DRM Good or Bad?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

It was not my intent to accuse the poster of piracy or say DRM removal was equivalent to piracy. I was responding to the underlined statement which seems to infer that DRM drives people to piracy thus my statement that it is not an excuse.

Ah. I get you now. But I hope you can see why I thought gmw should see that HansTWN was not mis-quoting you but could easily interpret what you said as I did.


Geesh...let me review that: I, you, gmw, HansTWN, you, you, I. Yeah...that's it.

[XanderRichards]

Well, okay, what a hot potato this is! Some very interesting opinions and explanations expressed in this thread.

When I submitted my novel to Bookbaby on the 26th, I'd done a little research about DRM and it seemed like a good idea. I therefore clicked 'yes' to accept DRM on my work. Having read this thread, it may be that it was an error brought on by my ignorance.

I don't know if it's too late to change, but I can try to get the DRM removed by giving them a call tomorrow. Release date is April 30th, so I have just a month.

Should I?

Cheers,
Xander.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by XanderRichards

I don't know if it's too late to change, but I can try to get the DRM removed by giving them a call tomorrow. Release date is April 30th, so I have just a month.

Should I?

Cheers,
Xander.

Here's what I think:
There is a group of people who will only buy nonDRMed books, and there is no group that will only buy DRMed books.
That's a plus on "no DRM" side.

True pirates are not slowed down even a little by any existing DRM system, so if your intention is to prevent piracy, DRM is utterly irrelevant, so it's neither a plus nor minus.

If your intent is to prevent casual sharing-type piracy...someone gives a copy to a friend or relative....then of the folks who would do that, there is a group of consumers who will be thwarted by DRM, and a growing group who will simply strip the DRM and do it anyway.
There is another group who will not do it, DRM or not, because they obey the rules, and if the copyright terms say don't distribute, then that's enough.
Whether that's a plus or minus depends on your point of view, but I guess if you want to prevent casual sharing, it nets to a plus on the "yes DRM" side.

Then there are the folks who may be inconvenienced by DRM if they switch from one device to a device with an incompatible DRM system (like nook to kindle or vice versa) and find they cannot easily move over their books. Could cause some bad feelings from your readers, and I see that as a small plus on the "no DRM" side.

So, do your math and decide.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

It was not my intent to accuse the poster of piracy or say DRM removal was equivalent to piracy. I was responding to the underlined statement which seems to infer that DRM drives people to piracy thus my statement that it is not an excuse.

I didn't imply that DRM justified or excused piracy.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

Ah. I get you now. But I hope you can see why I thought gmw should see that HansTWN was not mis-quoting you but could easily interpret what you said as I did. [...]

I still don't see it ... sorry. Take a look at HansTWN's post again and what was quoted from the previous post, and try to find out how to interpret that as stating that removing DRM was piracy. Had HansTWN actually quoted the text (or even the post) that had been misunderstood then the reason for the misunderstanding would have been more apparent and could have been resolved more directly. (Not trying to pick on individuals here, just highlighting how careful quoting can assist in maintaining a clear dialogue.)

Perhaps I understood the intention of the earlier (unquoted) post more easily because it reflects earlier discussion on this thread - not to mention a much older thread on another part of this forum.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

@JSWolf
Sorry I was unclear. I was not expecting you to give a specific example as this happened to you a while back.

I am just looking for specific examples in the current timeframe and I am not doubting that they exist although I have seen some pretty rude remarks made to posts actually claiming that this happened to the poster.

All I am doing is volunteering to collect the data if anyone wishes to post it or PM me with it.

Helen

Simon & Schuster have almost no way to get in contact with someone about a faulty eBook even though they do sell them on their website. I bought one where it was messed up. I tried to find someway of contacting someone to inform them of the issue. I was unable to. So I stripped the DRM and found that the problem lay in the CSS which was a mess. I was able to clean up the DRM and thus fixed the error.

Another issue I had with an eBook from S&S was that the DRM license was screwed up and I was unable to read the eBook I purchased. Stripping the DRM allowed me to read the eBook.

These are two examples of how stripping the DRM allowed me to actually read what I had purchased.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by gmw

I still don't see it ... sorry. Take a look at HansTWN's post again and what was quoted from the previous post, and try to find out how to interpret that as stating that removing DRM was piracy. Had HansTWN actually quoted the text (or even the post) that had been misunderstood then the reason for the misunderstanding would have been more apparent and could have been resolved more directly. (Not trying to pick on individuals here, just highlighting how careful quoting can assist in maintaining a clear dialogue.)

Perhaps I understood the intention of the earlier (unquoted) post more easily because it reflects earlier discussion on this thread - not to mention a much older thread on another part of this forum.

