TM: An alternative to DRM? Let's discuss.

[Ramen]

I've been reading these forums for some months now but had to sign up for this thread.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Anyone... everyone... should consider it their duty as a citizen to uphold the law. Even if that only means dialing 911 when they see someone else being hurt.

No business is above the law, and if they can take steps where they have influence to cut back on illegal activities, there's no reason why they shouldn't.

I wasn't suggesting the ISPs would become the arm of the Justice Department... just that they should be willing to mitigate illegal activities that take place on their networks, and to alert authorities to activities they are aware of.

(Cue "Big Brother" responses now.)

This is an important topic so I want to make sure I get the point across. If I sound aggressive or rude, I apologize in advance.

Are your realising what your are suggesting?
You cannot determine if some traffic is illegal without looking at it first and thus without looking at all the traffic. There is no other way. Your scheme would completely remove all privacy on the internet. Anything less would not work. This is the very definition of Big Brother.

Of course you could argue that this is done completely automatic (which it cannot be) and any false positives would be deleted. But if mere copyright infringement (ie. no serious crime/felony) is policed this way, all other industries or police sections will want their share.
Typically, this is done the other way around: First you want something against terrorism/child porn. When the system is in place, you erode all privacy restrictions. See the European traffic logging laws effective as of January this year. Originally, they were against terrorism (only as a reactive measure of course), then serious crimes were added and now, the RIAA is asking for access in civilian law suits...

Secondly, yes, you are asking the ISPs or the relevant industry to police us and thereby reading all our communications. Somebody has to do the filtering, after all, and the police is typically to busy with other things (provided the police wouldn't take the opportunity to misuse this power). This only leaves the ISPs or interested parties, thereby offloading crucial state powers to civilian entities with financial interests in catching people...
If the RIAA is any indication, you do not want these people reading through all your internet traffic.

Thirdly, they are common carriers. Would you also demand, that the Postal Service reads all your mails to see if something is illegal? Or the police or some industries? Privacy laws are fundamental to any open society and free speech.

I'm always amazed how quickly people want to throw freedoms and privacy away. In counter-terrorism, this is already appalling but for a non-serious crime, this is ridiculous beyond reason.

Some links:

• Interview with the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party[www.p2pconsortium.com]
  Had to google this, so dunno if this is the original source. Don't let yourself be biased by his affiliation but read the privacy parts, please.
  
• His talk on privacy as linked above[video.google.com]
  
• Books: The Opaque Market by Eric Flint[baens-universe.com] This one is actually from this very forum
  
• The Eternal Value of Privacy by Bruce Schneier[www.schneier.com]

On a related note:
Personally, I agree with Eric. My problems with books aren't not having the money or inclination to buying them but rather not knowing what to read or not knowing where to get them. As an example, after 4 weeks I still haven't received a Black Company book.

Also, there is a thing I don't understand. Why doesn't your industry release 80% of each book for free in public formats?

• If you want to finish reading the book, you will buy the missing 20%.
• There is no risk to the consumer of buying a book he will not like. Of course, this case would be a "lost sale" for the industry but on the other hand, consumers could simply pick a book and start reading. Surely this would increase exposure.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Ramen,
First of all, good "Big Brother" response, cool and measured. For the record, no, I didn't take any of it the wrong way. As I've said before, I'm trying to facilitate solutions to the e-book industry's problems, and discussing alternatives is what we do around here.

The only thing I'll comment on, therefore, is the last item:

Originally Posted by Ramen

Also, there is a thing I don't understand. Why doesn't your industry release 80% of each book for free in public formats?

• If you want to finish reading the book, you will buy the missing 20%.
• There is no risk to the consumer of buying a book he will not like. Of course, this case would be a "lost sale" for the industry but on the other hand, consumers could simply pick a book and start reading. Surely this would increase exposure.

A lot of e-book publishers (including myself) make part of the e-book available for free to read, although I doubt anyone is making 80% available. Most of us offer 1-2 chapters... more like 10-20%. But making more of the book available is worth considering.

[Ramen]

Glad you didn't take it the wrong way. In a lot of forums, I would have been flamed to hell and back.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A lot of e-book publishers (including myself) make part of the e-book available for free to read, although I doubt anyone is making 80% available. Most of us offer 1-2 chapters... more like 10-20%. But making more of the book available is worth considering.

