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

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by spooky69

Citing a potential scenario where the entire United States economy dissipates based one single, ultra-important factor isn't a good way to start off an argument centered around the United States economy's potential future.

I'm not so sure, really. Of course the whole economy wouldn't just dissipate and the effects wouldn't be as bad as banning phones but we are talking about web-based companies or at least companies that rely heavily on the internet.

I guess you have somewhat similar security settings for ordinary phones and non-secured web traffic except that the internet is much more exposed than the phone network. A mobile phone on the other hand is as bad as WEP and comes maybe closer as an example, rather than wired phones.
Dunno really.

Edit: I just read the part you quoted again and you're right, that statement was far too broad.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by spooky69

Edit: Just re-read and realized that you were assuming that I was responding to something that I wasn't, and I was responding to you responding to something besides that which I thought I was responding to in reference to an earlier, now somewhat irrelevant post. All in all, my post that I am editing here, right now, stands as a very effective commentary about the part of that one post that I was originally replying to, but this post doesn't contain quite the same bite that it would have had I been responding to a response to the thing I thought I was responsibly responding to and not the mistaken response to my response to the response to this thread.

Huh?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

Assuming your ban were workable...

I went back to see if I actually called it a "ban," but I'll concede that that's essentially what it would be. Despite your claim, however, I don't believe it would mean The End Of Civilization As We Know It.

Originally Posted by Ramen

In the end, the question is really: What is more important to you, a free society or your profit?

Probably the most important question to be asked here. All of these measures discussed on this site... TM, DRM, encryption, whatever... are all impacts on privacy, as well as impacts on an individual's right to profit from their own work. If you can't make a profit, and have no way to make a living, how much will you care if the rest of society is free? What good is a free society wherein everyone is starving and freezing?

How "free" is our society now? Is "free society" really just doublespeak, used to frighten the un-mutual?

I propose that an individual's abiity to profit from their work is just as important as the desire for a "free society," since the individual's satisfaction with their lot has a direct impact on the health and function of said society. So, in the case of providing satisfaction to individuals, some "freedom" must sometimes be sacrificed. Case in point: Mandatory taxes that pay for infrastructure, including services that you personally don't use. Second case in point, street cameras that deter crime and make people feel safer, despite the knowledge that they are potentially being watched.

Some form of TM would sacrifice some level of freedom, I agree. But too much? Enough to bring society crashing down around us? I'm not sure.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I went back to see if I actually called it a "ban," but I'll concede that that's essentially what it would be. Despite your claim, however, I don't believe it would mean The End Of Civilization As We Know It.

Yes, you're right, my post was too extreme. The effects were only meant for the relevant branches and not as apocalyptic as it sounded.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Probably the most important question to be asked here. All of these measures discussed on this site... TM, DRM, encryption, whatever... are all impacts on privacy, as well as impacts on an individual's right to profit from their own work. If you can't make a profit, and have no way to make a living, how much will you care if the rest of society is free? What good is a free society wherein everyone is starving and freezing?

How "free" is our society now? Is "free society" really just doublespeak, used to frighten the un-mutual?

I propose that an individual's abiity to profit from their work is just as important as the desire for a "free society," since the individual's satisfaction with their lot has a direct impact on the health and function of said society. So, in the case of providing satisfaction to individuals, some "freedom" must sometimes be sacrificed. Case in point: Mandatory taxes that pay for infrastructure, including services that you personally don't use. Second case in point, street cameras that deter crime and make people feel safer, despite the knowledge that they are potentially being watched.

Firstly, we are only talking about intellectual property. Books, music, films and, to a smaller degree, software.

Secondly, limiting freedom isn't the last resort the relevant industries take, it's their first and only approach.

Thirdly, allowing people to thrive is very important but not when the result is crippling society. Society is more important than a tiny fraction of the economy.
As an example, I'd like to state consumer protection laws such as laws dealing with monopolies and the like. Monopolies aren't allowed to do as they please either, though the motivation is an economical one.

Forthly, there is no such thing as limiting freedoms only a little. Freedoms are continuely eroded. Once the populance is accustomed to the current level, the bar gets lowered. We've seen this not just since 9/11.
If this were not the case, if politicians were actually interested in a balanced, and result-oriented approach rather than knee-jerk publicity stunts, we might be able to argue over this. As it stands, you can only take stances as a matter of principle because the "enemy" will exploit you being reasonable.

