DRM Good or Bad?

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by ApK

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."

Do you earn a living doing it?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by ApK

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.
ApK

Could be wrong, but in general the fact that the ebook industry seems to be thriving and that the majority of ebooks are sold with DRM is an indicator that while not actually helping sales, it is not inhibiting the majority of sales.

I would prefer to buy an ebook without DRM certainly and many others would as well. I would also like to see your evidence that it doesn't work.

Not expecting a smaller publisher to overtake the big ones, but if they are expanding sales at a greater rate consistently that would be evidence. Or a fair percentage of big name authors or even moderately established authors moving to DRM free publishing.

No author or publisher has to use DRM and no consumer has to buy DRMed products. The usefulness of DRM to the author/publisher can possibly be measured by sales figures and stock prices of the companies in either category?

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

If publishers thought that a rabbit's foot helped them sell books, the fact that many publishers carried rabbit's feet wouldn't be evidence that it worked.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Could be wrong, but in general the fact that the ebook industry seems to be thriving and that the majority of ebooks are sold with DRM is an indicator that while not actually helping sales, it is not inhibiting the majority of sales.

I would prefer to buy an ebook without DRM certainly and many others would as well. I would also like to see your evidence that it doesn't work.

Evidence that it doesn't work exists in the form of all the pirated copies of DRM protected books, which are easy to find.
Also in the existence of stripped books for non-infringing uses like backup or space shifting.
Also in the existence of people who refuse to buy DRMed books.

However, I was not referring to evidence that DRM doesn't work, I was referring to evidence that is neither required nor needed for the good of the authors. Saying that it works because "it's not inhibiting the majority sales" is like saying that my hyena-repellent necklace works because there are no hyenas in my suburban NJ neighborhood.

In other words, that's no evidence at all. There is no evidence I can see that DRM has protected or brought in a single dollar that wouldn't have come in without DRM as well. And I don't mean proof, I just mean some reasonable evidence. Do you know of any?

We can guess that some sales may have been saved by some folks who could not get their hands on a free copy because they didn't know how to strip DRM, but if we're guessing, we'd also have to subtract from those sales the guesses of LOST sales from anti-DRM folks who may have bought it if it didn't have DRM. And that's just in dollar values, not in goodwill and convenience to consumers.

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by ApK

Evidence that it doesn't work exists in the form of all the pirated copies of DRM protected books, which are easy to find.
Also in the existence of stripped books for non-infringing uses like backup or space shifting.
Also in the existence of people who refuse to buy DRMed books.

However, I was not referring to evidence that DRM doesn't work, I was referring to evidence that is neither required nor needed for the good of the authors. Saying that it works because "it's not inhibiting the majority sales" is like saying that my hyena-repellent necklace works because there are no hyenas in my suburban NJ neighborhood.

In other words, that's no evidence at all. There is no evidence I can see that DRM has protected or brought in a single dollar that wouldn't have come in without DRM as well. And I don't mean proof, I just mean some reasonable evidence. Do you know of any?

We can guess that some sales may have been saved by some folks who could not get their hands on a free copy because they didn't know how to strip DRM, but if we're guessing, we'd also have to subtract from those sales the guesses of LOST sales from anti-DRM folks who may have bought it if it didn't have DRM. And that's just in dollar values, not in goodwill and convenience to consumers.

I'll take that as a no then.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

[...]We can guess that some sales may have been saved by some folks who could not get their hands on a free copy because they didn't know how to strip DRM, but if we're guessing, we'd also have to subtract from those sales the guesses of LOST sales from anti-DRM folks who may have bought it if it didn't have DRM. And that's just in dollar values, not in goodwill and convenience to consumers.

We've reached the top of the circle again, I think. Unless you're "in" with one of the publishers it is impossible to guess what they actually know. My guess is that the anti-DRM folks are probably an insignificant proportion of all ebook sales, similarly my guess is that the people that currently and actively search for pirate ebooks (over the convenience of shopping in places like Amazon) is likely to be insignificant when compared to the number that would share ebooks without thought for the legality if DRM wasn't there to ... remind them. BUT without actual figures to support or deny these guesses we are doomed to starting the circle yet again.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by gmw

my guess is that the people that currently and actively search for pirate ebooks (over the convenience of shopping in places like Amazon) is likely to be insignificant when compared to the number that would share ebooks without thought for the legality if DRM wasn't there to ... remind them.

Probably, and I guess the conclusion is that the publishers would go bust without DRM the same way all the record companies went bust when music started being distributed in non-DRMed MP3s....oh wait...they didn't!