The problem with only offering 1-2 chapters is that it's too little to be representative or become "hooked". There are books that have a slow beginning because of the necessary backstory but are otherwise stunning. Likewise, there are books with a great start that become boring, repetitive or shallow after halfway through the book.
Meanwhile, the authors or publishers do not lose anything with offering more, as long as the climax is sales-only. Apart from mispurchases, of course.

Of course, none of this were necessary, even if nice, if your trusted reviewer(s) had the chance to review all books of interest to you. The sheer number of available books makes this infeasible so the consumer is left with buying the proverbial pig in a poke, provided he actually stumbles across a book he might like. This is the point I agree on with Eric Flint.


Also:
I wanted to link the below in my original post but the post needed to pass moderation, so I couldn't edit it in time:
Piracy & PC Gaming by one of the creators of Sinns of a Solar Empire[forums.sinsofasolarempire.com]

[spooky69]

Finding copyrighted texts should be laughably easy compared to child pornography (and you are obviously making a really transparent and unfair association between possessing CP and e-book piracy, by the way), and I'm actually in favor of implementing as much security into the processing of internet traffic as possible as long as it doesn't infringe on an individual's rights.
On the other hand, man, Steve...this doesn't address the underlying dynamics of why piracy exists, and how pirates exist as part of the business model. Not to draw on weighted analogies after criticizing you for doing so, but this reflects a War-on-Drugs-type mentality when it comes to dealing with piracy. This should be a very important comparison for you: no matter how much you are able to control the flow of illicit drugs, people will still want to get high, and the motivation for people to want to get something for free is pretty much as natural as wanting to get high. We've established important societal mechanisms both for discouraging drug use and for stealing, but people will always find ways to do both (maybe in relation to each other!). Total accountability is one solution for preventing drug use or piracy, but the implementation of a system to create that is going to be inherently overbearing, unconstitutional (in the universal civil liberties sense), and generally wack.
There's a median between an anarchistic free-for-all and big-Dr.-Dre-I'm-your-boss. I really don't want to sound like a big jerk here, but some amount of piracy is almost necessary as part of a copyright system because it provides a balance between total control of content and total lack of control. I know that does come off as a justification for piracy, but I'm really arguing that anticipating and accepting the *existence* (not fairness/morality) of piracy is a lot more natural (a loaded word in and of itself) than trying to find ways to eliminate all copywritic wrongdoing in the digital realm through policing of internet data.

Edit: this is just a straight response to your first post, and I see that these points have already been made in one form or another. You don't need to respond to anything I said that you feel you've already addressed.

[Dajala]

Secondly, yes, you are asking the ISPs or the relevant industry to police us and thereby reading all our communications.

Ramen, good post.

The other problem is that by having ISPs monitor usage you increase their costs. Those costs are subsequently passed on to the consumer. Why should your Internet access then cost more when you have done nothing wrong?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by spooky69

Finding copyrighted texts should be laughably easy compared to child pornography (and you are obviously making a really transparent and unfair association between possessing CP and e-book piracy, by the way), and I'm actually in favor of implementing as much security into the processing of internet traffic as possible as long as it doesn't infringe on an individual's rights.
On the other hand, man, Steve...this doesn't address the underlying dynamics of why piracy exists, and how pirates exist as part of the business model.

You don't see the similarity between two groups that swap illegal data files across the internet, spooky? Actually, I was only making the connection because the tools being developed to combat one illegal act may be used someday to combat others.

However, the very idea that "pirates are part of a business model" is the laughable part. Stealing is never part of a business model... it is the systematic attack of the business model. A business model is about developing a product, building a store, and finding ways to make it profitable for you to sell it. Piracy is the person who breaks the window of the store and takes what he wants, regardless of the intent of the business model. That person isn't encouraging people to go buy at your store. In fact, he's more likely driving away every legitimate buyer, who now doesn't trust the integrity or safety of that store, and attracting only more pirates looking to loot through the broken window.

And it is especially heinous, because we are not talking about something a poor, starving bum needs to survive... we're talking about entertainment for electronic devices. A flagrant luxury, not a necessity. It's stealing a Lexus, when 50 cents and a bus token will get you where you want to go.

The business of trying to legitimize piracy by claiming that steps taken against it will only result in the erosion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as Big Brother jackboots over us all is disingenuous, illogical, and already proven to be historically inaccurate. Laws to control what people can and cannot do with their owned property, and limiting their access to public and private resources, have been passed over and over, and we're no more sweating under the hot breath of Big Brother now than we were a hundred years ago.

