DRM Good or Bad?

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Justin Nemo

Well thanks for the endorsement Frahse, that was unexpected.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Looking at various sites and statistics I have come to the following conclusions. These conclusions are my own and statistics can, of course, be made to say anything.

Ebook sales are drawing ahead of the traditional market .
The majority of ebooks being sold are sold with DRM.
Books that are pirated are still being sold with or without DRM.
Ebook prices fluctuate even if controlled by publishers. There are sales/boxed set deals and freebies.

My conclusion is that many if not most Ebooks, DRMed or not are priced reasonably in most cases in comparison to other entertainment media or common social vices such as cigarettes, lattes at Starbucks, movies whether in cinema or DVD version or restaurant dinners or even TV dinners.


The above is more than a bit disjointed, but I see no proof that DRM or pricing is actually screwing up the average consumer than inflation in general and the normal wear and tear and attrition on printed books.

I am not a fan of DRM but it does let the library lend out ebooks and at least they don't have to have the anti-theft chips etc. installed in the ebooks.

I speak for the authors whether they know and accept it or not. (I think a lot of the reluctance there is "politically based" and is predicated on not making a segment of the readers mad.

DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable. Therefore it is good for the author and what is good for authors will in the end be good for the reader.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by frahse

DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable.

I see no evidence that this statement is true, and some evidence, in the form of successful publishers who do not use DRM, that it is false.

The fact that some publishers use DRM is not evidence that it is necessary.

eBooks and publishing seems to be viable despite the fact that every book of any note that is published with DRM immediately appears on the darknet with no DRM.
This, too, is evidence that the statement is false.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by frahse

DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable.

No, it's not. J.K. Rowling proves otherwise.

I've still not read one argument proving that limiting readers to a certain device (or a range of devices, but not all) or locking them in with Amazon, iBooks, Adobe or B&N helps authors or publishers. I would not buy a 2nd version of the book I've already paid for if I wanted to, say, switch from a Kindle to a Sony. If you don't want me to read your book, fine with me. I will not buy more of your books then, because I'll never know if you are any good.

Watermarking is a okay, if I can read my book on any device, download it (once I've paid for it) in different versions, should I ever switch devices - or be able to convert the book myself.

Knowing that the book could be tracked back to the original buyer will much better protect from casual sharing than DRM ever will - unless it can be removed equally easy. Then it's as useless in that regard as DRM.

An even more restrictive form of DRM will surely result in less ebook sales (and not necessarily in more pbook sales, either, because those you can easily share or buy used).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by frahse

DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable. Therefore it is good for the author and what is good for authors will in the end be good for the reader.

Baen has been publishing ebooks for more than 10 years without DRM, and they keep producing bestsellers. I can name half a dozen or more publishers that don't use DRM, and again, they seem to be doing fine. Konrath has made over a million dollars selling non-DRM'd ebooks; apparently, indie authors don't need DRM for self-pubishing to be viable. O'Reilly sells nonfic, mostly technical, without DRM, and says their ebook sales have more than made up for the decline of their print sales.

Which categories of publishing do you think DRM is necessary for? Which ones would disappear if DRM were outlawed--if it became illegal to hinder a buyer's ability to use their purchased (or licensed, whatever) ebooks?

How will it be better for readers 50 years from now not to be able to read their grandparents' books?

[aardbewoner]

ScalyFreak you say *You can use DRM'ed books on most Linux distributions just fine*
Wonders how ? next *The rest of your post I will ignore, since you seem to assume that the only way to get non-DRM books is to pirate them, which is untrue. All the eBooks I have spent money on were purchased DRM-free.*
yes the books you can buy drm free work fine ,but all shops sell almost only drm books specialy the reader shops.And pirating the drm books i cant even if i want to as the dont decode.Basicly my point is i cant almost never get a book i want to buy because its has drm/regio/country lock-in .Kobo , b&n ,amazon all drm.

[Provenzano]

DRM is good as far as I can remove it.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by frahse

I speak for the authors whether they know and accept it or not.

[pshute]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which categories of publishing do you think DRM is necessary for? Which ones would disappear if DRM were outlawed--if it became illegal to hinder a buyer's ability to use their purchased (or licensed, whatever) ebooks?

Expensive ones, for a start. They'd have to be cheaper to avoid the temptation to copy them for free. Books that require massive resources to produce, ie lots of time spent on research, and which have a small market, couldn't survive.

How will it be better for readers 50 years from now not to be able to read their grandparents' books?

Good point. I like the idea of watermarking, and other soft DRM methods.

On the other hand, unlike printed books, it would be easier to make ebooks stay "in print" forever. Only squabbles over publishing rights would make it hard.

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by pshute

Expensive ones, for a start. They'd have to be cheaper to avoid the temptation to copy them for free. Books that require massive resources to produce, ie lots of time spent on research, and which have a small market, couldn't survive..

How would making an expensive book cheaper, make it any more or less of a temptation to copy?

Originally Posted by pshute

On the other hand, unlike printed books, it would be easier to make ebooks stay "in print" forever. Only squabbles over publishing rights would make it hard.

I'm not sure the medium will make any difference to the length of popularity of a book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jaden

No, it's not. J.K. Rowling proves otherwise.

Ms Rowling "proves" nothing of the sort. Her books are being sold with DRM. Watermarking is unquestionably a form of digital rights management.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ms Rowling "proves" nothing of the sort. Her books are being sold with DRM. Watermarking is unquestionably a form of digital rights management.

You are right, but missing the point. I think when most of us ask for "DRM free" books we would include watermarked files in that category. What we oppose is DRM that doesn't allow us to read an Amazon book on a Sony reader, backup the book, or share it with a very close friend or family member. Watermarking doesn't restrict uses of the books that "should" be legal.

So what should we do, write "DRM free except for watermarks" every time?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are right, but missing the point. I think when most of us ask for "DRM free" books we would include watermarked files in that category. What we oppose is DRM that doesn't allow us to read an Amazon book on a Sony reader, backup the book, or share it with a very close friend or family member. Watermarking doesn't restrict uses of the books that "should" be legal.

So what should we do, write "DRM free except for watermarks" every time?

I don't know what you should call it, but to refer to Ms Rowling's books as "DRM free" is just plain wrong.

[gmw]

I think one of the problems with the catchy "anti-DRM" movement has always been its emphasis on there being no place for such protections. There are people that would be against any form of DRM, but I suspect the reality is that most people are simply against the current obstructive implementations (though it makes for a less catchy protest chant ). It's a distinction that is rarely bothered with, and yet usually central to the argument of most of those that see a place for the existence of some form of DRM. It will be interesting to see how this new approach to DRM fairs in the longer term (how many take it up, how effective it proves and so on).

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by pshute

Expensive ones, for a start. They'd have to be cheaper to avoid the temptation to copy them for free. Books that require massive resources to produce, ie lots of time spent on research, and which have a small market, couldn't survive.

But most of the books that fall into the "expensive" category are ill-suited for the ebook format, if you are talking ereaders and not computer monitors. Anything that is graphics-intensive loses impact in the small format (and in the lack of color in e-ink). PDFs are still a problem - especially if you require one of the larger font settings or if the file size is very large.

[no.guru]

I'm reading my first DRM'ed book on my T-1 currently. It's a library book, and the T-1 displays it in the list of books on the device along with the number of days left in the loan period.

DRM apparently restricts changing the font, because that isn't possible with the library ebook although I can change the font on all other books on my T-1.

Why would any author or publisher care what font I read the book in? It's an Adobe epub of Raisin In The Sun, so the font is irrelevant to the work.