck does not really say why he thinks large scale casual sharing will not happen. As far as I can see, casual sharing of news articles is done on the Internet for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Sharing of a non DRMED book would be almost as easily done, and if the book was popular, I can't see why it WOULDN'T done. THe scenario I have in mind would be if the next installment of the Twilight Saga was sold non DRM . What is the likelihood that Twilight besotted teenage girls would buy the book and share it with their Facebook friends, who would share it with their Facebook friends, etc. IMO, the likelihood of that would approach 100 percent. Even Stevie Wonder would see the probability of that. (I'm emphasizing Facebook here, because while most folks don't know anything about Darknet and torrents, even Grandma knows about Facebook these days).
The refusal of the anti DRM folk to admit that possibility shows that they have idealogical blinders on. The Mobile Read idealogy is that publishers are evil, greedy, capitalist dinosaurs who eat puppies for breakfast, so they can't possibly be right about this issue, but IMO they seem right about the danger of large scale casual sharing. I'm willing to be hear argument on this, but what I've heard is "PUBLISHERS EVUUL!!! DRM EVUUL!!! YOU EVUUL BECAUSE YOU MUST WORK FOR PUBLISHERS!!!" I'm not impressed by such blathering.
Maybe someone here can do better.
I was kind of hoping that we could move beyond the Manichean dichotomy between DRM as it exists now and no DRM. I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example. Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well...

Stonetools:

Your scenario fails to explain why certain NYT hardcover bestsellers* can be available in bits DRM-free two weeks before publication in dead tree format, and nevertheless hit that NYT bestsellers list. And stay there for significant periods. And sell a ton of copies in DTF (as well as a somewhat-smaller-ton of copies in bits). And all of that happened in spite of the fact that every one of the hardcovers included a bound-in CD with DRM-free copies of the book itself, along with all previous books in the series.

Your scenario says that this very real example cannot happen, because as soon as the DRM-free copy is out there, "casual sharing" will kill further purchases of the book (whether in DTF or in bits).

*For "certain NYT hardcover bestsellers" read:

• The last 4 books in the Honor Harrington series by David Weber (Published by Baen)
• The most recent book in the Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold (Published by Baen)
• Several recent books in the 1632 series by Eric Flint (Published by Baen)
• Probably more that I've forgotten about (Published by Baen)

You may notice a pattern in that list...

Which leads me to another criticism of your post. You say that "publishers believe they need DRM [...]" etc. I think you really mean some publishers. There are a number of publishers who have been flourishing, in part, due to their deliberate choice to go DRM-free. See, for example, Baen and O'Reilly.

My personal take is that folks who actually have some money (which group usually includes most adults) are quite willing to pay for products, even when they could have stolen/pirated/violated-copyright/whatever the product at no expense. Conversely, folks who are extremely short on money (which group includes many teens, and some adults) may be more likely to steal/pirate/violate-copyright/whatever. But so what! The number that matters isn't how many sales you miss, it's how many sales you make.

That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

I would summarize as follows:

• Some publishers percieve a need for DRM, because they believe that it will reduce casual sharing, large-scale piracy, or both.
• Other publishers strongly disagree, and eschew DRM altogether.
• We have plenty of demonstrations that DRM fails to prevent large-scale piracy.
• We have some indication that DRM might reduce casual sharing.
• We have solid proof that DRM cannot possibly prevent either casual sharing or large-scale piracy
• We have a number of real datapoints that indicate that lack of DRM fails to cause the ills that Stonetools predicts.
• We have a plethora of data showing that DRM has a significant negative impact on honest, paying customers.

On balance, I consider Stonetools argument to be inconsistent with the factual record.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er , maybe you didnt read the response to your post showing that music industry revenues have collapsed in the last decade. No one that I know thinks that the musuic industry is in good health. Your graph proves that ITunes is doing well. It does not prove that musicians and music companies can make a good living in an age of non DRM music. Quite the contrary, if anything.

