Password-based DRM has a dim future

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

People keep putting words into my mouth. I do not call pirates "terrorists," nor do I think of them as such. And I don't treat anyone as a criminal: My books are all still available with No DRM.

I don't even assume that the only reason I'm not "independently wealthy" is that everyone is stealing and file-sharing my books.

So kindly Climb Off.

I am saying that lack of security on all digital documents is a serious threat to the income-earning potential of any digital artist... and that since it is in the best interest of consumers to make sure they can do what they want (which includes getting digital products for free wherever they can), they naturally rail against the application of any such security that would prevent their doing whatever they want. This is being unfair, essentially treating artists like me as lepers because they had the dumb luck to choose digital content to produce, and (gleefully, apparently) leaving us as the victims of an insecure system.

I am also saying that, at some point in the future, I expect a reasonably reliable form of digital document security to surface, providing the same protection of digital property as people have of physical property. Not perfect, but roughly as effective as the key to your car or the lock on your door. I base this on history, of valuable products evolving security measures to protect the products, their creators and purchasers.

And finally, a believe I have a right to be compensated for my work, just as you are compensated for your jobs. As corollary, I believe I have a right to protect that work, just as you protect your positions from being taken by strangers off the street.

That's all I'm saying. No terrorists, stormtroopers or firing squads involved, just workable security to protect my products and my property. I fail to see what's so horrific about that, nor why I am painted as a bad guy because I want the same protections for my property and income that you already have for yours.

(Supplementary: If I have been blunt or less than careful about my comments and statements in the past, I apologize to all; obviously, when it comes to losing something you've worked hard at, it can be difficult to be diplomatic. OTOH, as others have been as equally blunt, and as often outright abusive, in their comments to me, I don't feel I'd be out of line to ask for a little slack.)

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I don't even assume that the only reason I'm not "independently wealthy" is that everyone is stealing and file-sharing my books.

But you keep telling us that you can't rely on your books as a reliable secondary income source because your work is being pirated.

If piracy is not the reason, the stop complaining about it (and good authors don't really worry about it).

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I am also saying that, at some point in the future, I expect a reasonably reliable form of digital document security to surface, providing the same protection of digital property as people have of physical property. Not perfect, but roughly as effective as the key to your car or the lock on your door.

If this ever happens, it will be the day I'll stop buying ebooks (or will only get them from indie publishers, sans DRM).

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And finally, a believe I have a right to be compensated for my work, just as you are compensated for your jobs.

Who are these people who believe that an author shouldn't be compensated?

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That's all I'm saying. No terrorists, stormtroopers or firing squads involved, just workable security to protect my products and my property. I fail to see what's so horrific about that, nor why I am painted as a bad guy because I want the same protections for my property and income that you already have for yours..

If your draconian "protections" were to be implemented, consumers would be locked to one device, full of arbitrary restrictions, and with a product that is worth far less than a paper book (which I can lend or resell at will). That's why you are painted as a bad guy...

[Penforhire]

By some of us. I'm not nearly as harsh on Steve as some of you. His fundamental concerns are valid. Content creators deserve to be paid when their content is experienced.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by SLJ

I am also saying that, at some point in the future, I expect a reasonably reliable form of digital document security to surface, providing the same protection of digital property as people have of physical property.

This is a pretty good illustration of how you and I disagree. You seem to believe that you own more than just a particular set of rights to the content you distribute, and that you even own the distributed copy of that content, and should be able to lock it down. Your model of ebooks is a rental model. Mine is an ownership model. I exchange money for the right to own that copy so long as I don't violate your rights in the content. I've always cared a great deal about my library and even have an emotional attachment to my books, and I won't tolerate an author, publisher or retailer reaching into my home and restricting perfectly legitimate uses.

I don't mind DRM on library ebooks, for example. That's where it belongs because I really don't even own the copy itself. DRM is unacceptable elsewhere.

Lawsuits and injunctions against filesharers have actually had some effectiveness against piracy. It's still a Red Queen's race, just like all other efforts against crime, but at least it targets for punishment those who have done wrong instead of those who've paid their hard-earned dollar and not been given the ownership rights they were promised in exchange. DRM on purchased goods should be regarded as theft from buyers in exactly the same way piracy is from producers.

And finally, I believe I have a right to be compensated for my work, just as you are compensated for your jobs.

I believe that when I compensate someone in exchange for a copy of a book, that copy becomes mine. I should have the key to any locks thereon. Anything else would be like buying a home and still having to ask the former owner to unlock the front door every time I wish to enter. And having to explain why on some occasion I might wish to enter through a back door or window. I'm not asking for the right to violate patents used in its construction nor to violate the tradedress rights or trade secrets, or copyright in the plans and blueprints, I just want the normal use of the place. I bought the book expecting to be able to read it freely of anyone else's locks.

I believe eBooks will be open someday just like emusic is now. The only question is how much income will be wasted on DRM management that won't go to authors or real piracy prevention in the meantime.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

By some of us. I'm not nearly as harsh on Steve as some of you. His fundamental concerns are valid. Content creators deserve to be paid when their content is experienced.

And where have I said that content creators don't deserve to be paid?

If people like Steven got what their way, consumers would lose big time. I don't want to be restricted to a single device/platform, and abstruse authentication requirements (not to mention the possibility of DRM-server shutdown). I want to own what I purchase.

And if ebooks don't allow that, I'll go back to pbooks. Or bittorrent...

