STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[Fbone]

There's only ever one copy of an item on a torrent site?

[Hellmark]

Yeah, for me that's the biggest thing. I hate when companies try and tell me what I can and cannot do after I've bought the product. After I've bought something, it should be mine to do with what ever I want, as long as it is legal.

[ekster]

I don't want to disappoint the industry's opinion of me. so I guess I should go on a shopping spree, buy all these DRM'd things, and then strip DRM off of them so I could upload them! And because the majority of us are thieves, I'm also going to insist that everyone else who doesn't like DRM does the same as me.

Then we can all have Upload Friday Parties. Every Friday, we all pick one ebook, go buy it, strip the DRM, and each one of us uploads their own copy! I mean... if 500 people upload Harry Potter, then we could steal it 500 times!

[stonetools]

DRM is not the equivalent of anti-theft devices and security guards. It may sometimes attempt to do the same job, but it's an entirely different animal. The bank security guard doesn't follow me home to make sure I'm not depositing the cash I've withdrawn into a competitor's bank. Most physical anti-theft devices are removed or deactivated by the retailer at the time of purchase. I just got a funny image in my head of a device on white shoes that allows them to only be worn between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Well, its not a perfect analogy, because the conduct it's aimed at preventing -illegal copying and distribuition -can only happen AFTER you acquire the product. But then there are no perfect analogies. As I've pointed out, there are many products where the law does regulate your use of a product AFTER you purchase that product. Ebooks really aren't unusual in that regard.

If what you are saying is that the creator of a product should never take measures to protect their legal right against copyright infringement, other than ineffectual ones like printing a notice that nobody reads in the first page of the book , or attempting lawsuits against end users, well, cool. That's a defensible proposition. You can understand why professional authors might disagree.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, its not a perfect analogy, because the conduct it's aimed at preventing -illegal copying and distribuition -can only happen AFTER you acquire the product. But then there are no perfect analogies. As I've pointed out, there are many products where the law does regulate your use of a product AFTER you purchase that product. Ebiooks really aren't unusual in that regard.

If what you are saying is that the creator of a product should never take measures to protect their legal right against copyright infringement, other than ineffectual ones like printing a notice that nobody reads in the first page of the book , or attempting lawsuits against end users, well, cool. That's a defensible proposition. You can understand why professional authors might think disagree.

Yeah, the law regulates your use after the sale, but most things do not have third parties trying to enforce that by limiting you against even potentially legal uses.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by stonetools

But then, why am I getting into this again. Nah go ahead,-continue to believe that ebooks are the only product where the law is concerned with what you do with the product after you buy it, and its all a dastardly plot of the publishing industry. That's simple and easy to believe , and fits the prevailing narrative.

No one has ever said that. The conversation going on in this thread would be a lot more constructive if everyone took the time to respond to what the other side is actually saying, and not to what we want the other side to say in order for our pre-fabricated arguments to better fit.

Responding to what we think the others should have said, if they were a better fit to our stereotypical expectations of those stupid bastards who dare disagree with us, just ends up being incoherent.

[ekster]

To put it in numbers...

A) Let's say a 1000 want to purchase an ebook. It is without DRM. 100 want to violate the copyrights and upload, so they do it. There are now a different 100 copies that can be downloaded of the exact same thing.
Sales: 1000
People who can steal it for free: infinity

B) Let's say a 1000 want to purchase an ebook, but DRM is forced on it. So only 900 of them buy it, about 200 people are annoyed, and 90 of them want to violate the copyrights and upload it. Only 30 succeed in breaking the DRM. There are now a different 30 copies that can be downloaded of the exact same thing.
Sales: 900
Annoyed legit customers: 200
People who can steal it for free: infinity

C) Let's say a 1000 want to purchase an ebook, but they put a SUPER DRM on it, which can only be unlocked with kryptonite, and which is super restrictive. So only 500 of them buy it, about 400 people are annoyed, 100 people are super annoyed, 50 people will never buy anything from that company/publisher/store/author ever again, and 10 of them want to violate the copyrights and upload it. Only Lex Luther succeed in breaking the DRM. There is now a 1 copy that can be downloaded for free.
Sales: 500
Annoyed legit customers: 400
Super annoyed legit customers: 100
People that will never buy anything from them again: 50
People who can steal it for free: infinity

Hrmm... A, B or C... which one is better?

[stonetools]

I guess you've never been a teenager, or worn a bulky coat, or been a member of a minority group, such that you aroused the suspicions of the store personnel the second you walked into the store. Because if you had, you would know how demeaning it is to be treated like a potential criminal.

In any case, your analogies aren't on point. The store is taking precautions to make sure you bought the merchandise; once it's paid for, that's the end of the store's interest. DRM is something that inhibits the customer after the sale is concluded--after the customer has fulfilled his or her obligation to the seller.

