STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

Don't you think that I have an emotional investment in some of the books that have, by my reasoning, been purloined from me, and then bragged about by the people that did it.

Of course you have. What you don't get is that none of us in this thread are in that group, but as long as you treat us as if we are, no one is going to take you seriously.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll say it again, piffle. Total delusion. You are the one that needs to do some research. Ebooks existed well before DRM, I've been tracking their development since the 80's.

You got something to say, say it. You've clearly not been around here long enough to see the knock-down drag-out battles over this topic. You might want to just bow out now, but feel free to do some searches on copyright and drm to see what has been said before.

Actually I have been trying to withdraw from this thread because I do feel the resentment building up, but a few nuggets of ideas have popped up that made me want to do "my writer bit." It is a heady feeling! I really enjoyed the Faust post, the DRMsect post, and now the chasm picture post very much. That is my kind of thing, but probably it is like taking a 10 gauge shotgun and shooting into the kids duck pond at the petting zoo. I have kept my rocket launcher in the car though.

I will say again, that I have tried to be a lot more gentle on this topic than I feel, and have not run roughshod through the crowd.

Still the discourse upsets me too. It makes me think about things that hurt that I can't control. So anyway, I am trying to withdraw.

[kennyc]

Frahse I'd like to suggest that you seek out some of Cory Doctorow's thoughts on copyright drm and electronic publishing. http://craphound.com/
He definitely has an interesting perspective.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by frahse

That is my kind of thing, but probably it is like taking a 10 gauge shotgun and shooting into the kids duck pond at the petting zoo. I have kept my rocket launcher in the car though.

Nobody's asking to be treated with kid gloves. If you don't want to bring your "big hammer" to the discussion, that's fine... it's your choice. But if you choose not to bring it, you don't get the luxury of referring to its theoretical existence, either.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by frahse

That is my kind of thing, but probably it is like taking a 10 gauge shotgun and shooting into the kids duck pond at the petting zoo. I have kept my rocket launcher in the car though.

I will say again, that I have tried to be a lot more gentle on this topic than I feel, and have not run roughshod through the crowd.

Still the discourse upsets me too. It makes me think about things that hurt that I can't control. So anyway, I am trying to withdraw.

I want to speak to this directly, without regard for the current topic. As DD has stated, no one is asking to be treated with kid gloves. It's okay to be totally honest about the depth of your feelings on the matter, even brutally honest. It's never a problem unless it's done disrespectfully. It kind of goes back to idea of attacking ideas, not people. The only time it gets awful around here is when people get personal with their attacks, so as long as you can bring it without making it a personal attack on individuals, go for it.

I understand not wanting to come in like Godzilla stomping Tokyo, but as a writer I'm willing to bet you can get your point across, even forcefully, without stooping to the level of personal attacks. If you're holding back the depth of your feelings on the matter, you're just getting more and more frustrated and the important points won't get addressed in a manner that's constructive and productive for you. Misunderstandings can't get cleared up if the issues get skirted around. Points can't be understood or properly debated if they aren't fully expressed.

You're a writer, for goodness sake. While we may not agree on various points on this discussion, you have a stake in this industry so bring your points to the table so that others can at least hope to understand them. Likewise, I have a stake in it as a consumer. I can't promise we'll all find middle ground, because we're human and often contrary. But I, for one, would like the opportunity to fully understand your perspective on this.

[Andrew H.]

The problem with these kinds of discussions, IMO, is that there isn't one solution that works for all writers. There is a huge difference between, say, James Patterson or Stieg Larsson on the one hand, and an average author with sales of 3-4,000 books on the other.

As Cory Doctorow point out, for most authors, the biggest danger is obscurity, not someone stealing your work. What these authors need to do is whatever it takes to get their book in front of the most potential readers. Which means making it as easy as possible for them to see it and get it - no DRM, available at a lot of places, some free copies. Sure, some people will read your book without paying for it, but if they never heard of the book, they wouldn't have paid for it either. According to this very plausible theory, the losses you will have due to no DRM are less than the gains you will get due to increased availability due to no DRM.

However, I don't think that this theory really works for authors who are not obscure - George R.R. Martin, Nora Roberts, Lee Child, etc. Authors who you can comfortably predict a year in advance that their next book will be a NY Times bestseller. These authors don't really need more exposure, and - particularly because their books are in demand - they are likely to suffer some actual sales losses due to casual sharing. (As opposed to losses from people who specifically look for their books on the darknet, which are probably difficult to avoid). How great these losses might be is hard to say, although I can imagine them being substantial. (It's hard to quantify how substantial - but I think a reasonable, somewhat conservative number might be something like 5% of actual sales lost - which is 50,000 sales for a million seller, and equates to real money).

