STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[Catlady]

Wait a minute.

My position is that the absence of DRM is not tacit permission to copy and distribute an author's work. They are entirely separate issues and should not be conflated.

I thought I said that clearly, but apparently not.

Removal of DRM is not the problem. The problem is illicit distribution.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My position is that the absence of DRM is not tacit permission to copy and distribute an author's work. They are entirely separate issues and should not be conflated.

I thought I said that clearly, but apparently not.

Removal of DRM is not the problem. The problem is illicit distribution.

You did say that clearly, it just took me a while to pick up on it. Sorry about that.

And you and I are in complete agreement, illicit distribution of someone's work is a big problem, and deeply unfair to that someone, but it's a separate issue from the whole DRM thing. The absence of DRM is not a signal from either publisher or author that it's okay to re-distribute without license or permission, and anyone who thinks so needs to seriously re-think how and what they're thinking.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Wait a minute.
Removal of DRM is not the problem. The problem is illicit distribution.

Absolutely

DRM is simply an impediment to those purchasers who simply want to have full control over their purchased ebook. DRM prevents format shifting and the like. If the DRM is tied to the estore, then the risk of future loss is higher.

Removing DRM will do nothing to stop file sharing. It may however reduce casual downloaders looking to find a de-infested ebook, because they have chosen another ereader brand that cannot read the format of the ebook they purchased for their older ereader.

DRM is completely transparent to me. Removal of it is the first thing done to the ebook once I make purchase. Geo restrictions are a bigger issue for me to deal with and have forced me to look elsewhere. I very much doubt I am alone in this.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

You did say that clearly, it just took me a while to pick up on it. Sorry about that.

And you and I are in complete agreement, illicit distribution of someone's work is a big problem, and deeply unfair to that someone, but it's a separate issue from the whole DRM thing. The absence of DRM is not a signal from either publisher or author that it's okay to re-distribute without license or permission, and anyone who thinks so needs to seriously re-think how and what they're thinking.

Apparently she said it better than I was able to, in fewer posts as well.

Luck;
Ken

[howyoudoin]

This is apparently a 'true exchange' that I'm posting. Many people are aware of this hilarious bit. The veracity is doubtful and beside the point anyway, which is that it provides an allegory to the irrationality of the "DRM prevents theft" stance.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Copyright infringement is a policing problem, not one where every customer is treated as a potential thief unless proven otherwise. No amount of obfuscation on the part of publishers will alter the true facts.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Wait a minute.

My position is that the absence of DRM is not tacit permission to copy and distribute an author's work. They are entirely separate issues and should not be conflated..............Removal of DRM is not the problem. The problem is illicit distribution.

Seconded (or thirded/fourthded, wotever...)

People do sometimes get DRM and copyright confused, in a way - the arguments are well rehearsed, but I've found a reasonable explanation for my own conscience.....

If it's designed to screw extra cash out of ereaders it's DRM, if it's there to ensure earnings go to the author... it's copyright.

Allegedly.

[ Slightly confused by the possible ownership of an author's works by a third party, I suppose, but I'm not omniscient am I...... ]

[kennyc]

I vote for abstinence.....of DRM.

[frahse]

I don't profess Faustian insight, but I do see self deception at work here, many, many
incarnations of Mephistopheles seeking to satisfy all and willing to help twist logic,
truth and virtue for that purpose.

"To lock the door is to accuse me falsely."
"Keeping thy bosom well buttoned is a blight imposed upon my character."
"You watch me like I am a thief?"
"Why measure the precious?"

"Shame on you, it is your fault that I am this way!"

This seems to be the recurrent theme of this thread.

(I really don't feel safe at all in my my cage. They all look so hungry.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

If most cell phones were like that, I'm sure there's be a large black market for cell phones.

You have put your finger on it. What we call "piracy" is nothing more than a black market which has come into existence because the normal economy has been distorted.

