Why are DRM ebooks evil and why should I avoid them like the plague?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Good to know. So there was in effect no issue for those involved in the 2006 Amazon DRM shift. You simply de-register your old device, re-register your new device, and viola you have access to your library on your new device. I understand now why there was virtually no outcry-except among the digerati- for Amazon's 2006 move.

I am outraged and disgusted by your behaviour in this thread.

You were told that Amazon abandoned the DRMed ebooks that it sold before the Kindle came along. You said you would go and research it.

You have obviously done no such thing, as you now pop-up and try to say it never happened, apparently mis-understanding (although I can't see how you could do this honestly) someone's explanation of Amazon's current DRM scheme.

I would put you on ignore, except that you would then spread your misinformation with one fewer voice to refute you.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

It's a question of motivation. What benefit does DRM bring to any MobileRead user? Absolutely none. It brings some benefit to device vendors (device lock-in), to DRM vendors (Adobe gets their cut), and potentially to publishers (forcing users to re-purchase content). But there is absolutely no benefit to any user. Why does someone argue loudly and strongly against their own best interest? They don't. So therefore it's not against his best interest, which means his best interests align with those of the industry rather than with their customers. People don't advocate against their own interests. If someone appears to do so, and their actions are clear, then it must be their interest that is not what it appears to be. For Stonetools to be acting in his own best interest, that interest cannot be that of a consumer.

I've directly answered you before on this, on post # 106. I guess you (like many, many others on this thread) don't understand why establishing and defending the IP rights of creators are in fact highly beneficial in the long run to end users , even though at first they may be disadvantageous and inconvenient to the end user. The founding fathers understood this concept over 200 years ago: I would have thought it would be immediately obvious to folk today. But I guess digital changes everything.

[stonetools]

I am outraged and disgusted by your behaviour in this thread.

You were told that Amazon abandoned the DRMed ebooks that it sold before the Kindle came along. You said you would go and research it.

I did try to research it. Unfortunately, Amazon's change provoked so little reaction that I was unable to figure out what they did, exactly.
I guess that everyone was so happy with the new dispensation that they pretty much forgot all about the difficulties associated with abandoning the old regime-kind of like what happened when Apple went from OSX 9 to OSX 10, with no backward compatibility.
Elfmark set me straight, without the outrage. Maybe you might want to follow her example.
What's interesting is that the anti DRM folk use such overheated language in talking about DRM changes that you would think that there would be people marching in the streets over it. In fact, most folks don't know and don't care about any of this stuff. They would probably care, though, if their favorite best selling authors stopped writing novels because they could make more money doing something where their IP rights were protected.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I've directly answered you before on this, on post # 106. I guess you (like many, many others on this thread) don't understand why establishing and defending the IP rights of creators are in fact highly beneficial in the long run to end users , even though at first they may be disadvantageous and inconvenient to the end user. The founding fathers understood this concept over 200 years ago: I would have thought it would be immediately obvious to folk today. But I guess digital changes everything.

Pardon me for being late to the de-bate, but my tinfoil hat was tuning things out.

I'm glad you brought up the Founding Fathers. What precisely did they say, and what precisely did they do? I'll let others quote the US Constitution, but they set both copyright and patent at 34 years maximum.

I'll make you a trade, (a deal deal, as Don Rickles said in Kelly's Heroes).

You sing the praises of 34 years max copyright, and I'll sing the praises of DRM. Fair enough?

And remember, the Golden Age of Hollywood was created iunder a max copyright of 56 years. Nobody was screaming "I can't/won't produce because my grandchildren won't have my copyright revenue in their retirement."

Or is this too tough for a K-Street Kommando?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I've directly answered you before on this, on post # 106. I guess you (like many, many others on this thread) don't understand why establishing and defending the IP rights of creators are in fact highly beneficial in the long run to end users , even though at first they may be disadvantageous and inconvenient to the end user. The founding fathers understood this concept over 200 years ago: I would have thought it would be immediately obvious to folk today. But I guess digital changes everything.

DRM neither establishes nor defends the IP rights of creators: Copyright law does that.

Many people on this forum support copyright and understand copyrights need to be enforced. Most of us support shorter terms, but we still support copyright.

DRM is not copyright.

Opposing DRM is not the same as refusing to establish and defend copyright. Baen books does not use DRM, but they take active steps whenever they discover their copyrights are being infringed upon.

[DiapDealer]

Elfmark set me straight, without the outrage. Maybe you might want to follow her example.