[kennyc]

Well said Andrew.

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The problem with these kinds of discussions, IMO, is that there isn't one solution that works for all writers. There is a huge difference between, say, James Patterson or Stieg Larsson on the one hand, and an average author with sales of 3-4,000 books on the other.

As Cory Doctorow point out, for most authors, the biggest danger is obscurity, not someone stealing your work. What these authors need to do is whatever it takes to get their book in front of the most potential readers. Which means making it as easy as possible for them to see it and get it - no DRM, available at a lot of places, some free copies. Sure, some people will read your book without paying for it, but if they never heard of the book, they wouldn't have paid for it either. According to this very plausible theory, the losses you will have due to no DRM are less than the gains you will get due to increased availability due to no DRM.

However, I don't think that this theory really works for authors who are not obscure - George R.R. Martin, Nora Roberts, Lee Child, etc. Authors who you can comfortably predict a year in advance that their next book will be a NY Times bestseller. These authors don't really need more exposure, and - particularly because their books are in demand - they are likely to suffer some actual sales losses due to casual sharing. (As opposed to losses from people who specifically look for their books on the darknet, which are probably difficult to avoid). How great these losses might be is hard to say, although I can imagine them being substantial. (It's hard to quantify how substantial - but I think a reasonable, somewhat conservative number might be something like 5% of actual sales lost - which is 50,000 sales for a million seller, and equates to real money).

I think it's definitely true that different kinds of authors have different needs in a business model. But I seriously have to question whether there would be a significant loss for well-know writers.

In the dead tree book world, well-known writers tend to have more expensive print editions. Nicer paper, nicer covers, and the ability to charge more due to knowing that people will pay for it.

I'm sure a lot of people do buy books like that new from B&N, but I'm sure a lot more don't. I know I tended to buy those books used, because often times, I just couldn't afford it. If I bought a new book, it tended to be something more obscure - and thus less expensive. I don't always have $13 to spend on a paperback, ya know?

How many sales do big writers lose from people buying their books used? Or people getting them through "casual sharing" with a friend? Or through the library? I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than whatever they lose from piracy or ebook casual sharing.

Again, I don't see anyone saying we should tear down used book stores and libraries, or make it illegal to give your book to a friend.

I'm a writer. I empathize with this - I really do. And I'm not saying I have the answer. I don't know how I feel about "casual sharing" of ebooks, but I'm uncomfortable enough with it that I don't do it unless the book is public domain. Even though I'm a lot more comfortable with it when it's a dead tree book. Maybe this is because ebooks are generally cheaper - or at least they would be if not for agency price inflation.

One thing is clear to me though. Whatever the solution to books in the internet age may be, DRM is definitely not it. That much I am sure of.

I am sure that as a writer, I don't want to screw my own readers that way. And as a reader, I don't like being screwed that way.

I am a loud and vocal advocate of supporting what you like with your dollar, and voting against what you don't like by withholding your dollar. I do that myself as much as I can. When I can't do it, I use my platform to present my argument to others for their evaluation, which is also helpful, and a vital part of civilian dialogue and democracy.

Catlady - You're right, it doesn't necessarily hurt a library's cash flow, per se. However, I think there is a chance that it may hurt their continued survival.

As mentioned before, some people do see ebook libraries as "free books." And even some honest people are inclined to break the DRM if they haven't quite finished the book by the end of the loan period, and then delete it when they're done. These are still perfectly decent people.

They know the library and the people who use it aren't losing anything - the next person in line gets the book whether they return it on time or not. If they had borrowed a paper book, they would have the option to extend or pay a fine. But with an ebook, they can't. They have to get back in line and wait maybe another month to finish the book. It is clear that the solution to ebook library lending has not been ironed out yet, because that is a crappy system.

It's really only a matter of time before some library gets sued for not providing adequate protection against the piracy of books, and thus preserving the sales that authors and publishers rely on. I could totally see that happening.

Of course, they'll never stop to consider that maybe it's their own fault that libraries are unable to protect their books.

[afa]

Originally Posted by frahse

Actually I have been trying to withdraw from this thread because I do feel the resentment building up, but a few nuggets of ideas have popped up that made me want to do "my writer bit."

I would suggest that any resentment you detect is less because of your pro-DRM position itself, and more to do with the impression your posts in this thread create. Namely - that you feel anyone who removes DRM is a pirate. That the only reason anyone would want to remove DRM is because they are immoral beings interested only in the mass distribution an author's written word.

When you attempt to paint so many people with the same ill-conceived brush, you have none but yourself to blame for any feelings of resentment that build up. That would be like my cracking my buddy on the head with a bat, and then claiming to be disappointed when he doesn't want to be friends anymore.

