STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I strip DRM from every book that I buy, as soon as I buy it. But I have non-technical friends who have Kindles who probably don't even know that DRM exists - they buy books from the Kindle bookstore and they read them on their Kindles. DRM is not a problem for them, and Amazon is unlikely to be disappearing any time soon.

True. But what about the DRM protocols Amazon employs? And what about their file format?

Those things can, have, and will lose support, and thus disappear. And even if Amazon continues to exist, millions of people will lose their content that they paid for. Millions of people already have.

Like I said in an earlier post, "walled garden users," like those you describe, are going to behave the same way regardless of whether DRM exists or not. If they don't know DRM exists, that means they aren't trying to do any of the things that DRM prevents. And that is what makes it ESPECIALLY unfair to screw them over.

These are Amazon's most loyal and perfectly-behaved customers. And someday, Amazon is going to reward them by wiping out half their collection. It's inevitable. Way to show their appreciation for their customers, eh?

DRM prevents you from being able to take reasonable measures against losing your content, like creating a copy for back-up or converting the file into a more universal format. Personal, totally reasonable uses.

DRM'ed books are broken. I have not, and never will, spend a dime on a DRM'ed book. I refuse to support publishers who enforce it, and as a writer I will encourage other writers to stand up for their readers (and themselves) by refusing to use it.

I've downloaded free DRM'ed books - I regard them as "fixer upper's." They're broken. But since they're free, I'll take them and fix them by stripping the DRM. But I will not pay money for a broken product.

The only books I spend money on are DRM-free books. Does that limit me a little bit? For the time being, yes. But if I really want to read something I can always use the library - we have a good digital catalog here, and DRM on library books makes sense.

Eventually, enough people will get sick of DRM and the industry, like the music industry, will have to abandon it. People are less and less willing to pay for broken products, and all that companies are doing by trying to force them to is pushing them out of their customer banks and into the black market.

[rdfry]

This has already happened with pdb and the two newest Nooks.

[ScalyFreak]

An upside to DRM, that didn't occur to me until now: Without it, libraries would not be able to let us borrow eBooks, the publishers would never allow it. But by implementing a DRM that means we can't just keep the downloaded eBooks indefinitely, publishers feel safe enough to let Overdrive lend us eBooks. Despite the fact that the DRM on them would never stop a determined pirate anyway.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

An upside to DRM, that didn't occur to me until now: Without it, libraries would not be able to let us borrow eBooks, the publishers would never allow it. But by implementing a DRM that means we can't just keep the downloaded eBooks indefinitely, publishers feel safe enough to let Overdrive lend us eBooks. Despite the fact that the DRM on them would never stop a determined pirate anyway.

I was just made aware recently of some libraries loaning non-drm books.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I was just made aware recently of some libraries loaning non-drm books.

I started browsing my library's Overdrive page just a few minutes ago, and they have a note on each book I have looked at so far, explaining the DRM and its purpose. I lose access to the file after 30 days, apparently.

This is DRM I'm not going to bother with stripping, since I'm not planning to keep the books. I'm only borrowing.

[kennyc]

Yes, do what is right.

[endobenthic]

Afternoon:

Since this is somewhat of a philisophical/morality question as well as a practical one ("STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices"), does DRM on library books make any more sense and is it therefor reasonable to expect for you the reader(s)?

Kind of a general question to all here.

[Harmon]

The thing that needs to be remembered is that copyright is not some sort of natural right. It is a statutory right created by law. It can be abolished tomorrow.

More precisely, copyright law represents a contractual agreement between the publishing industry (authors, publishers, resellers) and the general public, assigning most (but not all) of the right to economically exploit the value, if any, of creative work over a limited period of time. The public retains some of that right, included under the general umbrella of "fair use."

DRM must be considered in terms of whether it supports that contractual agreement, or not.

Now, the publishing industry would have us believe that the purpose of DRM is to prevent people from getting around copyright. But there are facts that show that it is actually being used for other purposes.

First, it is a fact that DRM, as implemented, diminishes the public's right to fair use. It does this on a preemptive basis, and it permits publishers to restrict legal fair use of the creative work.

Second, all the risk surrounding the definition of fair use is placed on the public, because the publishing industry is not punished if it oversteps the bounds, but the end user is.

In other words, it is being used by the publishing industry to violate the contractual agreement embodied in copyright law.

Further, the publishing industry is using DRM for an unauthorized purposes. One is to restrict competition.

But another is to force people into making multiple purchases in order to use the same content on different platforms. This is an abuse of the law. If you want to read the latest Thriller Book on your Sony and your Kindle, you must buy two copies of the same book because of DRM (unless you are sophisticated enough to strip DRM, which is not prohibited by the DRM law. What is prohibited is selling the necessary tools.)

The burden should be on the publishing industry to implement DRM in a fashion that does not violate the public's rights. It has not done this.

It does not matter that DRM might prevent theft of the content if, at the same time, it violates rights that the end user has under fair use. If DRM cannot be implemented without violating those rights, then it is DRM that must go, not the public's rights.