See my immediately previous post. You're confusing two separate issues again.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I do think that the publishers shot themselves in the foot by banging on about piracy, when large scale casual sharing is the real danger. Maybe there is no diplomatic way to talk about large scale casual sharing is the real danger, but they lost credibility among the digerati by not being upfront about it.

I think we may have a difference of terminology here. What do you think the difference between "piracy" and "casual sharing" is? Both are cases of "give a copy to someone who didn't pay for it."

It's one thing if its available on Darknet, where only the congnoscenti can get at it. Its a whole order of magnitude different when you can have it emailed it to you by your Facebook BFF.

Wherein "cognoscenti" is defined as "anyone who can put [book title] [ebook] into a Google search box."

Lack of DRM doesn't mean it'll be legal for people to post ebooks to Facebook and say "hey friends! Download this!" The same laws that protect DRM'd ebooks, protect the non-DRM'd ones; making additional copies is still only permitted under consent of the copyright owner. It's just that non-DRM companies commonly have a policy of "it's okay to give a copy to a friend, just don't be so much of a jerk about it that we can't stay in business." And so far, that approach is working.

If the DRM approach is working, why are the publishers panicking? How do they think they'll succeed in the future--do they think that the fanatic anti-DRM crowd (defined as "people like me who refuse to deal with the stuff at all") is going to start buying their books if they make enough noise about how important it is?

As the ebook industry stands right now: If no new ebooks *ever* get posted to the web, I could find enough content--enough high-quality free content, even--to keep me in reading entertainment for the rest of my natural life.

I don't want no-new-ebooks. I want new stuff by my favorite authors; I want new stuff on topics that don't yet exist. I want new fanfic. But if I had to settle for "what's available now, or DRM'd stuff in the future," I can deal with "what's available now."

How is DRM in any way better for me than that? Why should I support an industry that wants to limit my use of my purchases, and insult me in the process?

I don't shop at stores that insist on searching me. I don't care how many other people are willing to put up with it, or what kind of history they've had with thieves in the past. A store that thinks I'm a likely thief doesn't want my business. A publisher that thinks I'm not willing to respect their need for income & future sales doesn't want my business, either. I shop from publishers & authors who think readers are important, not the ones who think they're nuisances standing between the author and access to someone else's bank account.

[stonetools]

Here's what you supposedly proved:

The music industry experience tells us that dropping DRM does not seem to hurt digital sales.

Here's my initial question:

Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world?

How can I put this:

THE ANSWER YOU GAVE DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Not only you and Kai Lung can raise your voices

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er , maybe you didnt read the response to your post showing that music industry revenues have collapsed in the last decade. No one that I know thinks that the musuic industry is in good health. Your graph proves that ITunes is doing well. It does not prove that musicians and music companies can make a good living in an age of non DRM music. Quite the contrary, if anything.

Yes, music industry revenues have collapsed in the last decade, but that doesn't mean that DRM-free music is the culprit. If you want to say the shift to digital had a hand in it, that's true; but I don't know that it's simply because digital is digital.

A big part of the revenue drop has to be attributed to the end of a long period of artificially inflated revenue. Back in the fifties and early sixties, the primary method of music consumption was based on the song. Most people bought music in the form of singles, buying two songs to get the one song they wanted. With the rise of the album, people started buying ten or twelve songs to get the two or three songs they wanted, and revenues rose because albums were much more expensive with singles.

This was followed by a series of format shifts from vinyl to cassette to CD which had people re-buying their collections two and even three times, which also inflated revenue.

Now, people are back to buying singles, and revenue has dropped because they aren't paying for the songs they don't want. They've also stopped re-buying the same music again and again because they can rip their existing CDs to get digital copies as good as any store provides - and quite frankly they're fed up of buying the same song AGAIN.