As for your street camera example, the UK has the biggest density of cameras world-wide and yet they did not prevent crimes/lower crime rates. A very unpopular result, too. If deterring with such reasonably remote tools (i.e. you don't think of them at every turn) were successful, the death penalty or long imprisonment would have reduced crime significantly. Of course cameras help you after the fact.
This is an example of a publicity measure, not an actual anti-crime measure. It makes you feel more safe but doesn't actually increase your safety. Much like the airport security nonsense.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Some form of TM would sacrifice some level of freedom, I agree. But too much? Enough to bring society crashing down around us? I'm not sure.

Most western countries are already quite close to corporatism.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

Firstly, we are only talking about intellectual property. Books, music, films and, to a smaller degree, software.

So, at heart, you do not believe that I have the same right to protect my intellectual property as I have to protect, say, my car. Or the hand-crafted bookshelf I built.

(Maybe we need an "Is IP worth protecting?" thread somewhere...)

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So, at heart, you do not believe that I have the same right to protect my intellectual property as I have to protect, say, my car. Or the hand-crafted bookshelf I built.

(Maybe we need an "Is IP worth protecting?" thread somewhere...)

Come on, you know full well what I mean.
You don't see the car industry proposing laws as the RIAA does. You have a small segment (this needs to be substantiated somehow) of the economy demanding laws that would radically change the democratic principles of all western countries.

As for your comparison, the right to protect you demand for your IP far surpasses the rights granted for physical property. The equivalent to our discussion with your example would be:

• If you sold the bookshelf (or a blueprint), you'd install cameras in the house of the person who bought it to make sure he doesn't build a copy.
• Else, you'd install cameras in every house worldwide that has bookshelves (has internet connection), in case they see a picture of your shelf and try to build themselves a copy.

Virtual to physical analogies are hard and error-prone. You can use them to show proportionality of anti-piracy measures but not much more as virtual and physical property differ on a very fundamental level.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

Virtual to physical analogies are hard and error-prone. You can use them to show proportionality of anti-piracy measures but not much more as virtual and physical property differ on a very fundamental level.

That's true (and you're right, neither analogy was a great one). I think the biggest reason we haven't been able to come to a satisfactory understanding of these issues is the fact that most people involved in the discussion cannot differentiate the needs of physical vs virtual goods.

E-books, for instance, have become an abstraction of a "real book," as many posters here have given the impression that they don't consciously consider e-books "real goods" (same goes for music and video). And if it's "not real," how can it be managed... or bought and sold... or tracked and identified?

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Ramen

I'm not so sure, really.

I am.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So, at heart, you do not believe that I have the same right to protect my intellectual property as I have to protect, say, my car. Or the hand-crafted bookshelf I built.

Now, this I can sympathize with. Why, just last year I invented a hand-crafted car that goes around shooting out books toward the sidewalk, and I surely wouldn't want that stolen since it's the only one in existence.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Yeah. Good luck with that, spook.

Originally Posted by Ramen

Come on, you know full well what I mean.
You don't see the car industry proposing laws as the RIAA does. You have a small segment (this needs to be substantiated somehow) of the economy demanding laws that would radically change the democratic principles of all western countries.

How much of a change would there be in simply giving away all literature for free? I'd expect that to be pretty radical.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So, at heart, you do not believe that I have the same right to protect my intellectual property as I have to protect, say, my car. Or the hand-crafted bookshelf I built.

(Maybe we need an "Is IP worth protecting?" thread somewhere...)

I'll add an addendum to Ramen's response. When does a piece of property stop being "your" property? This is not a trivial question. If I bought your bookshelf, does it not become "mine"? Do you still maintain "rights" over it after purchase? What legal controls do you need to maintain those "rights"?

In the physical world, these questions are moot. I buy it, it's mine. I can use it, make copies of it, or roll over it with a tank. My property, my choice - and having sold it, you would have no say in what I do.

The digital (I.P.) world is different. The creator maintains an ownership interest in what is being sold (actual the purchaser is being granted a limited sublicense, to be precise) for a limited period of time. Yes, there needs to be laws to protect those ownership rights. But what laws and how are they best enforced. (And what precisely are the terms of those sublicenses? What has the purchaser actually bought?)

