STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I think the Nook actually lets you lend books to other Nooks, but I could be remembering wrong... since I don't have one. I do know that my beloved 950 (poor broken thing) doesn't let me lend books from the Sony store to other devices. Not out of the box anyway... ahem.

sharing books on the Nook with family is as simple as side loading the books from the computer or emailing them.Open the book on the Nook enter the account name and credit card one time and you are able to read any books associated with that card number.

[Rob Lister]

What an interesting thread. Delve into the morality of DRM or the breaking of it if you wish, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't change anything. The argument for or against DRM is as silly as the Artist Formally Known as Prince proclaiming that he would not release his music on the interent, thus preventing his work from being pirated.

Any book worth reading, and most that are not, are available as a torrent almost from their first day on the market, and often before.

And if you don't know what a torrent is or how to use one, ask any 14 year old. He'll also explain the difference between peers, seeds and swarms.

So go ahead publishers, apply your DRM. It doesn't matter in the least.

[mpd123]

i think drm is unfair, all my books are drm freed ,not so i can upload them on the web for other people but for my own peace of mind. i bought them there mine . if i decided to change my device from a kindle to a sony i will still be able to access all the books that i have bought on my new device rather than have to buy them all over again in a different format.

i think that is fair and right.

cheers ,mick

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

not too long ago there was a case where EA used drm to keep a player from playing dragon age 2 because the guy badmouthed them on the games message boards. they literally blocked a guy from a game he dropped $60 on because he hurt their feelings.

"A player is unable to install Dragon Age following a temporary ban from the BioWare community forums.

User v_ware claims he was banned for asking if Bioware had 'sold their souls to the EA devil'. The ban then locked him out of the Bioware Social Network, blocking him from being able to play Dragon Age 2. A Bioware Social Network account is required to install copies of the game from the EA Store."

Ahem. As an active member of the Bioware forums, I can't let this pass without correcting/clarifying it.

V_ware was not banned for "hurting their feelings". He was banned because that little outburst was just the last in a very long line of incidents of completely unacceptable forum behavior. The guy is a monumental troll of gigantic proportions, and the main reason he's raising a stink is probably because he's outraged that there actually were consequences to acting the way he did.

Any self-respecting forum admin bans a user who behaves the way this guy did, and that's the long and short of it. This whole, "woe is me, I'm such a victim here" act of his fit the pattern by the way. He's a tool and a jerk, and good riddance to him for being banned.

Should a Bioware social account be required to be able to play the game? No, absolutely not. Should he have been more careful not to be banned from said account, since he knew losing it would make the game unplayable? Yeah, definitely.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Okay, you don't get it. Maybe if you gave it some time and careful thought...

howyoudoin,

I will give you a pleasant smile.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Okay, you don't get it. Maybe if you gave it some time and careful thought...

I was going to ignore this, but my idiot compulsion got the better of me again

It's actually not that big of a stretch to assume that not by making something illegal, the ones who elected not to pass the law are by their silence implicitly supporting what they refused to ban. I believe that assumption is incorrect, but that doesn't mean I can't see that on some level it's a valid conclusion.

[Suzanna]

I can see a point in time when I'll self publish a book. When that time comes, I'll do what many indie authors who I respect also do - I'll publish the book without DRM protection. If I, as an author, choose to add DRM to my ebook files, that's like saying to all my readers that I don't trust them and I think they have the potential to be thieves. Might some of them decide to share/torrent my book? Sure. But it's ridiculously easy to strip DRM anyway - I do it myself so any ebook I buy can be used on whichever device I happen to be using at that time. Why would I want to insult my readers? I want them to be able to enjoy my book on their Kobo, their Nook, their Kindle, or whichever device they buy. What I don't want is my non-DRM-stripping-savvy readers to think of me as that jerkface author who locked their ebooks so the epub files they purchased for their Sony last year can't be converted and read on their brand new Kindle.

As far as I'm concerned, keeping your ebook DRM-free (if you're an indie author who has control over such things) is good customer service.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I was going to ignore this, but my idiot compulsion got the better of me again

It's actually not that big of a stretch to assume that not by making something illegal, the ones who elected not to pass the law are by their silence implicitly supporting what they refused to ban. I believe that assumption is incorrect, but that doesn't mean I can't see that on some level it's a valid conclusion.