Actually, I've been all three of those things-at the same time, even. I agree that the analogy isn't perfect-because there are no perfect analogies. OTOH, there are many products where the law regulates what you do with the product after you buy it-from guns and cars to children's toys.
Where we agree is that copyright infringement is a serious problem. There, you are at least ahead of those on this forum who apparently view it is as kind of a joke. Where we disagree is that you don't like DRM because you think content creators should repose total trust in you not to break the law. In your case that's deserved. Unfortunately, there are knuckleheads who f*** it up for the rest of us, and it is toward those that DRM is aimed.
To the example of minority youth being harassed by store personnel, the solution is better trained store security, not NO store security.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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...........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.

Perhaps Amazon don't know that a lot of the books they "protect" with DRM are already out there, legally and illegally, some free, some cheaper, some dearer.
No, their DRM arguments are, in short, a load of cobblers.

The only reason they use DRM - as I see it - is to get most people buying their reader, to read the material they are "protecting" because they don't want readers buying it - that is , handing their money over - from anyone else.
Whether the material is original or not.

[Given a chance, they'd probably like to DRM all public domain stuff - for themselves.]

Amazon's market ideal, surely, is total monopoly.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Amazon's market ideal, surely, is total monopoly.

That's every true capitalist's ideal.

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... DRM is a law now? It is a legal measure to insure public saftey, by limiting how
the product may be used or disposed of? I do admit that it resembles the "Child Saftey
Caps" that they put on old people's medicine bottles. We shouldn't complain about or
remove the DRM if it restricts our use?

Perhaps you mean it's a law like that which gave us the "low flow toilets" or shower
heads? Something else where the manufacturer has installed a feature to insure that
the consumer can't steal more than their fair share, of water, the thiefs.

Laws that regulate the use of a product generally don't put mechanisms in place that
make the product hard to use in other legitimate ways. Most, in fact don't come into
play until a crime is committed that harms someone.

You would have every right to pursue legal action against anyone uploading a copy of
your property, and bringing the theft to the attention of law enforcement. The use of
totally ineffective preemptive measures that restrict the use of your product, after the
sale, must be for another, hidden purpose.

Luck;
Ken

[Harmon]

I don't think that they are trying to prevent theft.

I think that the first objective is to create an ecology of ebook reading which is similar to buying a ticket to the movies. That is, they want to make a sale for each separate person who reads an ebook. In that context, what they are doing is taking advantage of DRM and, to some extent, proprietary file formats, to make it difficult for more than one person to read an ebook based on only one purchase. Not impossible - just difficult.

A second objective is to lock readers into buying from a single ebook source, each reseller hoping that the source will be itself.

All this stuff about DRM preventing theft is a smokescreen. What is being prevented is "more than one person reading per purchase" and "buying an ebook from my competitors."

[kennyc]

Exactly on target Harmon. And the library loans (particularly in the case of Amazon) are to increase ebook sales.


I'm wondering, does Amazon get a cut from the used book sales done through its website? I presume it does.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

OTOH, there are many products where the law regulates what you do with the product after you buy it-from guns and cars to children's toys.

What are these "many products"? And how are the restrictions built into the product? I'm not supposed to use my legally purchased and licensed gun to shoot my noisy neighbor, and I'll be in big trouble if I do, but there is no doohickey on the gun that prevents me from using it illegally. I'm not supposed to exceed the speed limit with my car, but my car still has the capacity to exceed the speed limit--it doesn't max out at 60 mph.

DRM is inhibiting my use of the product before the fact--before I do anything wrong. It's handcuffing me and preventing my legitimate use. Or it's trying to.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I don't think that they are trying to prevent theft.

I think that the first objective is to create an ecology of ebook reading which is similar to buying a ticket to the movies. That is, they want to make a sale for each separate person who reads an ebook. In that context, what they are doing is taking advantage of DRM and, to some extent, proprietary file formats, to make it difficult for more than one person to read an ebook based on only one purchase. Not impossible - just difficult.

A second objective is to lock readers into buying from a single ebook source, each reseller hoping that the source will be itself.

All this stuff about DRM preventing theft is a smokescreen. What is being prevented is "more than one person reading per purchase" and "buying an ebook from my competitors."

Originally Posted by Catlady

What are these "many products"? And how are the restrictions built into the product? I'm not supposed to use my legally purchased and licensed gun to shoot my noisy neighbor, and I'll be in big trouble if I do, but there is no doohickey on the gun that prevents me from using it illegally. I'm not supposed to exceed the speed limit with my car, but my car still has the capacity to exceed the speed limit--it doesn't max out at 60 mph.

DRM is inhibiting my use of the product before the fact--before I do anything wrong. It's handcuffing me and preventing my legitimate use. Or it's trying to.