But, yes, we've both said all this before (yet we continue to get asked, so maybe we're not stating it clearly enough) and while the evidence I've repeatedly listed is not proof, it is evidence, and the guesses, while reasonable, are just guesses and not evidence, so I'll ask one more time (to complete the circle) what evidence is there that DRM works for the good of authors? And, again, the mere fact that it is used, and the world has not exploded, is not evidence that it works. Can we agree on that?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

[...] so I'll ask one more time (to complete the circle) what evidence is there that DRM works for the good of authors? And, again, the mere fact that it is used, and the world has not exploded, is not evidence that it works. Can we agree on that?

I can't answer that first question - like you I have only guesses and the "evidence" that the big publishers continue to use DRM despite its costs. But I do accept that this may be a behaviour more like the standard company email footers that tell recipients how much trouble they will be in if they get it by mistake and don't immediately delete it ... yeah, right, we really believe that. Which leads to your second question.

Yes I can agree that the continued use of DRM is not incontrovertible evidence that it works. We don't know if it works now, we don't know if it worked in the beginning and we don't know if it will work in the future. And these are all separate questions. The world of ebooks is still changing, what worked and was required at the beginning is not necessarily going to hold true forever.

[ApK]

You realize that if we don't continue the cycle, this thread will just die off. That'll be a little sad.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

You realize that if we don't continue the cycle, this thread will just die off. That'll be a little sad.

There are always plenty of zombie fans around, you can't be sure it won't get up again.

Besides, a DRM thread that actually ends, even inconclusively, is something novel. It may be held up as an example in the annals of this forum as something for others to aspire to.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by ApK

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, (for the great majority this is untrue)
in spite of the fact that all books of note are instantly pirated even with DRM, (doesn't matter for the great majority)
in spite of the fact that there is no consumer demand FOR DRM, (but there is a demand for good books from good authors that can make a living producing good books)
in spite of the fact that some are AGAINST DRM, (There are always those who want my cash drawer left open.)
and in spite of the fact that many publishers and authors are doing fine making money without DRM, (Well bless them for charitable works and drop a coin in the hat for their supper.)
that DRM is effective or necessary in helping authors as described. (I choose to like DRM and feel good about it.)

ApK

My markings above:
dark blue for what I speak to.
bolded what I say.

((I corrected grammar and wording one place.))

[ScalyFreak]

So to summarize: You believe that you sell more books because you include DRM.

I have this great bridge for sale that you might be interested in...

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by ApK

You realize that if we don't continue the cycle, this thread will just die off. That'll be a little sad.

As the Author of the thread, I'd be much more interested in seeing constructive comments and a genuine conversation here, than a load of crap just to keep it alive.

[HansTWN]

DRM lock-down is the opium of the authors and publishers, to paraphrase old Karl. There is really little upside to it (in its current form), it does NOT protect you. The only parties that really profit from DRM are Adobe and Amazon.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

DRM lock-down is the opium of the authors and publishers, to paraphrase old Karl. There is really little upside to it (in its current form), it does NOT protect you. The only parties that really profit from DRM are Adobe and Amazon.

If Amazon does well, I do well, and I must say that it is up to me to make the decision on whether DRM protects me. Overall, I like it though I wish it was inviolable. I look at DRM like an umbrella in the rain. If the rain comes straight down, I stay dry. If the encryption is compromised and the file given out, then it is like the wind whipping the rain around. I will get wet after a period of time.

The idea that "unprotecting" my work will be a boon to me, is laughable.

I know the arguments against DRM. They basically address the differences between having a portable paper book and a not so portable digital file.
It is not simple to let your kids inherit your DRM file, like they might inherit a book, though they can inherit your eReader.
It is not simple to loan your DRM file, though of course you can loan your eReader.
If your eReader dies or you update it, it is not simple to move the DRM file to a new one. A book also might be damaged and made unusable.

On the other hand DRM's purpose is to prevent multiple (free or cheap or easy to make) copies of a book. By their nature a paper book does that.

I suggest a solution, to all the problems some people seem to think DRM brings about, is to think of the eReader and the DRM files on it as a unit. Just like a large book. That will be what most people do. Then you can loan or bequeath your large book as you will.

You cannot at this time have a DRM digital file that does everything good that a paper book does, and at the same time make sure that there is just one copy of the file like there will only be one copy of the paper book.

So that means that the ordinary reader buying a DRM protected file is making a tradeoff. Giving up something to gain something else. If he considers that the eReader and his eBooks are a single unit, then it is pretty much the same as a large paper book.

The main problem I see with the eBook system today is the insistence that the eBook costs about the same as a paper book.

When people say things like that it becomes easy to disbelieve other things they say. I have never said anything like that. I believe that a eBook should cost half or less than a new hardbound and when the paperback comes out, it should cost half or less than that.