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

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Amazon have also been very quiet about it. I added two links to the wikipedia article the last time this was discussed, so you could have used that to start your search.

A contemporaneous thread on Mobileread about Amazon abandoning the PDF/Microsoft LIT ebooks they used to sell:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...?threadid=7223

Another contemporaneous source for the information:
http://www.writers-edge.info/2006/09...ops-ebooks.htm

Yes, this was back in 3Q 2006. Ebooks were certainly very small then, and there wasn't much outcry.

But it did happen, and similar things have happened elsewhere in the ebook and digital music industry.

To claim, repeatedly, as you have done that it didn't is at best wilful ignorance.

Originally Posted by stonetools

kind of like what happened when Apple went from OSX 9 to OSX 10, with no backward compatibility.

You do like showing your ignorance, don't you? Mac OS X 10.0 was introduced in 2001. Support for classic appications continued for over six years until the introduction of Mac OS 10.5, giving plenty of time for applications to be updated to work with the new operating system.

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

You cannot be serious.

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Strawman.

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM isn't copyright, but it is a way of defending copyright.

No, it is not. It is a security blanket that the publishing industry needs to outgrow.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I agree with you that DRM is effective against casual sharing, not piracy. Most people on this forum continue to miss that distinction.

You seem to be happy to ignore it yourself, most of the time.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I agree with you that DRM is effective against casual sharing, not piracy.Most people on this forum continue to miss that distinction.

You've been asked before, and not answered: What's the difference?

Neither term is part of copyright law; there is no rule against "sharing" or "piracy." There are rules against "copying." The penalties are bigger if more than a handful of copies are involved, but legally there's no difference between copies distributed to a closed book club and copies distributed to thousands of strangers. And while I can have thoughts about what the moral or ethical differences are, that doesn't mean we agree on where the lines are.

Where do you draw the line between "casual sharing" and "piracy?" Is it based on number of copies? On whether the recipients are personally known to the giver? (In which case, what do you count as "personally known"--do online friends count?) Is it based on whether the copies are findable by easy public search?

And why do you think it's *helpful* to publishers to discourage the option of the kind of sharing that's helped push book sales for the last hundred years?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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 think you have to make a distinction between lawsuits against people who download songs vs. the sites that host them. I think it's pointless to try and go after the downloaders, because there are just too many of them, and you gain nothing by suing them. All you do is potentially ruin their lives for a very low return on the court investment. The sites that host the files, though, is another story altogether. Going after a site is actually an effective way of taking down someone's ill-conceived business model, and protecting yourself. Does it do the whole job? No, but it makes things harder for them, and I think that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by stonetools

II agree with you that DRM is effective against casual sharing, not piracy.Most people on this forum continue to miss that distinction.

Anyone determined enough is going to be able to remove DRM and distribute e-books illegally. There will always, as long as there's an Internet, be sites like TPB. That doesn't mean that we should make it easier for pirates, but it does mean that we need to find a way to minimize the pain to people trying to read their e-books without distributing them in violation of copyright.

[stonetools]

You cannot be serious.

But I am serious. What's unserious is your claim that without DRM large scale casual sharing won't happen, because ... well, just because, I guess (you don't really give a reason.)
You realize,I guess that this isn't convincing because you have a fallback: large scale casual sharing won't (or even CAN'T) affect revenues in the publishing industry because sales of digital goods are somehow unaffected even if the exact same product is widely available for free (at which point the logical response is "WHAAA")

No, it is not. It is a security blanket that the publishing industry needs to outgrow.

Another way of putting that is that the anti DRM folks have not really made an effective argument as to why they should give up an admittedly imperfect method of protecting their IP rights against large scale casual sharing. Once you do, and suggest an effective method of protecting said rights , then they will be happy to give up their "security blanket".

[stonetools]

here do you draw the line between "casual sharing" and "piracy?" Is it based on number of copies? On whether the recipients are personally known to the giver? (In which case, what do you count as "personally known"--do online friends count?) Is it based on whether the copies are findable by easy public search?