Copyright infringement is still against the law, DRM notwithstanding. Removing DRM, or explicitly allowing the removal of DRM, does not somehow legitimize copyright infringement.

If you don't lock your door, I'm not somehow legally entitled to help myself to the contents of your house.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Copyright infringement is still against the law, DRM notwithstanding. Removing DRM, or explicitly allowing the removal of DRM, does not somehow legitimize copyright infringement.

Isn't that what I just said?

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That's a simplistic and incorrect way of putting it.

Legalising gun ownership isn't the same as legalising murder.

I hope you see the point.

Of course here in the USA gun ownership is legal and murder is illegal.

Those who share Mr. "frahse's" opinion are like the "Brady Bunch/Handgun
Control Inc." activists who claim that if your society allows gun ownership
then murder will be rampant and that with "gun control" there would be no
crime, much less murder. No amount of FBI Statistics can change their
minds.

The DRM (Reader Control) supporters do believe that DRM prevents "theft"
of intellectual property and that the only reason someone would be removing
it would be to steal from the "Rights Holders". Pointing out that, that is not
the case, has no impact on those with such set beliefs. They truly believe
that they are protected by the DRM and that loosing it would dramatically
impact their livelihoods.

Unfortunately, the source for any statistical data is in the control of the
DRM supporters. It may tell you something that you cannot get any
empirical data to establish the facts. No publishing executive is going to
allow the public release of data that shows that the money they spend on
DRM is wasted. They will also dismiss and denigrate any leaked data that
may make its way to the public.

Luck;
Ken

[ScalyFreak]

People who don't know or care about DRM will buy a game/book whether it has it or not, but people who do care may decide not to buy if DRM is included. So what I would be interested in seeing is sales comparisons between companies that implement very restrictive DRM and companies that go without.

Spore had one of the most draconic DRM methods ever, and was also the most pirated game on the internet for a while, and didn't sell very well at all. By comparison, The Witcher received a patch that removed all DRM from the game just a couple of months after release (the developer explained that since their customers didn't like the DRM, they felt they should listen to the feedback and remove it) and it sold exceptionally well world-wide, given that it was the first release from a new developer that no one had ever heard of.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

So what I would be interested in seeing is sales comparisons between companies that implement very restrictive DRM and companies that go without.

That is a tough one, since so many other factors may be playing a part.
Here is Apple's iTunes Store song sales chart showing various milestones.


Apple started selling DRM only music in 2003.
Apple started selling DRM free music from EMI in 2007.
They switched the entire iTunes Music store to DRM-free in 2009.

But how does it compare to the music industry in general over the years?
And now, since Apple is the biggest music retailer, how much effect do they have overall on the success/decline of the music industry?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by kjk

And now, since Apple is the biggest music retailer, how much effect do they have overall on the success/decline of the music industry?

And how much of their sales are because of that and nothing else?

As always, statistics themselves say nothing, but can be used to say practically anything. I'm still curious though.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sao

I can see a point in time when I'll self publish a book. When that time comes, I'll do what many indie authors who I respect also do - I'll publish the book without DRM protection. If I, as an author, choose to add DRM to my ebook files, that's like saying to all my readers that I don't trust them and I think they have the potential to be thieves. Might some of them decide to share/torrent my book? Sure. But it's ridiculously easy to strip DRM anyway - I do it myself so any ebook I buy can be used on whichever device I happen to be using at that time. Why would I want to insult my readers? I want them to be able to enjoy my book on their Kobo, their Nook, their Kindle, or whichever device they buy. What I don't want is my non-DRM-stripping-savvy readers to think of me as that jerkface author who locked their ebooks so the epub files they purchased for their Sony last year can't be converted and read on their brand new Kindle.

As far as I'm concerned, keeping your ebook DRM-free (if you're an indie author who has control over such things) is good customer service.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by kjk

Apple started selling DRM free music from EMI in 2007.

I remember that. That was the year I lost my job of 21 years: Maintanence Technician at EMI Canada's CD plant (record and tape plant before that). It was also the year that EMI International was bought out by holding firm Terra Firma (private joke from ex-EMIers: AKA Terra Firma aparta).