Should I DRM my own ebook when selling?

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I think I will go for non DRM and PDF.

PDF is not ebook reader friendly because the format is designed for fixed layout publishing. If your book has a lot of examples where the layout of the page is important, or pictures/diagrams that need to be sufficiently large to make out the details, then PDF might be the appropriate format. If it's mostly text and some example SQL snippets, with some simple inline diagrams, then it'd be much better to publish in ePUB & mobi, which can be read well on basically any device as they're designed to be reflowable.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Contrary to the popular opinion here at MR, the majority of ebook consumers who use devices like Kindle, Nook and Sony readers do not know what DRM is, much less why it's important.

Your audiences sound to be more savvy than the average ebook consumer, though.

I agree with both these points.

However, I don't agree that using DRM will help to limit distribution of illegal copies. Since the OP's audience are tech-savvy, I suspect they'll either already know how to break DRM or get a free copy, or they'll be able to find out. I doubt DRM will have any impact on piracy in this instance.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

If you have intellectual property you want to protect, DRM is useful as a legal tool.

I've not seen anyone suggest that DRM is a useful legal tool before. Why do you say that? Is it because it's illegal to circumvent DRM in some jurisdictions?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by twowheels

If this author is savvy enough to write a book about SQL, (s)he should also be capable of creating their own watermarking scripts on the website for each copy downloaded.

Not necessarily. I've known some DBAs who knew SQL and various database servers inside out but wouldn't have been able to write such a script.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by twowheels

PDF is not ebook reader friendly because the format is designed for fixed layout publishing. If your book has a lot of examples where the layout of the page is important, or pictures/diagrams that need to be sufficiently large to make out the details, then PDF might be the appropriate format. If it's mostly text and some example SQL snippets, with some simple inline diagrams, then it'd be much better to publish in ePUB & mobi, which can be read well on basically any device as they're designed to be reflowable.

If the books are likely to be read on an e-reader, I'd certainly agree. But, if they're more likely to be read on a computer, then PDF is a reasonable choice.

Personally, I have several O'Reilly e-books. I don't have e-reader software installed on my work computer, but I do have a PDF viewer. I really appreciate the fact that they offer their ebooks in multiple formats, because it means that I can read a .mobi file on my Kindle, and keep a PDF on my work computer for reference.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Wow!

Thanks lot!

I've been really busy at work and came here and saw so many useful advice, thanks!

I think I will go for non DRM and PDF.

PDF is the worst possible choice for an eBook. PDF was not intended to be an eBook format, but a digital representation of a printed page. It does not scale well - it's virtually impossible to design a PDF which will look good on, say, a 5" reader such as a Sony PRS-305 and a 10" reader such as an iPad or Kindle DX.

The two primary eBook formats are ePub and Mobipocket. Go for those format and you'll have pretty much the entire market covered.

PDF should be avoided like the plague!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I've not seen anyone suggest that DRM is a useful legal tool before. Why do you say that? Is it because it's illegal to circumvent DRM in some jurisdictions?

It has been a noted point in many IP cases that showing you took action to protect your IP is important in itself, even if the method was ultimately ineffective.

If he ever did have to sue for any reason, having DRM on the work might be akin having a copyright notice on the printed page. The other party can't easily claim that they didn't know or have reason to think it wasn't a protected work.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by ApK

It has been a noted point in many IP cases that showing you took action to protect your IP is important in itself, even if the method was ultimately ineffective.

If he ever did have to sue for any reason, having DRM on the work might be akin having a copyright notice on the printed page. The other party can't easily claim that they didn't know or have reason to think it wasn't a protected work.

Do you have links to any such cases? I'd be interested to know the details.

I can see how having some form of protection would serve to give notice that it was a copyrighted work, but I would have thought a simple copyright notice would serve that purpose just as well.

Am I wrong? Would having DRM on the work provide more legal weight than a copyright notice? I'd have thought not, since anything can have DRM applied, whether it is protected by copyright or not.

[user_none]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Am I wrong? Would having DRM on the work provide more legal weight than a copyright notice? I'd have thought not, since anything can have DRM applied, whether it is protected by copyright or not.

There are two sets of laws here (at least in the USA). Copyright and the DMCA (an extension to copyright that primarily deals with digital works). The DMCA gives additional legal avenues to people who use DRM. Anti-DRM circumvention is part of the DMCA. So if you use DRM you can sue for violation of copyright and for circumventing the DRM protecting the work. However many parts of the DMCA do not require the use of DRM to be used by a rights holder (take down notice for instance).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Do you have links to any such cases? I'd be interested to know the details.