[kennyc]

Thanks for that Harmon. I agree.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by endobenthic

Afternoon:

Since this is somewhat of a philisophical/morality question as well as a practical one ("STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices"), does DRM on library books make any more sense and is it therefor reasonable to expect for you the reader(s)?

Kind of a general question to all here.

Ah my friend tread carefully here!

The AntiDRM Sect is one of absolutes!
There is no philosophy or moral ground to discuss
and the AntiDRM sect doesn't utilize reason or logic
that might be analyzed.
There is no need. Only the Dictum is necessary
and it is given forth to the Devout by the
Shaman (who must not be named) but is eerily
apparent by his omnipresence, and shrieking.
The Dictum is chanted constantly by the Devout,
the followers of the Sect and the Shaman, but the chant is
made unintelligible by the screaming
and frothing forth of the refrains of the Devout in response to
the mighty Shaman's constant strange circular utterances.

The uninitiated and UN-anointed (that is you and me) usually
get the impression that:
A) DRM is the Demon, and is bad, and evil too
B) DMR is losing and will be thrown down by the righteous AKA
those faithful to the Dictum and who swear
obeisance to the Shaman.
C) The publishers, sellers and authors must be sacrificed
on the great AntiDRM altar for their sins against the Devout
and their reliance on the DRM Demon.

If someone dares to question, or even meet the gaze of the
Shaman or the Devout, a Fatwa will be issued against that
one for he must be possessed by the DRM Demon and so
must be ripped. stripped and purged of that ultimate Demon,
DRM.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Harmon

First, it is a fact that DRM, as implemented, diminishes the public's right to fair use. It does this on a preemptive basis, and it permits publishers to restrict legal fair use of the creative work.

Interesting. Do clippings or saved excerpts also have drm? It looks like my saved clippings are a text file, so if I wanted to use a portion of the text for fair use purposes, that isn't restricted.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by endobenthic

Afternoon:

Since this is somewhat of a philisophical/morality question as well as a practical one ("STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices"), does DRM on library books make any more sense and is it therefor reasonable to expect for you the reader(s)?

Yes.

I finally managed to locate the library in my new home town and signed up for a library card earlier today. In the process I also checked out half a dozen hard cover books. When I did, the librarian who scanned them and my card informed me that they are due back in 30 days. If they are returned late, there will be a penalty fee. If they are never returned, I will be charged for them. This makes perfect sense to me, since they are borrowed books. They are not purchased, they have not become my property. I am allowed to take them home and read them, and when I have done that, I am expected to return them. That's the terms I agreed to when I signed my name on the signature line on the back of my new library card.

Because I don't expect to keep the borrowed books, I have no problem with the DRM on them. If the library sold me the book, it would be completely different, but libraries don't do that. They're letting me use the book for a time period they made sure to inform me of before I downloaded the eBook, and when the time is up, they expect me to give the book up. Which of course I will do, because that's my part in this agreement. They let me borrow books from them, and in return I promise to follow their rules.

Originally Posted by Harmon

The burden should be on the publishing industry to implement DRM in a fashion that does not violate the public's rights. It has not done this.

It does not matter that DRM might prevent theft of the content if, at the same time, it violates rights that the end user has under fair use. If DRM cannot be implemented without violating those rights, then it is DRM that must go, not the public's rights.

Beautifully phrased, and cutting right to the heart of the matter. Thank you for that.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

Ah my friend tread carefully here!

The AntiDRM Sect is one of absolutes! There is no philosophy or moral ground to discussand the AntiDRM sect doesn't utilize reason or logic that might be analyzed. There is no need. Only the Dictum is necessary and it is given forth to the Devout by the Shaman (who must not be named) but is eerily apparent by his omnipresence, and shrieking. The Dictum is chanted constantly by the Devout, the followers of the Sect and the Shaman, but the chant is made unintelligible by the screaming and frothing forth of the refrains of the Devout in response to the mighty Shaman's constant strange circular utterances.

The uninitiated and UN-anointed (that is you and me) usually get the impression that: A) DRM is the Demon, and is bad, and evil too B) DMR is losing and will be thrown down by the righteous AKA those faithful to the Dictum and who swear obeisance to the Shaman. C) The publishers, sellers and authors must be sacrificed on the great AntiDRM altar for their sins against the Devout and their reliance on the DRM Demon.

If someone dares to question, or even meet the gaze of the Shaman or the Devout, a Fatwa will be issued against that one for he must be possessed by the DRM Demon and so must be ripped. stripped and purged of that ultimate Demon, DRM.

"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous."

That made just as much sense. If you have absolutely no interest at all in keeping an open mind and hearing what we're saying, why are you still pretending to listen?

[3827016@gmail.co]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

(SRC: http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/09/d...inconvenience/ )

Follow source link for link to the full study.

I stopped buying Sony/BMG music when they annoyed me with a rootkit on a CD I bought.

Before that I bought the music I listen to, now I pirate.

I have been buying e-books because prices are good and they have yet to annoy me with DRM.

[sabredog]

Strewth, who trotted out the evangelist?