My last post (Gotta go). Casual sharing is among friends, families and associates (including online associates).
Piracy is sharing among strangers.
I admit, the line could get fuzzy: but there is a line. Again, casual sharing with your Facebook friends is in completely different thing than lending your p book to your brother. Anyone who doesn't admit that is in denial.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Perhaps because this is not a site that advocates piracy (or data wants to be free)?

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and has been for many years. Like it or not. (I don't). Creators that don't realize this are doomed to fail over the long term. You aren't going to stuff the genie back into the bottle. It hasn't work for recreational drugs or illegal immigration, why do you expect draconian laws will work on I.P.

That's the real advantage of the move to Cloud Computing for copyright holders, it maintains easier trackability and discourages local storage...

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Where do you draw the line between "casual sharing" and "piracy?" Is it based on number of copies? On whether the recipients are personally known to the giver? (In which case, what do you count as "personally known"--do online friends count?) Is it based on whether the copies are findable by easy public search?

I'm not sure what the person you were responding to thinks of the issue, but for my own part, I was using "casual" to mean someone who wanted to share a file (with whomever) but didn't really want to invest time or energy into it.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And why do you think it's *helpful* to publishers to discourage the option of the kind of sharing that's helped push book sales for the last hundred years?

The kind of sharing that's helped push book sales for the last hundred years is someone lending a book to a friend (or even serially, several friends). There's a long tradition of that. But here's the thing: That idea breaks down when you a) don't have to return the book, and b) have an unlimited source for books. In the old days, if I had a friend who had a book, I could borrow that book from him, and if I wanted to get another book by the same author, I'd have to either hope that that person had the book, or go out and buy it myself. In the digital age, I'm not reliant on personally knowing someone with a copy of the book, and I don't have to worry about giving the book back. I think those are major differences.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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.

Ralph, are you sure it was 34 years? I thought it was 14+14, but I could be wrong.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Ralph, are you sure it was 34 years? I thought it was 14+14, but I could be wrong.

I think you are right, but I didn't want to look it up, so I err'ed on the long side....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I think you are right, but I didn't want to look it up, so I err'ed on the long side....

That's okay, there's a lot of "made-up" or missing facts in this discussion.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's okay, there's a lot of "made-up" or missing facts in this discussion.

Copyright act of 1790 - 14 years + 14 year extension.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Copyright act of 1790 - 14 years + 14 year extension.

.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

But I am serious. What's unserious is your claim that without DRM large scale casual sharing won't happen, because ... well, just because, I guess (you don't really give a reason.)
You realize,I guess that this isn't convincing because you have a fallback: large scale casual sharing won't (or even CAN'T) affect revenues in the publishing industry because sales of digital goods are somehow unaffected even if the exact same product is widely available for free (at which point the logical response is "WHAAA")

You're seriously suggesting that best-selling authors would stop writing novels if DRM was abolished, not because of large scale piracy through torrents (which obviously already happens) but because people who've bought the book might share it with friends?

Do you have any evidence for this at all?

Whereas I have provided evidence that the removal of DRM from digital music appears to have had no effect on the growth in sales of digital music.

Any effect on publishing sales from unauthorised copying of ebooks will happen whether or not the publishers use DRM.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Another way of putting that is that the anti DRM folks have not really made an effective argument as to why they should give up an admittedly imperfect method of protecting their IP rights against large scale casual sharing. Once you do, and suggest an effective method of protecting said rights , then they will be happy to give up their "security blanket".

I think we have repeatedly made effective arguments as to why publishers should give up DRM. You just choose to ignore them, and the next time you pop up you act as if they have never been stated.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

.

Here's fun fact for you. All audio recordings are still under copyright, and will be until 2067. So Edison's first phonograph patent, expired in 34 years (I believe, 17 + 17), but his recording of "Mary had a little lamb", is still under copyright...(Because, after all, we have to protect the economic interests of copyright holders...)