It all seemed quite clear to me at the time (taken from a number of previous posts by Helen rather than just the one I quoted, I didn't want to go to all the trouble of quoting every single one) ... anyway, now that we have taken care of this misunderstanding I suggest we move on. No harm done.

[XanderRichards]

Originally Posted by ApK

Here's what I think:

Hey ApK, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Guess I have a bit of thinking (and maths) to do.

Anyone else got anything to say about whether I should issue my book with DRM or not? P&TY.

Cheers,
Xander.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by XanderRichards

Hey ApK, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Guess I have a bit of thinking (and maths) to do.

Anyone else got anything to say about whether I should issue my book with DRM or not? P&TY.

Cheers,
Xander.

APK summed it up nicely. The only upside to DRM (from a seller's point of view) is that it reduces casual sharing. Of course, casual sharing can also lead to new sales. Your books would be introduced (in a limited fashion) to friends and family members, who might become your customers. Just like with a pbook. So that is basically how you should make your call, do you want that to happen or not.

Uploading to a website will happen whatever you do, DRM doesn't stop those people.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

APK summed it up nicely. The only upside to DRM (from a seller's point of view) is that it reduces casual sharing. Of course, casual sharing can also lead to new sales. Your books would be introduced (in a limited fashion) to friends and family members, who might become your customers.

Speaking as a reader (which admittedly biases my opinion), isn't this type of casual sharing good for authors? I can't even begin to count the number of writers and books I would never have discovered, if a friend hadn't raved about hos great this or that writer was, pushed a pbook into my hands and urged me to read it.

No one I know who loves reading, has discovered new writers by spending money on a book simply because "this looks good", without someone recommending it to them first. So the way I see it, being able to share a book with friends and family helps word of mouth get out faster and further, which basically amounts to free advertising for the writer. Isn't that a good thing?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Speaking as a reader (which admittedly biases my opinion), isn't this type of casual sharing good for authors? I can't even begin to count the number of writers and books I would never have discovered, if a friend hadn't raved about hos great this or that writer was, pushed a pbook into my hands and urged me to read it.

No one I know who loves reading, has discovered new writers by spending money on a book simply because "this looks good", without someone recommending it to them first. So the way I see it, being able to share a book with friends and family helps word of mouth get out faster and further, which basically amounts to free advertising for the writer. Isn't that a good thing?

I can find you lots of people who simply didn't buy the book because they got it for free. Sucks especially for authors who only have one book and would like to see how it sells.

None the less, the important element is that it's up to the author, the copyright holder, to decide if that's a good thing or not, not the reader, who might try to rationalize an illegal act by saying they are doing the author a favor.

Copyright protection gives the author the right (unless he gives away that right in a contract or something) to ALLOW that kind of sharing if he wants it.
(And if he DOES want to allow, DRM hampers it.)

ApK

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ApK

I can find you lots of people who simply didn't buy the book because they got it for free. Sucks especially for authors who only have one book and would like to see how it sells.

I grew up reading books I hadn't paid for, for which the author had received one royalty payment at some point in the past, but none for the last handful of readers. There's nothing immoral about reading without paying the author--or we'd have to shut down our libraries, our used book stores, and our schools.

Most of the anti-DRM crowd perceives the DRM movement as an attempt to fundamentally alter the way books have always been used and shared.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by ApK

I can find you lots of people who simply didn't buy the book because they got it for free.

Oh, I know. Damn those libraries and their revenue-stealing ways!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I grew up reading books I hadn't paid for, for which the author had received one royalty payment at some point in the past, but none for the last handful of readers. There's nothing immoral about reading without paying the author--or we'd have to shut down our libraries, our used book stores, and our schools.

Most of the anti-DRM crowd perceives the DRM movement as an attempt to fundamentally alter the way books have always been used and shared.

As has been pointed out before, ebooks and pbooks are different things, with different properties, and so it's not surpising that we'd have different rules for them.

If giving an ebook to friend took it away from you, so you could not read it or give more copies to others, as is the case with a physical item, like a book, (like the Kindle lending program tries to do), we'd probably not be having this debate.
Similarly, as has been pointed out before, no one is trying to stop you from lending your ereader to your friends and family for them to read on. The device's physicality, like a pbook's, imposes sufficient control.

Conversely, if a paperback could be instantly duplicated an infinite number of times, with no cost or effort and instantly distributed across the world like an ebook can, we would likely be having this same debate about paperbacks.

(Well, if that were possible, it would be really weird if it only worked for books, and we'd likely be in a totally different non-scarcity economy, etc etc...but stay in scope with me for the purpose of discussion.)

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Oh, I know. Damn those libraries and their revenue-stealing ways!

I'm not aware of any library illegally lending copyrighted content against the rights holder's wishes, or making copies of books without permission in order to lend to more people simultaneously.

And, as has also been said before, it's not just about money.