Why? You just tune out any reasoning that differs from your own regardless of the author's tone--ignore any facts that don't quite fit your preconceived dogma. Don't get me wrong; you're very good at the art of obfuscation, misdirection and general "noise" creation. But you've proven yourself completely incapable of true conversation. If you don't work in the publishing world, they're certainly missing out on the services of a competent mouthpiece.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled proselytizing.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pardon me for being late to the de-bate, but my tinfoil hat was tuning things out.

I'm glad you brought up the Founding Fathers. What precisely did they say, and what precisely did they do? I'll let others quote the US Constitution, but they set both copyright and patent at 34 years maximum.

I'll make you a trade, (a deal deal, as Don Rickles said in Kelly's Heroes).

You sing the praises of 34 years max copyright, and I'll sing the praises of DRM. Fair enough?

And remember, the Golden Age of Hollywood was created iunder a max copyright of 56 years. Nobody was screaming "I can't/won't produce because my grandchildren won't have my copyright revenue in their retirement."

Or is this too tough for a K-Street Kommando?

Actually, I would make that trade. I agree that the current copyright term is too long. On the other hand, 34 years may be a bit short( life expectancy in in the 1780s was a little bit less than it is now). I'm Ok with 70 years or life of the author plus 20, whichever comes last. On the other hand, I agree that DRM could be improved. There should be a migration path if there is any change in DRM and you should be able to migrate your library to new devices. That's perfectly achievable under DRM.
Unfortunately, the digerati hand wave away the concerns of bestselling authors and publishers and demand unconditional surrender of their IP rights. Not surprisingly, the authors aren't interested.

K Street commando? I wish. Unfortunately, I'm just interested in reading good books and understand that the authors that produce them don't like being ripped off and won't continue working if they aren't protected from being ripped off. I notice that you and others have said not one word about how authors and publishers can have their rights protected. I guess you don't give a damn about that.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why? You just tune out any reasoning that differs from your own regardless of the author's tone--ignore any facts that don't quite fit your preconceived dogma. Don't get me wrong; you're very good at the art of obfuscation, misdirection and general "noise" creation. But you've proven yourself completely incapable of true conversation. If you don't work in the publishing world, they're certainly missing out on the services of a competent mouthpiece.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled proselytizing.

Thank you. Your tears are delicious to me.

[stonetools]

DRM is not copyright.

Opposing DRM is not the same as refusing to establish and defend copyright. Baen books does not use DRM, but they take active steps whenever they discover their copyrights are being infringed upon.

DRM isn't copyright, but it is a way of defending copyright. If there is a better way, then I 'm all for it. But neither I, nor you, nor anyone on this forum, can think of a better way, so here we are. Apparently you are OK with paying lip service with the idea of defending copyright. You just don't like anyone coming up with any effective way of doing it.(Filing lawsuits against pirate sites and sending cease and desist letters is less effective and less popular than DRM, by several orders of magnitude).
Now I would be interested in what Jim Baen is doing to protect the IP rights of authors. My guess is not much of anything, since their authors aren't bestsellers for the most part and don't lose much through piracy and casual sharing.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM isn't copyright, but it is a way of defending copyright. If there is a better way, then I 'm all for it. But neither I, nor you, nor anyone on this forum, can think of a better way, so here we are. Apparently you are OK with paying lip service with the idea of defending copyright. You just don't like anyone coming up with any effective way of doing it.(Filing lawsuits against pirate sites and sending cease and desist letters is less effective and less popular than DRM, by several orders of magnitude).
Now I would be interested in what Jim Baen is doing to protect the IP rights of authors. My guess is not much of anything, since their authors aren't bestsellers for the most part and don't lose much through piracy and casual sharing.

Cease and desist letters do work - as do lawsuits. They don't always work well, but they work better than DRM because DRM doesn't work at all.

Baen takes immediate action against any commercial infringement, and against non-commercial infringement as soon as they become aware of it. However their general focus is on increasing sales rather than stamping out piracy and it's been working. Also, while they may not have a majority of best-selling authors - they do have a number, and many of those authors' books are legally available free and still sell.

Finally, Jim Baen passed away five years ago in June.

[DiapDealer]

Thank you. Your tears are delicious to me.

What the heck does that even mean?!
Oh well. Thanks for confirming the points I made.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, I would make that trade. I agree that the current copyright term is too long. On the other hand, 34 years may be a bit short( life expectancy in in the 1780s was a little bit less than it is now). I'm Ok with 70 years or life of the author plus 20, whichever comes last. On the other hand, I agree that DRM could be improved. There should be a migration path if there is any change in DRM and you should be able to migrate your library to new devices. That's perfectly achievable under DRM.
Unfortunately, the digerati hand wave away the concerns of bestselling authors and publishers and demand unconditional surrender of their IP rights. Not surprisingly, the authors aren't interested.

