Amazon Kindle and Sony Reader Locked Up: Why Your Books Are No Longer Yours

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by carandol

I'm surprised there aren't more people advocating watermarked ebooks as a good compromise between DRM and complete copying freedom. I've bought quite a few role-playing game books from DrivethruRPG over the years. The earlier ones were all DRMd PDFs, and some of those I've forgotten the passwords of and can no longer access, which is a pain. But DriveThruRPG moved to watermarking a few years ago, and those are great. They're standard PDFs, but they have my name and a serial number very tiny at the bottom of every page. I can still lend them to friends, if I want them to read a section before I run a game, for instance, but I know, and they know, that if I give away copies to anyone, or release them onto the net, it will be extremely obvious who did it. The law is still there as a deterrent to illegal mass copying, but the inconvenience to the purchaser is non-existent.

That approach is what's referred to as "social DRM". I agree with you - it is a good compromise.

[nekokami]

I think watermarking would be a very good solution. It's possible to edit out a watermark, but it's possible to break any other technological system, too. Watermarking would be enough to keep most people honest, and wouldn't get in the way of honest users.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think watermarking would be a very good solution. It's possible to edit out a watermark, but it's possible to break any other technological system, too. Watermarking would be enough to keep most people honest, and wouldn't get in the way of honest users.

Watermarking is the SAME as DRM. Since it is easily removed it will not change anything. Just like DRM doesn't.

BOb

[HarryT]

It is indeed a DRM mechanism, yes. The difference between social DRM and other DRM mechanisms, however, is that the file isn't tied to any particular reading device, and can be completely freely copied; you can give copies to all your friends, if you wish. The point is that any copy is directly traceable back to the purchaser, so people will (one would imagine) be reluctant to post such files to the internet, etc.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Watermarking doesn't prevent people from making illicit copies and disseminating them. And "social DRM" doesn't work in a society where people just turn their back on illegal file use (how many of us have tried to turn in someone on these forums who's said they've pirated a book?).

I think we need a much more effective solution than that.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Watermarking is the SAME as DRM. Since it is easily removed it will not change anything. Just like DRM doesn't.

BOb

I would agree that is a DRM mechanism but it is one that would allow for most of the fair uses that many of us feel current DRM methods prevent. I do think the main practical issue is the fact that it seems unlikely that they could find a way of watermarking that wouldn't be easily circumvented. If it did work, I think most would find it a reasonable compromise.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Imagine if your ISP could detect every instance that you e-mailed an e-book or music file to someone else (legal or not), and charged you a few cents per item (like your phone company charging you per text message). If the charge is small enough, no one is going to scream about a few cents extra on their bill. (Well, okay... a few of you surely will.) But anyone who disseminates large volumes of illegal e-books or music files won't stomach the huge ISP bills, and most will stop (or lose their account due to non-payment). Look, Ma... I just cut back on illegal file sharing!

The main issue I see here is firstly that it's way easier said than done. That's a huge amount of packet inspection and imagine the database you'd have to maintain to identify copyrighted works! Besides, it seems it would be easily foiled with encryption. If my ISP tries to limit where and how I encrypt my data, we're going to have a bit of a problem.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I would agree that is a DRM mechanism but it is one that would allow for most of the fair uses that many of us feel current DRM methods prevent. I do think the main practical issue is the fact that it seems unlikely that they could find a way of watermarking that wouldn't be easily circumvented. If it did work, I think most would find it a reasonable compromise.

Once again, and I hate to sound like a broken record. Most people who legally obtain eBooks don't share them. If they did, I don't think a water mark will stop them.

I would not be adverse to (strong)DRM at all, if it meet the following needs:

1. It was device agnostic
2. It was manufacturer agnostic
3. It was transferable
4. It would allow for offline or optical archival
5. The above could be supported without a "phone home" except for maybe item 3.


BOb

[Taylor514ce]

Yep, all of which is easily achievable using existing technology, public-key cryptography, as has been accepted in the software industry.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Don't forget: In the absence of DRM (workable or not), many publishers will not produce e-books at all. If some customers will buy DRM-set e-books, that's more than no one buying an e-book at all. So from the publishers' perspective, they're coming out ahead. That's why there is still DRM.

Well, that is obviously their choice, though I think it is wrongheaded.

It was tried with mp3 sales -- the trend there is clear. I never purchased online DRM'd music, but I have spent quite a lot of money since Amazon opened their mp3 store with DRM-free files.

If a publisher doesn't want my money, I will spend it on the publishers (and authors) that do (e.g., Baen).

I don't provide or partake of pirated content. I will also not pay current prices for what are essentially media rentals. If a publisher wants to use DRM'd files, they had better reduce their prices massively.

[Alisa]

Yep. That's why I said "most" of the fair uses. A hypothetical watermarking system would produce a file that was likely not transferable by the owner without risk. So you might lend it to a friend who you knew wouldn't screw you over by uploading it, but you couldn't sell it on your own. I'm ok with that personally as long as the price is right. As far as preventing, no, it wouldn't prevent them but it would allow for enforcement which is where I think anti-piracy efforts should be concentrated.

[Taylor514ce]

Any watermark would have to be embedded in the file, which means it would have to be displayed by the reader software, which means every reader software vendor would have to agree to display watermarks and on the format for watermarks. Barring this universal agreement, likely each vendor would come up with their own watermarking system... sound familiar?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

The main issue I see here is firstly that it's way easier said than done. That's a huge amount of packet inspection and imagine the database you'd have to maintain to identify copyrighted works! Besides, it seems it would be easily foiled with encryption. If my ISP tries to limit where and how I encrypt my data, we're going to have a bit of a problem.

Yeah... I never said it would be easy. However, it happens to be based on work that is already being carried out to identify and track child porn images, and identify the senders and recipients (something that, despite the Big Brother-ish implications, very few people seem to have a problem with). The way I see it, if they figure out a way to get it to work for one application, it can (and probably will) be applied to others, like digital music and e-books.

The benefit of the system is that it doesn't dig into individual PCs, it only tracks data moving through the ISP's networks. So as long as you're not sending illegal files to others, your ISP doesn't know what's on your PC, and doesn't interfere with your use of their network.

BTW, the systems being tested essentially read through encrypted (coded) data to reco the actual content (whew!). So the real catch is the database of content that books have to be identified against.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Nope, though I wouldn't mind carrying around a single SD with my encryption key, used to unlock the unique copies of the books I purchase on whatever device I happen to be using.

If your encryption key was based on one personal number, one that was the same for any encrypted products you might buy, you wouldn't even need to carry it around... just remember the one number. (I could use my driver's license, for instance... I know it by heart, all 13 digits of it.)

Of course, you run the risk of someone else getting your number, and having access to every digital document you own...

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If your encryption key was based on one personal number, one that was the same for any encrypted products you might buy, you wouldn't even need to carry it around... just remember the one number. (I could use my driver's license, for instance... I know it by heart, all 13 digits of it.)

Of course, you run the risk of someone else getting your number, and having access to every digital document you own...

Well this is exactly the key used on eReader by palm (now owned by fictionwise) except they use your credit card number. You can use it anywhere you wish and give it to anyone you would trust your credit card to.

Dale