I would also suggest that another part of the reason for resentment is that it certainly seems that you are making no efforts at all in understanding the points the other side is making. No one insists on forcing you to change your beliefs and side with them, but they do expect you to debate the actual arguments being made, rather than reiterating the same points about pircay being bad. From what I have seen, no one is arguing in favour of that point. No one is arguing that copyright infringement is a good thing. They are arguing that DRM -- at least in its current form -- is all but ineffectual in preventing, or even slowing, piracy (which is true), that its potential benefits to publishers/authors are outweighed by the discontent it causes among readers and potential customers (which is true), and that the industry needs to think, and think hard, about better solutions (also true).

Still the discourse upsets me too. It makes me think about things that hurt that I can't control.

Again, the reason it hurts seems to be that your are misunderstanding the nature of the act. I understand you are an author, so I suppose you are concerned about copyright infringement and the effect it has on "Rights Holders" like yourself. An understandable concern, surely. I empathise.

But you are mistaken if you believe that the removal of DRM violates this right. You are mistaken if you believe that removing DRM hurts you, in any way, shape or form. It does not. Definitely. If I bought a print book you had written and sneezed and vomited all over it, it would hurt you and violate your rights as an author no less than the act of removing DRM.

If I then distributed the ebook... yes, that would disregard your rights. That would hurt, because I have now violated your copyright. But therein lies the problem, frahse: for removing DRM is not equivalent to copyright infringement. The two events might be somewhat related (in so much that some people break DRM and then distribute the files) but they are not the same.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

As Cory Doctorow point out, for most authors, the biggest danger is obscurity, not someone stealing your work. What these authors need to do is whatever it takes to get their book in front of the most potential readers. Which means making it as easy as possible for them to see it and get it - no DRM, available at a lot of places, some free copies. Sure, some people will read your book without paying for it, but if they never heard of the book, they wouldn't have paid for it either. According to this very plausible theory, the losses you will have due to no DRM are less than the gains you will get due to increased availability due to no DRM.

Mr. Doctorow, however, uses his free e-books as a vehicle to sell his paper books. That distribution model wouldn't work in an exclusively e-book world.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by afa

I would suggest that any resentment you detect is less because of your pro-DRM position itself...

Karma for you. An summation of much logic and sense.

(Going against my better judgement and weighing in on this thread.)

I don't think that DRM is the issue here.

I think that publishers have been doing a very poor job of winning over consumers. A lot of people see ebooks as being as expensive as print books, very low quality, and having too many restrictions. While these restrictions may be implemented through DRM, that doesn't mean that DRM must be restrictive. (For example: publishers can focus upon using 'watermarks' to identify the source of pirated books and place minimal restrictions upon how you read the book.)

Even though I think a lot of these problems have been created by publishers (many of whom would be gleeful if the used market and libraries died), they also have to figure out how to deal with the quirks of the digital age. This is stuff like: lending a book used to mean giving someone your copy. Now lending a book means making someone a copy. Even things like text-to-speech is a new idea for publishers, because audio books used to be a separate revenue stream to publishers and no one really questioned it.

So I don't think that it's a black and white issue. I think that publishers have problems to iron out with DRM (though not necessarily to eliminate it). I think that readers have to accept that publishers are businesses who need to make money. And I also think that everyone has to come to terms with what copyright means in an age where the simple act of opening a book makes a copy, never mind how sharing our stuff has changed.

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Mr. Doctorow, however, uses his free e-books as a vehicle to sell his paper books. That distribution model wouldn't work in an exclusively e-book world.

...And by popular demand by the people who want to support him, he now sells his ebooks as well at Kindle, Nook, and Kobo. And he still has free copies available on his website.

http://craphound.com/?p=3053

... although all my books are available as downloads for free, I often hear from readers who want to buy them, either because it is a simple way to compensate me ... or because they like the no-hassle option of tapping on their device to buy a book.

A quick hunt through his site confirms his books are still available for free.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

...And by popular demand by the people who want to support him, he now sells his ebooks as well at Kindle, Nook, and Kobo. And he still has free copies available on his website.

http://craphound.com/?p=3053



A quick hunt through his site confirms his books are still available for free.

Exactly he does both, give away some of his writing in order to publicize his work and selling other work as both ebooks and print.

It certainly works in the music business.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly he does both, give away some of his writing in order to publicize his work and selling other work as both ebooks and print.

I am doubtful, however, that his current marketing model would work in a purely eBook situation. That's not to say that he's doing anything "wrong" of course; just that he'd probably need to re-think things if his primary market was not paper books, which it is at present.