But the right of property <does not> override all other rights in a free society (it does override in authoritarian socialist and corporatist societies). These rights are a balancing act between competing needs, of which property ownership rights are just one, which means that some property rights are not going to be enforced as vigorously as some owner might want; due to the societal cost being too "high". You seem to be in favor of extremely vigorous property rights enforcement, others on the forum consider privacy rights far more important. Competing needs, in a nutshell.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But the right of property <does not> override all other rights in a free society (it does override in authoritarian socialist and corporatist societies). These rights are a balancing act between competing needs, of which property ownership rights are just one, which means that some property rights are not going to be enforced as vigorously as some owner might want; due to the societal cost being too "high". You seem to be in favor of extremely vigorous property rights enforcement, others on the forum consider privacy rights far more important. Competing needs, in a nutshell.

You're right in that the desires of a creator to enact laws to protect their creations, would necessarily result in restrictions on privacy rights... and yes, that is clearly what I'm saying.

However, a restriction of privacy rights, and the rights you have to do what you want with your property, are not necessarily as draconian and extreme as many of the posters here seem to assume. Re-using the car analogy, you have a right to drive your car once you've bought it, but you do not have the right to drive over the speed limit, through red lights, and against traffic. These are limitations to what you can do with the vehicle you legally own (including in democratic societies), and these are accepted limitations by most, because they protect the society at-large from being run over by car owners.

Suggesting that new laws designed to track e-books will somehow bring about The End Of The World As We Know It (and We Won't Feel Fine) is an overly-extreme viewpoint, as bad as if I suggested that the establishment of these laws would somehow make all creators rich beyond avarice... it would be like suggesting that any laws passed against automobiles will inevitably result in my not being allowed to leave my driveway. Taking this tack in any discussion is pointless, and will get us nowhere.

I'm suggesting that the reality would be somewhere in the middle, and with some work and cooperation, it could be a comfortable middle... for creators and for consumers. Because if both groups aren't comfortable... we probably won't have e-books at all.

Based on this, I still think TM could be made workable as a concept. If people disagree, that's okay... but there's no need for the apocalyptic doom and gloom statements. Humanity, democracy, socialism, et al, have faced much more serious issues in the past, and have found ways to work them out. We can with e-books too, if we're just willing to stop name-calling and over-reacting, and work together on it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're right in that the desires of a creator to enact laws to protect their creations, would necessarily result in restrictions on privacy rights... and yes, that is clearly what I'm saying.

. . .

Based on this, I still think TM could be made workable as a concept. If people disagree, that's okay... but there's no need for the apocalyptic doom and gloom statements. Humanity, democracy, socialism, et al, have faced much more serious issues in the past, and have found ways to work them out. We can with e-books too, if we're just willing to stop name-calling and over-reacting, and work together on it.

Sorry, I didn't think I was name-calling anybody.

The other viewpoint is that adding new restrictions to <anything> should be only done with much fear and trepidation, and after long and careful thought to consider as many unintended consequences as possible. Too many restrictions in the last 50 years in the US have led to too many unintended consequences for many people to sign off on more, no matter what the proposed good. Some people no longer believe "it'll be different this time".

I agree this is not the right forum for this conversation. But do not be suprised that some people defend their viewpoint as vigorously as you do yours. Competing needs.....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry, I didn't think I was name-calling anybody.

You weren't... I wasn't directing that (or any of my comments) directly at you, Ralph. Just at the general discussion of laws vs privacy, and obliquely at some of the people who have given such absolute positions and thereby fogged over many useful discussions.

I realize people have become gun-shy about changes to laws and rights... even in the best of situations, in every country, they should always be concerned about such changes. However, people also have to understand that times change, and sometimes, laws and even rights have to change to accommodate that. It's not that the change is desired... but that it is deemed to be needed, and it might be the only fair way to deal with an issue today that wasn't an issue yesterday. People have to be able to recognize when a law or change of rights is needed, and to be able to accept that, even if it is not preferable to them personally.

They also have to be able to accept that it might not be the right time to change laws or rights to accommodate something new, and that they may need to change their own plans, even if it is not preferable to them personally. (Here, I'm referring to people like me.)

We should not be making uninformed, unconsidered decisions. They should all be carefully deliberated, perhaps by much more intelligent than we, in order to develop workable and reasonable practices. We should be engaged in debate, not personal attack. And we should keep our focus on the goal, lest we allow it to get lost in the details.

I don't expect everyone else to just roll over and agree with me. That's why I set this as a discussion of a possible alternative, and not a statement of something that "will work, 'cause I'm brilliant, so just do it and shaddap!"