I can see how having some form of protection would serve to give notice that it was a copyrighted work, but I would have thought a simple copyright notice would serve that purpose just as well.

Am I wrong? Would having DRM on the work provide more legal weight than a copyright notice? I'd have thought not, since anything can have DRM applied, whether it is protected by copyright or not.

There have been a few popular books, the titles of course escape me now, which describe companies losing trademarks because they did not defend them. It wasn't just a matter of them not putting a little TM or circle-R symbol when THEY mentioned the brand, they did, it was a matter of them allowing the brand to be used casually and publicly by others. The brands became generic terms, and when another company did try to use the brand name commercially, and the original IP owners sued, they lost, partially because in not actively defending the brand, they effectly gave it up. Cellophane comes to mind, and I know Kleenex and Xerox are constantly fighting this. I'd see putting DRM on a work as a similar indication. One more thing to hold up in court and say "Look, I was clearly not intending this to be public domain...I didn't merely put a circle C on it and forget about it, I took clear action to protect it."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

There have been a few popular books, the titles of course escape me now, which describe companies losing trademarks because they did not defend them. It wasn't just a matter of them not putting a little TM or circle-R symbol when THEY mentioned the brand, they did, it was a matter of them allowing the brand to be used casually and publicly by others. The brands became generic terms, and when another company did try to use the brand name commercially, and the original IP owners sued, they lost, partially because in not actively defending the brand, they effectly gave it up.

True, but that's trademark law, not copyright law ("Aspirin" is probably the best-known example of a company losing its trademark in that way). Copyright law just doesn't work like that. A work is copyrighted, even if it doesn't contain a copyright notice, and nobody can claim that they didn't know that it was.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but that's trademark law, not copyright law ("Aspirin" is probably the best-known example of a company losing its trademark in that way). Copyright law just doesn't work like that. A work is copyrighted, even if it doesn't contain a copyright notice, and nobody can claim that they didn't know that it was.

I had a disturbing correspondence (resulting from one of the long flaming copyright threads that I tend to get involved in, on another forum) with a Princeton IP law professor who pointed out some surprising loopholes in copyright protection, so I would err on the side of defending all IP similarly. I cannot prove it will help, but I have reason to suspect it might, and it certainly can't hurt.

[user_none]

Originally Posted by ApK

I had a disturbing correspondence (resulting from one of the long flaming copyright threads that I tend to get involved in, on another forum) with a Princeton IP law professor who pointed out some surprising loopholes in copyright protection, so I would err on the side of defending all IP similarly. I cannot prove it will help, but I have reason to suspect it might, and it certainly can't hurt.

It can't hurt but with a trademark if you don't defend it you lose it. Copyright has no such requirement.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by user_none

There are two sets of laws here (at least in the USA). Copyright and the DMCA (an extension to copyright that primarily deals with digital works). The DMCA gives additional legal avenues to people who use DRM. Anti-DRM circumvention is part of the DMCA. So if you use DRM you can sue for violation of copyright and for circumventing the DRM protecting the work. However many parts of the DMCA do not require the use of DRM to be used by a rights holder (take down notice for instance).

So using DRM would effectively mean that you could sue or prosecute for copyright infringement and circumventing the DRM. That fits with what I thought.

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but that's trademark law, not copyright law ("Aspirin" is probably the best-known example of a company losing its trademark in that way). Copyright law just doesn't work like that. A work is copyrighted, even if it doesn't contain a copyright notice, and nobody can claim that they didn't know that it was.

That's pretty much what my understanding was.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by twowheels

PDF is not ebook reader friendly because the format is designed for fixed layout publishing. If your book has a lot of examples where the layout of the page is important, or pictures/diagrams that need to be sufficiently large to make out the details, then PDF might be the appropriate format. If it's mostly text and some example SQL snippets, with some simple inline diagrams, then it'd be much better to publish in ePUB & mobi, which can be read well on basically any device as they're designed to be reflowable.

That's is correct.

The layout is important, that's what I would like to use PDF.

PDF is not an ebook format, but will keep the layout and won't look bad.

But I like the idea of start using the posts first and start compiling those for the book later.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

PDF is the worst possible choice for an eBook. PDF was not intended to be an eBook format, but a digital representation of a printed page. It does not scale well - it's virtually impossible to design a PDF which will look good on, say, a 5" reader such as a Sony PRS-305 and a 10" reader such as an iPad or Kindle DX.

The two primary eBook formats are ePub and Mobipocket. Go for those format and you'll have pretty much the entire market covered.

PDF should be avoided like the plague!

Thanks Harry,

Aware of that. Was thinking about people reading on their computers when I mentioned PDF.