I've read the statements of the Pirate Party, for example. They see Big Brother in every stop sign. They live in the mistaken fantasy that somewhere, someone in a little room with a camera is watching each and every one of them, writing down their every move, and waiting for the moment when they can push their little button, and their subject will be dragged off to the stockade for the inevitable decade of torture before finally being shot as a traitor for throwing gum on the sidewalk. And they are based in Sweden, likely one of the most liberal and free of countries on the planet! Those guys need to find themselves a little island to play Lord of the Flies on, and give the rest of us a break.

Originally Posted by spooky69

I know that does come off as a justification for piracy,

...yep...

Originally Posted by spooky69

but I'm really arguing that anticipating and accepting the *existence* (not fairness/morality) of piracy is a lot more natural (a loaded word in and of itself) than trying to find ways to eliminate all copywritic wrongdoing in the digital realm through policing of internet data.

Storeowners accept the existence of looters. That's why they buy shatterproof glass and put bars on the windows and locks on their door. They do what they can to stop looters, catch them, and have them thrown in jail. And when they decide they are losing too much from looters, they close their shop, denying looters their product, and they move to a location where looters do not harass them. If they can't find such a place, they go out of business. And nobody gets their product. Nobody.

Big Brother aside, this is where we're headed: A world in which we all lose our shirts paying for security against looters; or a world in which the store owners give up, and there's nothing for us to protect.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A lot of e-book publishers (including myself) make part of the e-book available for free to read, although I doubt anyone is making 80% available. Most of us offer 1-2 chapters... more like 10-20%. But making more of the book available is worth considering.

I've actually found that it's taken more then 2 chapters in a book (sometimes) to get into it enough to enjoy it and want to finish it. So if the sample is from one of theose types of books, I won't buy it based just on the sample.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've actually found that it's taken more then 2 chapters in a book (sometimes) to get into it enough to enjoy it and want to finish it. So if the sample is from one of theose types of books, I won't buy it based just on the sample.

I can understand that. As Ramen pointed out about book samples in general, some of my books also take a lot more than 2 chapters to really get ramped up and going. In many cases, I think, they best serve to present the reader with the characters and setting, not so much to advance the plot. (Obviously this wouldn't apply to a series, like Trek, where you already know the characters... the 1st 1-2 chapters better advance the plot, or else.)

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, the very idea that "pirates are part of a business model" is the laughable part. Stealing is never part of a business model... it is the systematic attack of the business model. A business model is about developing a product, building a store, and finding ways to make it profitable for you to sell it. Piracy is the person who breaks the window of the store and takes what he wants, regardless of the intent of the business model. That person isn't encouraging people to go buy at your store. In fact, he's more likely driving away every legitimate buyer, who now doesn't trust the integrity or safety of that store, and attracting only more pirates looking to loot through the broken window.

Saying that pirates are not part of a business model is absolutely incorrect, and it reflects an logical flaw that I tried to highlight for you in the other piracy thread: the group of paying users and the group of pirates are in no way mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who pirate media as a means of looking for things to spend their money on. You're in a tough position in that it's hard to offer something to entice pirates to spend their money since you can't offer them a piece of physical media, but if you're going to completely ignore the pirates then they're a lot more likely to ignore you.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The business of trying to legitimize piracy by claiming that steps taken against it will only result in the erosion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as Big Brother jackboots over us all is disingenuous, illogical, and already proven to be historically inaccurate. Laws to control what people can and cannot do with their owned property, and limiting their access to public and private resources, have been passed over and over, and we're no more sweating under the hot breath of Big Brother now than we were a hundred years ago.

That's not what I'm arguing at all. The only thing I said that was in any way related to the attitude you are describing is when I said that "I'm actually in favor of implementing as much security into the processing of internet traffic as possible as long as it doesn't infringe on an individual's rights." I understand that you don't like pirates but erroneously characterizing them all as paranoid idiots is further reflective of an attitude that is going to lose you money, which is the us vs. them approach to dealing with pirates. I'm not asking you to unlock the doors and come on in, but you need to develop a more realistic attitude about the type of people you're dealing with and recognize that you're dealing with somebody who's not only showing a marked interest in your product, but has sought it out and will probably distribute it to somebody else (albeit at a potential loss of income for you, but there's a huge amount of potential here that you seem willing to ignore because you don't like the people involved).
On the big brother thing again, I do agree that it's a somewhat silly attitude and even threw a small jab at somebody in the other piracy thread for using 1984 as an example in a discussion about public domain. On the other hand, if it weren't for the Chicken Littles, the sky might actually fall, so I'm always grateful for the paranoid idiots out there.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Storeowners accept the existence of looters. That's why they buy shatterproof glass and put bars on the windows and locks on their door. They do what they can to stop looters, catch them, and have them thrown in jail. And when they decide they are losing too much from looters, they close their shop, denying looters their product, and they move to a location where looters do not harass them. If they can't find such a place, they go out of business. And nobody gets their product. Nobody.