Anyone who tries to explain falling music industry revenues without considering these factors is missing the point. That's also ignoring the fact that when the RIAA started suing people they turned a large number of their former customers into enemies - and that had an effect on revenue as well.

The only numbers we do have show that no major digital music store has seen a drop in revenue after shifting from DRMed to DRM-free music.

The end result: Yes, music industry revenue has dropped; no, there is zero evidence to show that this drop in revenue is in any way due to the absence of DRM. Besides, most of the music shared on the pirate networks came from CD rips, so DRM was never a factor.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Here's what you supposedly proved:


Here's my initial question:

How can I put this:

THE ANSWER YOU GAVE DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Not only you and Kai Lung can raise your voices

Baen and the people who write for them are succeeding without using DRM. I admit they are a special case, but that really doesn't matter. The fact is that anything that can be done once can be done twice.

The simple fact that Baen is still in business and growing is proof it is possible for writers and publishers to thrive without employing DRM. This doesn't mean that all publishers and writers would thrive in that environment - but companies can go out of business if they use DRM, too.

DRM is not a requirement for business success and its absence does not guarantee failure.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THE ANSWER YOU GAVE DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Yes it does. Your question:

Originally Posted by stonetools

Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world?

Note that this question implies that writers and publishers can make a good living in a DRM world.

What you have labelled as my answer:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The music industry experience tells us that dropping DRM does not seem to hurt digital sales.

Add in a reasonable assumption that having DRM or no DRM on digital sales will not affect traditional sales, leads us to the conclusion:

Writers and publishers can make a good living if they drop DRM on ebooks.


Now, this may or may not be true, since it relies on the implicit assumption in your original question. But that's a fault in your question, not my answer.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Here's what you supposedly proved:

Here's my initial question:
Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world?

How can I put this:

THE ANSWER YOU GAVE DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Not only you and Kai Lung can raise your voices

Many authors and publishers are making a good living without DRM now. Why would we expect that to change if more publishers & authors give up DRM, except that there'll be more competition for the DRM-averse customers?

Do you have any data, rather than random speculation, that indicates that removing all DRM will cause *less* authors to be able to make a living? Because we have plenty of data that says that DRM doesn't increase incomes.

[stonetools]

Wherein "cognoscenti" is defined as "anyone who can put [book title] [ebook] into a Google search box."

I just put Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo into a Google search box and went 5 pages down without finding aan illegal book site. For nmost non techies, that would be the extent oof their capabities. Again, Elfwreck, you should understand that you and Mobile Read devotees really ARE the cognoscenti and that you are being anoyed and angered by things that the ordinary ebook reader isn't even aware of.

What you kind of seem to be saying is that authors and publishers shouldn't even try to use the limited tools available to secure their rights, if there is a chance that their efforts might inconvenience some consumer somewhere. Needless to say, that's not the standard with any physical product .

Radio Shack storeowners lock up their Ipods beyond the counter. That's inconvenient to me and any potential buyer.

Shopowners often encase various goods in those @#$%^ plastic containers that you can't open without scissors or knives. That's inconvenient to me
Jewelry store owners lock up their wares in counters and even hire guards with guns to be in their stores. That's inconvenient AND intimidating.

And so on.IOW, the case of physical goods, storeowners quite often subject you to inconveniences in order to secure their property from theft. Most folks put up with them.

In the case of computers,when you migrate from Macintosh to Windows and vice versa, you leave your programs behind and most tech folks understand that. That's not seen as evil.

Sure in a perfect world, we could say "Trust the consumer not to be a jerk about large scale sharing" . BUt I don't know if I would bet MY livelihood on consumers not being such jerks. I guess I'm unwilling to ask publishers and authors to bet THEIR livelihoods. If it turns out wrong, you'll just say "Oops!" and move on. They won't have that option.