Once again, I refer you to Charles Stross, a really good scifi author (unlike SJL), who makes mostly the same points that I do.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

If your draconian "protections" were to be implemented, consumers would be locked to one device, full of arbitrary restrictions, and with a product that is worth far less than a paper book

And that's the whole issue-- the easier it is to copy something, the harder it is to stop people from copying it. And copying digital media is very, very, very easy, so stopping it would be very, very, very hard-- and require very intrusive, restrictive, draconian, heavy-handed methods that would be not only a pain in the ass for potential consumers but also require an Orwellian "police state" nightmare for the enforcement.

That's why you are painted as a bad guy...

Yes-- everyone who cares about future freedom and NOT being ruled by a big brother surveillance state should conciser people who think like Steve Jordan to be their enemies, and to be fought against at every opportunity. (See the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)

[DiapDealer]

Yes-- everyone who cares about future freedom and NOT being ruled by a big brother surveillance state should conciser people who think like Steve Jordan to be their enemies, and to be fought against at every opportunity. (See the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Enemies? Like mortal enemies? Nemeses (Nemesi)? I hate DRM too, but that seems a little harsh.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Enemies? Like mortal enemies? Nemeses (Nemesi)? I hate DRM too, but that seems a little harsh.

Yes, enemies. People like Steve Jordan are the reason things like the EFF have to exist-- to fight against a future that is a utopia for content providers and a restrictive PITA for all consumers, where every single use of every single media item on every single device has to be explicitly authorized before you are permitted to use what you paid for. Yes, this is a war for the future-- and Steve Jordan is on the side of the (insert Godwin-worthy analogy here.) The goal of freedom-loving people should be to shatter the dreams of people like Steve Jordan.

[DiapDealer]

Nah. My goal is to read books. Fighting's for young people. I'll just quietly strip the DRM from my purchases and go my merry way.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nah. My goal is to read books. Fighting's for young people. I'll just quietly strip the DRM from my purchases and go my merry way.

But (as you would see if you looked over the rest of the thread) what Steve wants is unstrippable DRM!

[miguel1626]

Well, I don't think of Steven as a personal enemy, but his ideas should be fought against. Our freedoms are worth much more than that.

Nonetheless, just like DiapDialer, I keep buying Kindle ebooks and stripping their DRM. And I simply refuse to buy from stores where the DRM is as of yet unbroken (e.g., iBookstore).

If Steven's draconian policies ever came to pass, I'd simply return to paperbooks and bittorrent.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Well, I don't think of Steven as a personal enemy, but his ideas should be fought against.

Oh, I don't see him as an enemy of me as a person-- I wouldn't punch him in the face if I met him on the street. I just conciser him to be an enemy of the future world I'd prefer to live in. I want my favored legal and social framework to punch his favored legal and social framework in the face.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Oh, I don't see him as an enemy of me as a person-- I wouldn't punch him in the face if I met him on the street. I just conciser him to be an enemy of the future world I'd prefer to live in. I want my favored legal and social framework to punch his favored legal and social framework in the face.

Then I guess we're in agreement

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Your model of ebooks is a rental model. Mine is an ownership model. I exchange money for the right to own that copy so long as I don't violate your rights in the content. I've always cared a great deal about my library and even have an emotional attachment to my books, and I won't tolerate an author, publisher or retailer reaching into my home and restricting perfectly legitimate uses.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I believe that when I compensate someone in exchange for a copy of a book, that copy becomes mine.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by miguel1626

If people like Steven got what their way, consumers would lose big time. I don't want to be restricted to a single device/platform, and abstruse authentication requirements (not to mention the possibility of DRM-server shutdown). I want to own what I purchase.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said I wanted to restrict or limit platforms. I want to prevent unauthorized dissemination... period.

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Well, I don't think of Steven as a personal enemy, but his ideas should be fought against. Our freedoms are worth much more than that.

And what of my rights to protect my product? Am I not as deserving of basic rights as you?

Originally Posted by miguel1626

If Steven's draconian policies ever came to pass, I'd simply return to paperbooks and bittorrent.

Last time: There's nothing draconian against the prevention of unauthorized dissemination of a creator's products. If that would drive you back to piracy... it illustrates my point, and why so many others want to have digital document security. All you are defending is your right to steal.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said I wanted to restrict or limit platforms. I want to prevent unauthorized dissemination... period.

This inevitably leads to platform lockdown and/or unreasonable restrictions on ownership.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Last time: There's nothing draconian against the prevention of unauthorized dissemination of a creator's products. If that would drive you back to piracy... it illustrates my point, and why so many others want to have digital document security. All you are defending is your right to steal.

Actually owning what I paid for is stealing (and I won't even mention the fact that copyright infringement is not theft)? Unreasonable restrictions due to misguided fears of piracy are what I'm fighting against. Not the "right to steal" (whatever that means).

For a scifi author, you sure are very backwards. One more reason to never read your books (even if they were free).

As Charlie Stross said: Think about that. Today, publishers try like crazy to tie ebooks to a single reader via DRM, in their misplaced zeal to reduce profit leakage; but for the economic hit from piracy to equal the economic hit from libraries and second-hand bookstores and friends lending friends books, the unlicensed distribution channels would have to be shifting nine ebooks for every one that is sold commercially.

But the guy is only a commercially successful author... what does he know about books? Better to trust a 3rd rate self-published guy on the internet.

EDIT: BTW, wrt piracy, I can always download a book from the darknet and buy a paper copy in order not to rip off the author. I've done this several times already (always because the ebook doesn't exist commercially).