Engst to Pogue: E-Book piracy not a given

[zelda_pinwheel]

or, on the other hand, we could phrase the question this way : if these "restrictions" are so trivial that they are essentially negligible, why bother with them at all ? they clearly aren't going to stop ANYONE, require no technical knowledge whatsoever to "crack" and don't significantly increase the "cost" of making your own drm-free product in time ; they are in fact completely pointless. aparently apple and amazon have realized that there is no point whatsoever in using this sort of drm, thus their abandon of it. it won't stop the people who *want* to make copies, it will annoy (somewhat) annoy the people who clearly would pay either way.

on the other hand, if the thinking is that such "restrictions" are absolutely vital to avoid the rampant copy and illicit distribution of the media, then isn't it completely delusional to rely on something which is so clearly ineffectual ?

the point is, DRM is completely ineffectual against copyright infringement. the music industry is finally catching on to that.

[RickyMaveety]

Good point, and I agree with you. I think most DRM is stupid. I happen to be of the school that believes that when I "purchase" something, whether it is music or a book, it should be mine to (legally) use as I wish.

I personally believe that any other view is contrary to the expectations of consumers and to the health of the digital marketplace.

I also think that most digital content sellers are missing the boat when they work too hard to tie things up with DRM. Amazon is missing out on a HUGE market when they don't allow someone like me to purchase digital content for someone else. That's just plain stupid. Makes me much more likely to hunt around for something from PG that I can edit up and put on CD for them. And, I'd much rather pay a few bucks on a gift than spend hours trying to make the same thing. Of course, that's probably clear from prior posts.

No .... you'll not find me defending the current state of DRM. It is one of the most ridiculous systems I have ever seen. I understand the need to defend and protect copyright ... but what most sellers of digital content goes waaaay beyond that. And, I'll make the comparison again ... when most of us begin to feel that the seller is being "unfair" ... then that little bit of Robin Hood or Zorro sneaks out of all of us.

In effect, it becomes "us" against "them." Now, a smart retailer will enter into a stated or unstated agreement with the consumer that makes them a part of "us" and "us" a part of them. They do it when they "go green" ... they do it when they really make you (the consumer) like the seller. I buy Amy's Ice Cream because I really like Amy's attitude. I try my best to keep my money out of Bill Gates' pocket because I'm not as keen on his (although his charitable bent of late may be changing my mind a little .... maybe).

The smart retailer makes being a consumer at their store a really enjoyable experience. It's win-win all the way. I will actually spend more money to shop at a store I like rather than save at a store I hate. I vote with my wallet .... I support those retailers that give me a really good shopping experience, and that I don't feel are ripping me off.

The way most DRM is approached, it starts to appear as a plain ol' fashioned rip off of the first order. That's what pisses most people off. It's not the holder of the copyright that is raking in big bucks off of DRM and draconian DRM just makes many people want to (1) barf up lunch, and (2) avoid the DRM, not necessarily in that order.

Eh .... I'm babbling now.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Good point, and I agree with you. I think most DRM is stupid. I happen to be of the school that believes that when I "purchase" something, whether it is music or a book, it should be mine to (legally) use as I wish.

I personally believe that any other view is contrary to the expectations of consumers and to the health of the digital marketplace.

I also think that most digital content sellers are missing the boat when they work too hard to tie things up with DRM. Amazon is missing out on a HUGE market when they don't allow someone like me to purchase digital content for someone else. That's just plain stupid. Makes me much more likely to hunt around for something from PG that I can edit up and put on CD for them. And, I'd much rather pay a few bucks on a gift than spend hours trying to make the same thing. Of course, that's probably clear from prior posts.

No .... you'll not find me defending the current state of DRM. It is one of the most ridiculous systems I have ever seen. I understand the need to defend and protect copyright ... but what most sellers of digital content goes waaaay beyond that. And, I'll make the comparison again ... when most of us begin to feel that the seller is being "unfair" ... then that little bit of Robin Hood or Zorro sneaks out of all of us.

