STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[xg4bx]

"In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights and selling them back to you.

If we believe Ronald Grover's sources in his BusinessWeek article of last week, the problem is liberal DRM and not piracy, and this is a startling admission. According to him, an unnamed studio executive said that a major reason why studios weren't jumping on board with the iTunes Store and other similar services is that their DRM is too lax. "[Apple's] user rules just scare the heck out of us." It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase."

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2007/01/8616.ars


drm was never about piracy, its about content control. they don't care about pirates, they just want to get your money in perpetuity, forcing you to buy and rebuy the same content over and over. without drm you actually own the book and can shift it to other devices and share it for the rest of your life, they dont make any money off of that.

im sure im not saying anything new but its time to drop the spin and call a spade a spade. they want you to pay and keep paying every step of the way.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

"In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights and selling them back to you.

If we believe Ronald Grover's sources in his BusinessWeek article of last week, the problem is liberal DRM and not piracy, and this is a startling admission. According to him, an unnamed studio executive said that a major reason why studios weren't jumping on board with the iTunes Store and other similar services is that their DRM is too lax. "[Apple's] user rules just scare the heck out of us." It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase."

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2007/01/8616.ars


drm was never about piracy, its about content control. they don't care about pirates, they just want to get your money in perpetuity, forcing you to buy and rebuy the same content over and over. without drm you actually own the book and can shift it to other devices and share it for the rest of your life, they dont make any money off of that.

im sure im not saying anything new but its time to drop the spin and call a spade a spade. they want you to pay and keep paying every step of the way.

Exactly!

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

they just want to get your money in perpetuity, forcing you to buy and rebuy the same content over and over. without drm you actually own the book file and can shift it to other devices and share it for the rest of your life, they don't make any money off of that way.

I took the liberty to point out what was mostly karmaworthy for me.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

"It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase."

Sure, and sometimes that control may be justified. Think of it this way: publishers used to have more revenue streams. They could offer flimsy paperbacks as well as premium priced and durably bound hard covers. Audio books could be offered as a separate product. Physical books also succumb to wear and tear, while properly backed up ebooks will last forever. Yet consumers now expect every book to be priced like a mass market paperback (or less), to format shift as they please, and to own that book forever. And yes, piracy is an issue. (And yes, DRM reduces some forms of piracy.) Is it any wonder why publishers are nervous?

That isn't to say that I agree with all of the control that they are trying to exert on consumers. I believe that the consumer should have the right to sell or give away a book when they are done with it. I also cringe at the notion of books that expire (which I've heard of in the textbook market).

Anyway, DRM shouldn't be presented as an us vs. them sort of thing. Both sides need to have their rights protected, not just consumers and not just publishers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Sure, and sometimes that control may be justified. Think of it this way: publishers used to have more revenue streams.

So what, there used to be buggy whip manufacturers.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

...properly backed up ebooks will last forever. Yet consumers now expect every book to be priced like a mass market paperback (or less), to format shift as they please, and to own that book forever. ..... Is it any wonder why publishers are nervous?

And??

Originally Posted by BWinmill

..... not just consumers and not just publishers.

I do care about the authors getting paid for what they create --
I could care less about publisher, they are just in the middle and mostly taking advantage of both authors and consumers.

As our friend Bob says, The Times they are a-changin'! Ya better think fast or you'll sink like a stone.

[cfrizz]

I could care less about the publisher revenue stream. Just like I don't care about banks revenue stream when they try to nickel & dime me to death with fees. I'm only going to pay once for a book.

[Clancy_s]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Yet consumers now expect every book to be priced like a mass market paperback (or less), to format shift as they please, and to own that book forever.

I still own the mass market pbooks I bought 40 years ago (and thought worth rereading) and can read them just as well under my current compact fluro lights as I could under the icandescent bulbs 40 years ago. I won't see forever but I can give them to others to read in the future.

Why shouldn't I expect equivalent access to a mass market ebook? I'm lazy - the only reason I'd format shift was if I couldn't get a reader for the format it came in. Any business wants to squeeze as much money as it can out of it's customers so I understand why the publishers might hope that I'd be willing to pay again each time I needed a new format but I feel no moral obligation to do so.

[speakingtohe]

You're missing one of the key points to this whole issue- that the only people actually stopped by DRM are honest users trying to do such legal things as make a backup copy in case their reader gets stolen or destroyed. Theft will still happen regardless of how tight a security you put on an ebook, but making a backup copy for your own personal use is definitely not theft.

Theoretically, in good faith, one of those honest users could be so enthralled with a book that they could give a copy to a friend or two, who in turn, being equally impressed could give a copy to another friend or two ad infinitum.

After all libraries lend books and second hand bookstores distribute them so what, in the mind of an innocent user could be wrong with that.

Big hole in authors pocket where money has fallen through.