I haven't seen you yet acknowledge a fundamental point about digital piracy as compared to traditional theft, which is that each "theft" doesn't necessarily represent a loss of income for the seller since it's more than likely that the person would never have spent their money on that product anyway and downloaded it mostly because of the convenience of doing so. Obviously, in a larger sample of people who pirate, there are definitely going to be some people who would have bought the product and choose not to, but the only place where you're losing sales is from a very specific group of people who will buy a certain type of media, but only if they can't obtain it illegally. That group is going to make up a pretty small percentage of pirates and a much smaller percentage of the overall population. A much, much larger contingent within the pirates is the people who use piracy as a way to find new media, and view it as a "try before you buy" type of deal. This group is going to be very active in purchasing legal versions of products that they've already pirated, and having that person obtain a pirated copy of a product you can sell them is a significant business lead.

That's why saying that pirates are part of a business model is far from laughable.

Please don't mistake me saying this for arguing that piracy is somehow more acceptable because its negative financial impact might be smaller than expected. Rather, the point I'm trying to make, sincerely for your benefit, is that the majority of transfers of pirated material actually have the effect of bringing increased awareness of a product to an interested individual, and this will often have the effect of turning somebody who had a very low chance of buying a product without that contact into somebody who is now much more likely to spend their money on it legally if given the right incentive. Like I said, e-books are somewhat unique in that it's very difficult to offer that extra incentive to the pirate, but if you can do that then you'll be tapping into a very large user base.

I fully encourage any seller to take whatever steps they find necessary to protect their product, but as long as piracy of that product exists, it'd be very unwise to forget that piracy will always involve distribution to individuals willing to spend their money through legitimate channels.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by spooky69

There are plenty of people who pirate media as a means of looking for things to spend their money on...

you need to develop a more realistic attitude about the type of people you're dealing with and recognize that you're dealing with somebody who's not only showing a marked interest in your product, but has sought it out and will probably distribute it to somebody else...

This group is going to be very active in purchasing legal versions of products that they've already pirated, and having that person obtain a pirated copy of a product you can sell them is a significant business lead...

the majority of transfers of pirated material actually have the effect of bringing increased awareness of a product to an interested individual, and this will often have the effect of turning somebody who had a very low chance of buying a product without that contact into somebody who is now much more likely to spend their money on it legally if given the right incentive...

piracy will always involve distribution to individuals willing to spend their money through legitimate channels.

All of these are points which have been brought up again and again, by many people... not just you, spooky... and which are all sheer conjecture, wishful thinking and supposition. You have no proof that any of these assertions actually happen, and neither does anyone else.

There is no data that backs up the idea that pirating works leads to the pirate's buying works by that artist later.

There is zero evidence that any author has gained hordes of fans thanks to their obtaining his pirated works.

There is no data that backs up the assertion that pirates go back and pay for the things they've pirated.

And there is no data that shows that people who download pirated works go out and buy other material based on those pirated works.

These are all maybes, conceivables, possibles... but not facts. So it's no good using them to justify piracy. And finally:

Originally Posted by spooky69

I haven't seen you yet acknowledge a fundamental point about digital piracy as compared to traditional theft, which is that each "theft" doesn't necessarily represent a loss of income for the seller since it's more than likely that the person would never have spent their money on that product anyway and downloaded it mostly because of the convenience of doing so...

the only place where you're losing sales is from a very specific group of people who will buy a certain type of media, but only if they can't obtain it illegally...

That's because stealing something you wouldn't have otherwise paid for doesn't justify stealing it in the first place. And since, by your logic, someone who couldn't obtain it illegally might therefore pay for it, every instance of stealing IS one lost potential sale.

You're right in that I will not consider any of these reasons for taking a digital work intended purely for entertainment, without paying for it, in direct violation of the owner's wishes and right to be duly compensated, to be justified. Easy does not justify. Cheap does not justify. Paranoia does not justify. Eye for an eye does not justify. Absence of malice does not justify. Ignorance does not justify. Blame does not justify. And phantom promotion does not justify.