K Street commando? I wish. Unfortunately, I'm just interested in reading good books and understand that the authors that produce them don't like being ripped off and won't continue working if they aren't protected from being ripped off. I notice that you and others have said not one word about how authors and publishers can have their rights protected. I guess you don't give a damn about that.

What rights? I am not joking. This is where this debate always falls down. I.P., as it is currently thought of, did not exist before the Statue of Anne in 1714 in England. It's not in any of the world's sacred writings, it's not listed as one of the "natural rights" of Man. Despite the label, it's not property!

It's a grant by the public to encourage the production of new works by creating a limited monopoly. Baldly practical, and the terms are set to the advantage of public, not the creator. A balancing act between offering just enough for the creation of works and giving away too much of the public's rights.

Everybody here is fully aware of this, we often disagree about the details.

As to the creators...Just how much of the gross do they get, and how much goes to the corporate publisher. When you seriously consider that, then you may see why "encouraging the creator" doesn't cut as much ice here as you think it should. It's the Corporate Entity that benefits the most and they want every last cent until, as Jack Valenti pithily said "for forever minus one day".

These "Corporate Entities" have so skewed the process that they no longer have any credibility with the "digeratti", who have responded with civil disobedience. They have the means, which are readily and cheaply available, and have lost the respect for the other side through these abusive laws.

Read Macauley on copyright. He summed it up neatly in 1842. An we are seeing it played out today....

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM isn't copyright, but it is a way of defending copyright. If there is a better way, then I 'm all for it. But neither I, nor you, nor anyone on this forum, can think of a better way, so here we are. Apparently you are OK with paying lip service with the idea of defending copyright. You just don't like anyone coming up with any effective way of doing it.(Filing lawsuits against pirate sites and sending cease and desist letters is less effective and less popular than DRM, by several orders of magnitude).

I'm not sure how you can argue that lawsuits are less effective and less popular than DRM. Do you have any numbers to back that up? The thing about it is this: DRM and lawsuits aren't mutually exclusive, because DRM can be stripped off, and you're just as likely to find your work on a file-sharing site. DRM stops the casual person from making copies, but anyone who puts a little research into it can get around most DRM. (I'm not defending piracy. I'm just saying it happens because DRM isn't particularly effective for very long.)

Originally Posted by stonetools

Now I would be interested in what Jim Baen is doing to protect the IP rights of authors. My guess is not much of anything, since their authors aren't bestsellers for the most part and don't lose much through piracy and casual sharing.

Jim Baen passed away, so he's not doing much of anything about it these days, unfortunately. This article on the Baen website might give you some insight into Baen's thinking, though.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What rights? I am not joking. This is where this debate always falls down. I.P., as it is currently thought of, did not exist before the Statue of Anne in 1714 in England. It's not in any of the world's sacred writings, it's not listed as one of the "natural rights" of Man. Despite the label, it's not property!

It's a grant by the public to encourage the production of new works by creating a limited monopoly. Baldly practical, and the terms are set to the advantage of public, not the creator. A balancing act between offering just enough for the creation of works and giving away too much of the public's rights.

I think this wording is problematic. All of what we call "rights" are privileges. The only thing that differs is their vintage. All rights result from a social contract. The right to vote isn't any more part of a person's DNA than copyright is. They both result from social contracts. To say that one is less genuine than the other isn't really accurate, in my view.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

I'm not sure how you can argue that lawsuits are less effective and less popular than DRM. Do you have any numbers to back that up? The thing about it is this: DRM and lawsuits aren't mutually exclusive, because DRM can be stripped off, and you're just as likely to find your work on a file-sharing site. DRM stops the casual person from making copies, but anyone who puts a little research into it can get around most DRM. (I'm not defending piracy. I'm just saying it happens because DRM isn't particularly effective for very long.)



Jim Baen passed away, so he's not doing much of anything about it these days, unfortunately. This article on the Baen website might give you some insight into Baen's thinking, though.

Its amazing that people on this website are now arguing IN FAVOR of lawsuits. Generally, the digerati HATE anti piracy lawsuits and argue they are a costly waste of time. Guess they hate DRM more
In any case, the RIAA appear to have given up on antipiracy lawsuits as costly and ineffective.
http://www.soundspike.com/news/2/18047-riaa_news/

I don't know that cease and desist orders do anything more than alert piracy website owners that it's time to move.
I agree with you that DRM is effective against casual sharing, not piracy.Most people on this forum continue to miss that distinction.