BTW, this is (I think)my second 300 post thread in a row. Yuu guys love me, you know you do

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I just put Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo into a Google search box and went 5 pages down without finding aan illegal book site. For nmost non techies, that would be the extent oof their capabities. Again, Elfwreck, you should understand that you and Mobile Read devotees really ARE the cognoscenti and that you are being anoyed and angered by things that the ordinary ebook reader isn't even aware of.

I put "download girl with dragon tattoo" into a Google search box and got a torrent site as the first hit - and another illegitimate site as the third.

It really is that easy.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I just put Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo into a Google search box and went 5 pages down without finding aan illegal book site. For nmost non techies, that would be the extent oof their capabities.

If you're looking for an ebook, it's useful to add that to the search term

Girl with the dragon tattoo ebook

The second result appears to be a site with an unauthorised download. And the fifth appears to be a site with multiple different download links.

Adding download to the search term works even better. This really isn't difficult or obscure, even for those who aren't 'digerati'. You don't need to know how to specify phrases or required terms or limit to particular domains.

[kennyc]

I'm outta here, this guy hasn't got a clue and is just a shill for publishers as has been shown.

Unsubscribe.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Baen is a scall scale publisher , serving a niche market. His example may just not scale up to a worldwide publishing industry on which millions of people depend for their livelihood. A "no locked doors" policy works in a small rural community; it isn't advisable in the big bad city.
Most people may not be thieves: but they sure like to share things they enjoy with friends. In the Facebook age, they can share with dozens of people at a time. Its a whole nother thing than lending a book to Daddy or your best friend.

Baen is indeed a small-scale publisher, serving a niche market. But their (not, his! Jim Baen, RIP, no longer runs the company) success remains an existence proof that DRM is not a requirement for commercial success.

And even as a small scale company, let's take a look at the NYT hardcover bestsellers, eh? There are about 780 (=52*15) slots on that list in any given year (not counting numbers 16-30 on the extended list that isn't printed in the paper). Baen has published enough books that hit that list to capture more than 1% of those slots for each of the past several years. And that percentage would be higher if we counted the extended list. So "small scale" and "niche" have a relative meaning here. Baen certainly isn't Holtzbrink or one of the big six houses. But they're also not a "small press" by any means.

The main point of my earlier post was that the DRM-free strategy isn't limited to tiny presses and tiny-market books. You know, the equivalent of the "small-town" analogy you used. It sure appears to work just fine for bona fide bestsellers too.

Your observation that the model may not transfer to other businesses is, of course, reasonable. There's no guarantee that Baen's model applies everywhere. In fact, I'd be shocked if it did! An earlier poster was correct to point out, however, that "what can be done once can be done twice."

Given that Baen has demonstrated quite conclusively that DRM-free ebooks and the buzz and profits they generate can take a small paperback house and transform it into a less-small hardcover-and-ebook-and-paperback house, well... the rest of the industry would be wise to study their methods closely. Simply saying "They're different, and it won't work for us" loses credibility. Unless it's followed by "because list-of-well-researched-and-well-founded reasons."

Much of what frustrates the MR audience (IMHO) is that many of us have enough insight into the publishing world, and have done enough background research to recognize that the majority of the reasons presented by Big Publishing (and also by Stonetools) fail on both the "well-researched" and the "well-founded" part of that statement. Especially the claims of "But-piracy..." and "but-casual-copying..." reasons that are typically presented.

My favorite response to big-publishing folks who start to tell me that "Baen is different, because..." is to ask them "So what does that tell you about what YOU are doing wrong? Baen has been succeeding in eBooks for a decade; you haven't. So if 'Baen is different...', hadn't you better consider that the difference relates to something they've been doing that you need to learn about?"

Xenophon
(whose collection of over 1300 ebooks is 100% squeaky-clean legally purchased or otherwise legitimately acquired with the consent of the copyright holder if any)

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm outta here, this guy hasn't got a clue and is just a shill for publishers as has been shown.

Unsubscribe.

All you have contributed to the debate are some scurrilous personal attacks. Don't let the door hit you in backside on the way out.