DRM Good or Bad?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

People often use the expression "social DRM" to refer to watermarking.

Yes, but I dislike that term because of it's association with Twitter, Facebook, and other "social" trends I dislike.

[Jaden]

So what names can we agree upon for DRM limiting my use and watermarking?

Acvite and passive DRM?
Hard and soft DRM?
Limiting and tracking DRM?
Restrictive and non-restrictive DRM?
DRM and watermarking?

You can't discuss "DRM Good or Bad" without agreeing upon what is DRM in your book and what is not.

Everyone shunning DRM might have only meant "active/limiting/restrictive... DRM", not watermarking. Though some might have meant both forms of DRM, if watermarking is considered to be one as well...

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Everyone shunning DRM might have only meant "active/limiting/restrictive... DRM", not watermarking. Though some might have meant both forms of DRM, if watermarking is considered to be one as well...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problems with watermarking, as long as it is done in a way that doesn't interfere with reading the book.

I like "restrictive and non-restrictive DRM". It makes the difference between the two obvious at a glance.

[ATDrake]

I'd say the major factor in what most people think of as DRM is the "restrictive" aspect. Hypothetically, there might be some stuff left over after stripping which might allow identification of the original source, but the potential tracking aspect is not what most people are probably thinking about when they mention how it affects their e-book usage.

And there's a spectrum of restriction and identification between ADE/Amazon's DRM and watermarking, with B&N/eReader DRM lying somewhere between, with its use of your name and credit card # as a password to unlock the

• single file you can download direct from their website
• without having to pass it through some other software which may not work on your chosen OS and
• can put on as many of your supporting devices after
• without having to authorize through a central server which may one day go offline
• nor download a separately encoded file for each device and have to re-download them all if something messes up your app authorization and you have to re-install (or just go straight to keeping the stripped files around for the inevitable eventuality of trying to transfer your ~2000+ DRMed freebie ebooks back to your K4Mac library).

For the record, if there has to be some kind of restrictive DRM on books which I pay actual money for, I would much prefer it to be the B&N/eReader form of DRM, and I hope support for it ends up a default turned-on option in the next few iterations of readers using the Adobe SDK.

Long story short (too late!): I vote for the "restrictive and non-restrictive DRM".

ETA: I'm perfectly fine with watermarking, and would take that over even B&N DRM, as long as it was unobtrusive and did not interfere with the reading experience/quality of included images and so forth.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

And there's a spectrum of restriction and identification between ADE/Amazon's DRM and watermarking, with B&N/eReader DRM lying somewhere between, with its use of your name and credit card # as a password to unlock the

• single file you can download direct from their website
• without having to pass it through some other software which may not work on your chosen OS and
• can put on as many of your supporting devices after
• without having to authorize through a central server which may one day go offline
• nor download a separately encoded file for each device and have to re-download them all if something messes up your app authorization and you have to re-install (or just go straight to keeping the stripped files around for the inevitable eventuality of trying to transfer your ~2000+ DRMed freebie ebooks back to your K4Mac library).

I would be okay with that. Aside from the lack of software/client, that sounds a lot like the way Steam works.

Steam requires a client installed and running, but once you are logged in to your account, you can do whatever you want with your games, and put them on as many PCs as you like. Once purchased, the game sits in your account library forever, and can be re-downloaded as many times as necessary. You can only be online with one client instance at a time, but you can run in off-line mode on your other PCs if you want to play a game on two or more systems at the same time.

It's a great system, and the fact that it's so popular, despite being nothing but creatively implemented DRM, shows that it's more than possible to do DRM in a way that doesn't inconvenience the paying customer.

[Penforhire]

It helps that Valve, the company behind Steam, has a very positive track record with us gamers. I agree with all those positives you listed but they ALSO have sale prices that are impossible to resist, where console games never get that cheap.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

It helps that Valve, the company behind Steaam, has a very positive track record with us gamers. I agree with all those positives you listed but they ALSO have sale prices that are impossible to resist, where console games never get that cheap.

Very true. Valve has the unfair advantage that they are well liked and respected by PC gamers, so whenever they add more DRM (like Steam Guard), we grumble a little bit, but since the client and games still work just the way they did before, we quickly forgive them and go back to checking the store for the next sale.

Another unfair advantage that Valve has over eBooks vendors is that they can drop the price of a game with 80% for a 24-hour period, just because they want to. And according to Valve, they make more money off of games when they do that, than when they sell them at full price. Particularly legacy titles.

[crossi]

I don't like Steam. I don't like a third party between me and anything. And it isn't seemless. It's locked me out of a game before. I eventually got it back but I had to jump through some hoops. And there's been times when something was temporarily wrong on the site and to play my game I had to wait for it to get back up. I only bought 1 steam game because I really wanted that game and it was the only option to get it. I won't buy others. And you say it is popular, but do people like it or is it the only choice to get the games they want so they put up with it? You could only say it is popular if people were offered the same game in Steam and No-Steam versions and they could choose.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Very true. Valve has the unfair advantage that they are well liked and respected by PC gamers, so whenever they add more DRM (like Steam Guard), we grumble a little bit, but since the client and games still work just the way they did before, we quickly forgive them and go back to checking the store for the next sale.

"Unfair" advantage? Being aware of customer preferences and putting effort towards maintaining a good relationship with them is an "unfair" advantage?

Another unfair advantage that Valve has over eBooks vendors is that they can drop the price of a game with 80% for a 24-hour period, just because they want to.

Publishers can do that. Many small publishers do this all the time. If the BPHs are too big to coordinate their efforts to do this, that's not an "unfair" advantage that Valve has... it's one of the aspects of being a smaller company. It means less income, but more versatility in approach; they can do short-term limited-scope experiments.