If on the other hand I pirate something you have the rights to, I may have stolen that particular royalty payment, but you still own the rights to your work. And because I'm an honest pirate, if you tell me a way to pay you directly, that will guarantee that you get all the money rather than the majority of it going to publishers, ad agencies and other middle men, then I'll pay you. But if most of my payment ends up going to someone other than the person who created the book/song/movie/game, then there's something wrong with that as well.

Of course sending money to an author with the intent of cutting out the middleman is far worse than piracy as this is setting up a conspiracy to defraud and enticing the author to enter this conspiracy is certainly immoral and I am sure illegal.

Although the author can send the proper share to the proper people if he knows who they are (many authors have more than one publisher) it is like stealing a quart of milk from the 7-11 and sending a couple of bucks to a farmer or stealing a TV and sending the money to the manufacturer. And I bet dollars to donuts that most pirates would not send the full retail price, but just some made up amount that made them feel better about pirating.

Helen

Just to be clear, I'm not mindlessly supporting publishers or authors since I do believe that consumers should have some rights. But I do try to look at their side, whether I agree with it or not. Sometimes I disagree with them wholeheartedly for the games they play. Yet sometimes I look at the changes and can see how they are going to have trouble coping. After all, what's wrong with producing an inexpensive and a premium edition? And what's wrong with expecting revenues as products deteriorate? A MMPB will only survive so many reads after all. Libraries can only lend them so many times. They can only be resold so many times. You can improve their longevity through gentle care and mending, but they won't last forever. Files, however, can be copied endlessly through the 'magical' certainty of the digital world and error detecting codes. And that is assuming that everyone is honest, that noone pirates.

I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss publishers. Publishers aren't printers. They offer a lot of services to authors, ranging from editing to distribution to marketing. They also offer a lot of services to readers, ranging from filtering out the crap to getting books to the places that you can buy them from to letting you know that the books exist in the first place. The other extreme is self-publishing. Yet how many authors want to self-publish (hint, few do)? How many of us regularly purchase self-published books (hint, few do)? It may seem like publishers overvalue themselves, but the fact remains that they are the sole reason why many authors can make a living.

There are many things that I don't like about the DRM/piracy/middleman debate, but most of it comes down to the extremes. Piracy is not theft. Piracy isn't standing up for consumer rights or cutting out the middle man either. It is not a black and white issue.

[speakingtohe]

Baen is probably the most used example of "getting it right", because they simply are.

Well I missed the part where Baen was taking over the publishing world and making large profits. Not saying they have to be to by "getting it right" but if they aren't then something is possibly wrong with the theory that DRM is totally bad for the companies that use it.
Helen

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Well I missed the part where Baen was taking over the publishing world and making large profits. Not saying they have to be to by "getting it right" but if they aren't then something is possibly wrong with the theory that DRM is totally bad for the companies that use it.
Helen

That's a pretty tough case to make when comparing mega-companies to something like Baen. It's not like Sony, Apple, and Amazon were small before they waded into the waters of ebooks and readers. And two of them pre-date DRM, while the other's primary business was unrelated to DRM before ebooks.

DRM had nothing to do with their success. It also says nothing about the viability of DRM-free publishing.

Currently, all major publishers use DRM. They were major publishers before DRM existed, as well. So again, DRM has nothing to do with them being major players. And since they DRM their content, it also says nothing about what their numbers would be like if they didn't DRM.

This study, however, suggests their numbers might improve.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Well I missed the part where Baen was taking over the publishing world and making large profits. Not saying they have to be to by "getting it right" but if they aren't then something is possibly wrong with the theory that DRM is totally bad for the companies that use it.

To go back to previous examples from the video game world... companies who skip the DRM tend to do well. At the very least, intrusive DRM has been detrimental to sales there. Google "Spore DRM" if you want a good example.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

To go back to previous examples from the video game world... companies who skip the DRM tend to do well. At the very least, intrusive DRM has been detrimental to sales there. Google "Spore DRM" if you want a good example.

While it's true that particularly intrusive DRM may hurt sales (although Spore's failure was overdetermined), the most successful companies do use DRM. I looked at the 50 most popular games of 2010 and they were all DRM'd and from major companies.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

While it's true that particularly intrusive DRM may hurt sales (although Spore's failure was overdetermined), the most successful companies do use DRM. I looked at the 50 most popular games of 2010 and they were all DRM'd and from major companies.

Of course, and video games is a poor comparison when you think about it, since they're used very differently. Most households have one single console and only need one game copy. With ebooks, each family member might have their own device to read on, which then forces either "casual sharing" or forces them to buy four copies. Or to buy a paper copy.

[John F]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Of course, and video games is a poor comparison when you think about it, since they're used very differently. Most households have one single console and only need one game copy. With ebooks, each family member might have their own device to read on, which then forces either "casual sharing" or forces them to buy four copies. Or to buy a paper copy.

Or share an account.