Usually, we think of a black market in terms of scarcity and high pricing, and there's an element of scarcity in the "piracy" market. Some books are simply not available as ebooks, so people go to the black market to get them. Some aspects of the black market have to do with functionality, as you point out. It is easier to go to the black market to get a DRM free ebook, as opposed to figuring out how to strip the DRM from a legal copy.

But what is different about the "pirate" version of the black market is that the goods on pirate black market are usually cheaper than those in the normal market, frequently to the point of being free. Normally, such goods are more expensive.

The existence of a black market signals that the normal economy is not functioning optimally. If publishers stopped using DRM, the black market would continue to exist but would be smaller. There would still be a pricing issue.

The pirate black market is a bizarre form of the usual black market, and the question is, why? Nobody is making money off of the pirate black market, at least not directly. Whoever heard of a black market which gave away its goods? Yet here we are.

I believe that what publishers and resellers (except Amazon) don't grasp is that what they are selling is not books, but the convenience of acquiring books. Because of DRM, and misspricing, publishers and resellers actually make it more convenient, economically and practically, for some books to be acquired from the black market. Eliminate DRM, and at least some portion of the black market will become inconvenient, and so customers won't go there.

[MrsJoseph]

You guys ought to stop! You know you have no business doing legal things with ebooks that you purchased with your own hard earned money! It's more than obvious that only publishers and the like know what's really going on in your head, you thief you! They already know that your real plan is to do something they don't want you to. So stop it!

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

You guys ought to stop! You know you have no business doing legal things with ebooks that you purchased with your own hard earned money! It's more than obvious that only publishers and the like know what's really going on in your head, you thief you! They already know that your real plan is to do something they don't want you to. So stop it!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sabredog

DRM is completely transparent to me. Removal of it is the first thing done to the ebook once I make purchase. Geo restrictions are a bigger issue for me to deal with and have forced me to look elsewhere. I very much doubt I am alone in this.

That's where I'm at, too. I can usually strip DRM off the ebooks I buy, and I usually do.

But when I want a book that's available in, say, England, as an ebook, but not available in the States, all bets are off. Here I am, credit card in hand, perfectly willing to pay, and the seller won't sell. At that point, I "look elsewhere."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

You guys ought to stop! You know you have no business doing legal things with ebooks that you purchased with your own hard earned money! It's more than obvious that only publishers and the like know what's really going on in your head, you thief you! They already know that your real plan is to do something they don't want you to. So stop it!

oopsie. Sorry Mrs Joseph.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

... At that point, I "look elsewhere."

And with those glasses you can see what others might not be able to.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by frahse

I don't profess Faustian insight, but I do see self deception at work here, many, many
incarnations of Mephistopheles seeking to satisfy all and willing to help twist logic,
truth and virtue for that purpose.

"To lock the door is to accuse me falsely."
"Keeping thy bosom well buttoned is an blight imposed upon my character."
"You watch me like I am a thief?"
"Why measure the precious?"

"Shame on you, it is your fault that I am this way!"

This seems to be the recurrent theme of this thread.

(I really don't feel safe at all in my my cage. They all look so hungry.)

This site is full of that. DRM is a copyright protection scheme. Some people remove DRM for entirely innocent purposes. Many more do because they intend to violate copyright. The law is aimed at the second group, and cares little about the first.
Hard to understand why the first group gets so outraged over the very idea that they may be considered as being bundled in with the second . When I go to a bank, I understand that the security guard is there to stop the bank robber, and that the bank does not view me, their customer, as a potential thief. I don't get the vapors when the RFID detectors go off when I walk out of a store after making a legit purchase, even though it (momentarily) brands me as a potential shoplifter. I understand why some stores keep small, valuable items in closed displays, (although I would prefer that I freely handle them) and don't get mad at the storekeepers for taking precautions, even though it shows a lack of trust in me as a potential customer. Maybe I'm just thick-skinned, and don't understand that storeowners should never take precautions to protect their property, because that would be branding the customers as potential thieves.