In effect, it becomes "us" against "them." Now, a smart retailer will enter into a stated or unstated agreement with the consumer that makes them a part of "us" and "us" a part of them. They do it when they "go green" ... they do it when they really make you (the consumer) like the seller. I buy Amy's Ice Cream because I really like Amy's attitude. I try my best to keep my money out of Bill Gates' pocket because I'm not as keen on his (although his charitable bent of late may be changing my mind a little .... maybe).

The smart retailer makes being a consumer at their store a really enjoyable experience. It's win-win all the way. I will actually spend more money to shop at a store I like rather than save at a store I hate. I vote with my wallet .... I support those retailers that give me a really good shopping experience, and that I don't feel are ripping me off.

The way most DRM is approached, it starts to appear as a plain ol' fashioned rip off of the first order. That's what pisses most people off. It's not the holder of the copyright that is raking in big bucks off of DRM and draconian DRM just makes many people want to (1) barf up lunch, and (2) avoid the DRM, not necessarily in that order.

Eh .... I'm babbling now.

excellent points, and well said. i hope the publishers are reading you with both eyes.

[RickyMaveety]

Thanks.

I've got a great example from my own experience. I used to shop at Circuit City (electronic retailer here in the States). I probably spent something like $10,000 a year there in an average year.

So, one day I purchase a program made by Broderbund at CC. I got it home, opened up the box. Manual, check ... no CD.

I went back to CC and said WTF?? No CD in the box?? And they said "tough ... you can't return it or exchange it once you have opened it" and I said ... again ... "WTF?? How am I supposed to find out there is no freaking CD in the box without OPENING it, you morons??"

Mind you at this point I was at full volume and in serious angry mode.

Standing in the store, I called Broderbund with my cell phone, and again, at top volume explained that CC was apparently a retailer that did not stand behind their products, and was there any chance that Broderbund did??

And Broderbund said ... "No problem, give us your address and we'll FedEx overnight a CD to you ... . We value our customers."

I then proceeded to boycott CC from then on. That was about 10 years ago (I think) .... so they lost out on about $100,000 of sales over the cost of a single boxed program.

Real smart of them ... not. And, I hear their company is having problems too these days ... gee, I wonder why?????

[nekokami]

Odd... most places will let you exchange for the same title, no questions asked, on the reasonable grounds of "defective media" (missing media in this case, but it amounts to the same thing). After all, another CD with the same content as the box in hand would hardly be worth a swindle. (Although I suppose 10 years ago it wasn't quite as easy to copy CDs as it is now.)

[RickyMaveety]

I hear you .... their argument was that I would have to have the media in hand to "prove" that it was defective. Media that was absent wasn't "defective" because I couldn't prove it was.

Uhhhhhh .... riiiiight. It was right about that point that I re-wrote the CC slogan to wit:

"Circuit City, where customer service smells just like a fart"

For those of you who won't get the reference, the original slogan states that customer service is "state of the art."

Misstatement if ever there was one.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

When print books do not have those disadvantages, why would people switch to e-books?

* (As Harry noted) storage space. Both at home, where my bookshelves are already more than full, and when traveling, as I can carry many "books" with me far more easily than with paper.

* Convenience. I always have a phone/PDA with me, so I can read wherever and whenever I happen to have some free time to do so.

* Searching books for key passages is a lot easier when I have electronic versions.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I then proceeded to boycott CC from then on. That was about 10 years ago (I think) .... so they lost out on about $100,000 of sales over the cost of a single boxed program.

I had the same experience years ago at Best Buy, when I bought a new CD drive only to find an older used model in the box when opened at home. I was refused an exchange. I have not bought from them since.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

I had the same experience years ago at Best Buy, when I bought a new CD drive only to find an older used model in the box when opened at home. I was refused an exchange. I have not bought from them since.

Just buy another one... put the used one back in the box you bought it in and return it. Apparently they took it back once before.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

But you said you rented most books to read and throw away so why do storage space matter?

Because even though I'll never read 95% of the books that I buy again, that remaining 5% that I do want to keep and re-read represents a monotonically increasing number of books .

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, it's not a matter of breaking it. As Ricky also pointed out, you could always burn a CD, and that was within iTunes' system.

And I couldn't turn that CD back into a MP3 - at least not legally.
Nevertheless: Seen any eBook-DRM-Format resently that gave you at least the freedom of the iTunes-DRM? So .. whats your point exactly?