Nothing stops Random House from offering a 24-hour "every book 50% off cover price" sale... they'd just need to coordinate with their vendors to do it.

Or, of course, they could sell the lower-price books at their publisher site. If they can't draw customers to their own site, that's a failure in their marketing department, not an advantage that Valve has.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by crossi

And you say it is popular, but do people like it or is it the only choice to get the games they want so they put up with it? You could only say it is popular if people were offered the same game in Steam and No-Steam versions and they could choose.

That is often the case, actually. A lot of games are available in more than one digital store, and as retail as well. As far as I know, only Valve's games are exclusive to Steam.

I do dislike when other game developers force me to use Steam for DRM (Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Civ V), even if I bought the game somewhere else. I really do like Steam a lot, but it should be my choice, not forced on me.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

"Unfair" advantage? Being aware of customer preferences and putting effort towards maintaining a good relationship with them is an "unfair" advantage?

I was being facetious. I'm trying to cut back on my smiley-addiction, but obviously I should have added one. My mistake. And I'm fairly sure Microsoft and EA think it's a very unfair advantage, since their own DD clients/services are not doing nearly as well Steam is. And that is obviously all Valve's fault, since neither of the other two can ever do anything wrong.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Or, of course, they could sell the lower-price books at their publisher site. If they can't draw customers to their own site, that's a failure in their marketing department, not an advantage that Valve has.

In fairness, Valve forces you to run the Steam client, which means they never have to get you to their website. The news feed, sales, community features, and store, are all right there in the client.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by no.guru

That's nice of you. Being an author, maybe you could also reexamine your original statement. Doesn't sound like you see anything wrong with it, other than that someone might object.

One reason I blog anonymously is so I can make off the cuff remarks.



Many of my "tossed off" statements might require background and context to fully understand.

The underlying meaning of my statement about giving him karma was that I was in a very small way trying to make up for what "I" perceived as him, eventually at least, losing money with his DRM attitude.

My sincere belief is that artists, authors, and most all creative people lose out when they don't control and charge for their work. Now you can deliberately give it away if you want, and you can make it easy to steal if you wish, but I believe that these kinds of actions except for a few limited cases like gifts to charity, lessen the value of your creations and thereby lessen the value of everyone's creations.

I am not addressing advertising or performance enhancing strategies here.
It may work for a street performer to give away performances in advance, in hopes of donations or coins in a hat.
Musicians may perform for free in front of live audiences to prove themselves and advertise their ability.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

My sincere belief is that artists, authors, and most all creative people lose out when they don't control and charge for their work. Now you can deliberately give it away if you want, and you can make it easy to steal if you wish, but I believe that these kinds of actions except for a few limited cases like gifts to charity, lessen the value of your creations and thereby lessen the value of everyone's creations.

Translation: Art that is freely available for anyone to appreciate, is worthless.

That's a very simple way of looking at things.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by frahse

One reason I blog anonymously is so I can make off the cuff remarks.



Many of my "tossed off" statements might require background and context to fully understand.

The underlying meaning of my statement about giving him karma was that I was in a very small way trying to make up for what "I" perceived as him, eventually at least, losing money with his DRM attitude.

My sincere belief is that artists, authors, and most all creative people lose out when they don't control and charge for their work. Now you can deliberately give it away if you want, and you can make it easy to steal if you wish, but I believe that these kinds of actions except for a few limited cases like gifts to charity, lessen the value of your creations and thereby lessen the value of everyone's creations.

I am not addressing advertising or performance enhancing strategies here.
It may work for a street performer to give away performances in advance, in hopes of donations or coins in a hat.
Musicians may perform for free in front of live audiences to prove themselves and advertise their ability.

The statement I referred to was about your - or anyone's - ability to speak for another. If you're saying it was an off the cuff remark that you didn't think through, I can understand that.

How this requires "background and context to fully understand" is unclear.

How do artists, authors, and most all creative people lose out when they don't control and charge for their work?

Your point of view reminds me of a story I once read about Prince trying to prevent songs on his CDs from being listened to in any other order than the one he specified.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Translation: Art that is freely available for anyone to appreciate, is worthless.

That's a very simple way of looking at things.

I don't think it translates that way. We don't have a hugely viable patron system, and we still need to earn a living.

I would only translate it as: if we want artists to be able to spend their time and energy producing art, we need ensure they can earn a living doing it. And in a market economy, that involves a market price. "Don't give away your talent" was advice from the first newspaper photo editor I worked for.
He didn't mean "never....don't give gifts or charity or serve the greater good."
He meant "If you don't think of your work as valuable, others won't either."

My problem with frahse's position, and I'm sure he does echo the opinion of many, is where is the evidence that DRM helps in this way? What is that belief founded on? I just don't see it. I see evidence that it DOESN'T work.
It's one thing to say that "Big publisher X requires DRM, and I want to be published by X, so I will use DRM."
It's quite another to say that
in spite of the fact that DRM can be trivially bypassed,
in spite of the fact that all books of note are instantly pirated even with DRM,
in spite of the fact that there is no consumer demand FOR DRM,
in spite of the fact that is some AGAINST DRM,
and in spite of the fact that many publishers and authors are doing fine making money without DRM,
that DRM is effective or necessary in helping authors as described.

ApK

[VydorScope]

"The biggest threat facing authors and publishers today is not piracy, it's obscurity. Anything that makes a book less accessible and less enjoyable makes it more obscure." -- Mark Cook

src:
Readers, Authors and Librarians Against DRM
http://blog.smashwords.com/2011/03/r...s-against.html