I work for consensus.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, a restriction of privacy rights, and the rights you have to do what you want with your property, are not necessarily as draconian and extreme as many of the posters here seem to assume. Re-using the car analogy, you have a right to drive your car once you've bought it, but you do not have the right to drive over the speed limit, through red lights, and against traffic. These are limitations to what you can do with the vehicle you legally own (including in democratic societies), and these are accepted limitations by most, because they protect the society at-large from being run over by car owners.

Actually, these restrictions already exist for ebooks, even without DRM. The problem is detecting such violations or enforcing compliance which is far more invasive than monitoring a busy street-crossing (which isn't unproblematic, actually) and especially the speeding radar stations, which are very focused in their purpose. Ghost driving isn't monitored at all.

I know this looks like nit-picking and I'm sorry. My problem is that situations are being confused/mixed which in this case would be making something illegal (the car thingies) vs. enforcement schemes (IP thingies) and to me this distinction is very important. There are a great many things illegal yet only a few are vigorously monitored. The car example is only true because the probability of accidents is high and thus the loss of life. In Germany and Switzerland, there's the principle of proportionality and it's this principle I continously see violated.


Having said that, I'd like to ask why we are still only focusing on DRM and surveillance rather than on other ways to maximize profits. Again, the connection between illegal and legal downloads isn't known so focusing solely on that is misguided. It's quite possible that there is a very profitable solution without any DRM or other control measures (watermarking, surveillance, etc) at all and it's also possible that there exists no equally profitable solution with DRM. We simply don't know.

So, what is your target customer base? What are typical volumes of sale per book? What kind of volumes are required at a given price? Is the ebook market actually large enough or is a celebrity status still mandatory?
The biggest problems I see for ebooks are volume, exposure and usability.

A goal might thus be to make legal purchases not less attractive as illegal downloads. The wording here is intentional as illegal downloads are typically more attractive if you ignore the illegality: you can do with them whatever you like and they're free.

One of the things I don't understand is why piracy is never a deciding factor other than with DRM? You said (or implied) that piracy is rampant. But therefore removing DRM wouldn't change a thing other than making legal purchases less less attractive as illegal ones. After all, you only need a single cracked version for your DRM scheme to fail unless you employ vigorous surveillance or control. It doesn't matter if a pirated version is available from a hundred sources or from a thousand. Likewise, the original source doesn't matter either. At the moment, you are only harassing paying customers. This would cover usability perfectly while not increasing piracy. So what's the point?

As for increasing exposure? Dunno really. I regularly have problems finding something to read because I just don't know what's out there.
Increasing the market is difficult to force though DRM-freeness would actually help here.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

Having said that, I'd like to ask why we are still only focusing on DRM and surveillance rather than on other ways to maximize profits. Again, the connection between illegal and legal downloads isn't known so focusing solely on that is misguided. It's quite possible that there is a very profitable solution without any DRM or other control measures (watermarking, surveillance, etc) at all and it's also possible that there exists no equally profitable solution with DRM. We simply don't know.

As this thread on TM might suggest, DRM is only one thing this site focuses on. It's just that DRM is so loud and clumsy that it continually draws attention to itself in the room (not quite an 800-pound gorilla, but a 300-pound drunken lout, I guess).

We do discuss other methods around here, though. I am presently using a different model entirely (low price, multiple formats, no DRM), to see how well it works... sort of an ongoing experiment in e-book workability. Others are using other models, and you could say we're all experimenting to see what works best. The field is so new, that no one method has proven itself yet, and other methods remain to be discovered or tried.

And while we're all working on that, the lout stumbles over a coffee table and draws everyone's attention back to it, ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Ramen

The biggest problems I see for ebooks are volume, exposure and usability.

Few here would disagree with that assessment. Though volume is easily enough dealt with in electronic files, exposure and usability are tough nuts to crack.

Originally Posted by Ramen

One of the things I don't understand is why piracy is never a deciding factor other than with DRM? You said (or implied) that piracy is rampant.

I would probably use the term "significant," other than "rampant"... e-books are not quite that popular yet.

Originally Posted by Ramen

At the moment, you are only harassing paying customers.

Pricing and security are alike in this way: Both of them always harass customers. A smart customer understands why some of both are necessary, and can deal with a little harassment. A smart seller needs to understand how much of both causes too much harassment. We're all in a constant battle to find the happy medium. That's what these discussions are about.

Originally Posted by Ramen

As for increasing exposure? Dunno really. I regularly have problems finding something to read because I just don't know what's out there.

Me, too. Of course, I have the same problem with printed books. A better method of finding what you want to read would help everybody, including the publishing industry.