[Lemurion]

I don't agree with everything Steve has suggested; but in one very important way he's right. No one has ever proven that there has been an increase in sales due to illegal downloading. We've seen studies that may indicate that, and others that say it's not the case, but no one has proved it. Almost all the evidence is anecdotal.

Yes Eric Flint has shown that making his books available for free download has increased his personal sales. But he's not putting those books on the darknet. He's offering them for download on a site where you can read some books for free and buy his latest ones. So he's got people at a site where you can reasonably expect most visitors are willing to pay. Besides, giving away the first book or two in a series in the hopes it will cause people to buy the rest is in many ways similar to handing out free chapters. They still have to buy to finish the story.

So while there is evidence that giving away eBooks does promote sales in some cases, there's none that the darknet provides that benefit.

Having said that, I do have to say that the existence of the darknet is something that all business plans do have to take into consideration. It's out there, so some response is needed.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't agree with everything Steve has suggested; but in one very important way he's right. No one has ever proven that there has been an increase in sales due to illegal downloading. We've seen studies that may indicate that, and others that say it's not the case, but no one has proved it. Almost all the evidence is anecdotal.

I think that more to the point is that nobody yet proved that you can make real money and build a big business selling e-books. Baen makes its money on hc's and e-books were a way to move from a mmpb house to a hc house, Fictionwise/Amazon Kindle and the like are just negligible in terms of revenue. People just do not want to pay that much overall on e-content, and while there is some pie to be split as the iTunes/mp3 experience shows, it's quite smaller than the corresponding print/cd one.

This is why I think that e-books will remain a niche market - no easy home-digitization to force publishers - more dedicated to sell print books, and if somehow despite my expectations e-books take off, the result will be similar to music, vastly declining revenues...

Piracy is irrelevant to a large extent- the tech comapnies peddling the Net and assorted products like iPods and large storage media, embedded this expectation of free/low cost e-content in the collective imagination and it ain't going away.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

These are all maybes, conceivables, possibles... but not facts. So it's no good using them to justify piracy.

The logical fallacies are stacking up like crazy here...I do know for a fact that some people who pirate do it as a way of finding things to buy be because I've heard several of them say so. They could all be lying, but that requires about the same size of logical leap as to assume that anybody who has pirated will also never buy any legitimate media ever again, which seems to be closer to what you imagine actually takes place.
You say that everything I've brought up has already been said many times, but the message I'm trying to send you clearly isn't getting through. I've said over and over again that I'm not trying to justify piracy, but that's clearly what you're reading since it's the attitude you're arguing against. You don't need to convince me that stealing something without paying for it is wrong, but it's clear that I still need to convince you that that's not the point. I am trying to do you a favor by offering a more realistic perspective of how piracy and pirates work, which is that a lot of them regularly spend their money in traditional ways. Here's the big point that you need to take away from this, one more time: you might not like piracy or pirates, but as long as something you're selling is going to be pirated anyway, you'd be wise to try and turn as many of those illegal downloads as possible into future sales. On the other hand, you could just keep on believing that since there are no "facts" that pirates are willing to spend their money on legitimate purchases (I'd bet that there are, if you actually wanted to hear that) then you will be ignoring a large potential audience, and one that has already shown a direct interest in the product you're selling by seeking it out and acquiring it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by spooky69

Here's the big point that you need to take away from this, one more time: you might not like piracy or pirates, but as long as something you're selling is going to be pirated anyway, you'd be wise to try and turn as many of those illegal downloads as possible into future sales.

Shyeah... I'll just put a banner on my site that says, "Hey, Pirates! Buy the next one, please!" And they'll all go, "Well, since he asked nicely..." And the next day, I'll be a millionaire.

Pull the other one.

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, the very idea that "pirates are part of a business model" is the laughable part. Stealing is never part of a business model... it is the systematic attack of the business model. A business model is about developing a product, building a store, and finding ways to make it profitable for you to sell it. Piracy is the person who breaks the window of the store and takes what he wants, regardless of the intent of the business model. That person isn't encouraging people to go buy at your store. In fact, he's more likely driving away every legitimate buyer, who now doesn't trust the integrity or safety of that store, and attracting only more pirates looking to loot through the broken window.

In another forum-thread it is mentioned that publishers calculate that people forward a p-book 6 to 10 times, newspapers are shared between neighbours, dvd-s are viewed in a family gathering, some tape and fastforward a tv show to skip commercials and there breaking the business-model based on advertising. Although your and my view on this topic differ very much, IMHO your piracy (= "not paying for the service by each individual that receives the benefits of a service") is part of the calculation of each realistic business model.