I could say that a DRM is meaningless to me, because I can just circumvent it. But a format I have to change in order to be able to use it ... it is just not worth its money. No really, it isn't. And iTunes is just that - a format I have to change in order to use it. And you are actually stating nothing else - because you can convert it to a DRM-free solution, iTunes is nice. Yeah. Ten brownie points to Apple - here's my response: Leave DRM out complete. Noone needs it, it gives no security whatsoever - and it annoys customers. It would save you even that 5min needed to burn/rip the CD and it wouldn't cost anybody any money.
Gives some ideas about ebooks ...

was that the audience had already accepted DRM, considering the advantages of iTunes service as outweighing the discomfort of security. Same with Amazon.

No, they actually didn't. I know a drekload of people who didn't use iTunes for DRM-reasons (including me). And most people (I know) didn't accept DRM - they just circumvented it. So .. where's the DRM acceptance in that?
AND the iTunes software is crap - the system would be so much more valuable if it wasn't tied to this software...

The same with most other MP3-dealers. I don't use the "Internet Explorer" or the "Windows Media Player" (don't want to go through the hazzle installing it via Wine) - so I can't buy there. *sigh* That's one more customer who would buy the music, if they wanted his money..
And no - I haven't bough much new music since it became illegal to rip a CD. (I didn't pirate it either, but I just got old CDs without that restriction and spent much less money).


Regarding the "its them vs us"-point ... Most people I know either didn't care about the license holders (talking about music and film) or had a relatively good opinion of them. Since they started their brain-dead "no copying"-CDs (actually violating the CD-standard), their hunt of DVD-players (we are not talking about copying a DVD but of playing it on a non-standard OS), their "copyright pirates are criminals"-ads (on a legally bought DVD, the first 5min (non-jumpable) some drek-ad about 'pirating a media' - I just bought that DVD, why do you bother me with that?), their 'copyright violations should be hunted more seriously and easier then child molaters'-attitude towards new laws, etc (I think you all know the approaches the industrie used, their hate-grown speeches and their brain-dead 'a customer is an enemy'-attitude) this has changed.
Most people I know, now have a "they are the enemy"-attitude towards the industrie. They actually have a PR worse then the one of the oil-industrie or the weapon-industrie (and that means something in Germany). And ... no-one I know trusts them any more. Some people wouldnt even put a CD/DVD in their PC any more (and of course not buy one too) because they fear getting infected with a new virus or root-kit (and Sony demonstrated that they would do this. I never found out who they paid, so they wouldn't get put in jail for that. Computer sabotage is a crime...)

And quite recently publishers are starting to go the same way ... They should think twice if they really want to go that way.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, it's not a matter of breaking it. As Ricky also pointed out, you could always burn a CD, and that was within iTunes' system.

A system that Apple could change without notice (which they did).

I don't need to get permission from the publisher every time I want to do something with my paper book. Why do I need their permission to do something with an eBook?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

iTunes didn't suddenly become a smash-hit success because they started to offer non-DRM material. Again, my point (really, my only point, so I don't have to recopy another dozen exchanges) was that the audience had already accepted DRM, considering the advantages of iTunes service as outweighing the discomfort of security. Same with Amazon.

iTunes was never a "smash hit". Even Apple pointed out that the vast majority of music on iPods did not come from iTunes. And the majority of MP3 players out there are not iPods.

[Over]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

AI don't need to get permission from the publisher every time I want to do something with my paper book. Why do I need their permission to do something with an eBook?

It's simple. They can't control what you do with the pBooks, but eBooks is another matter, they have some control (DRM, for example). If they can control, they will try to.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And the majority of MP3 players out there are not iPods.

It's unclear whether or not this is the case. Depending on what reports you read, Apple are said to have anything from 40% to over 70% of the MP3 player market. They completely dominate the market for hard-disk MP3 players, that is for sure. Even if you accept the reports which say that their market share is less than 50%, there's no doubt at all that they are the dominant manufacturer of MP3 players.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

the audience had already accepted DRM, considering the advantages of iTunes service as outweighing the discomfort of security. Same with Amazon.

Did it?
Then why did they change their business model and started selling DRMless content if DRMed was a success?