“Why I break DRM on e-books”: A publishing exec speaks out

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by taustin

The legal standard in most states (and it varies considerably, of course) is that you 1) paid a one time fee, and 2) got an indefinite term of use. If so, then in California, at least, it's a "sale of goods," not a license, and once it's a sale of goods, the first sale doctrine applies. And licensing terms do not, because copyright is governed by copyright law, not contract law.

The whole thing is untested in court because *author* contracts usually specify much higher royalties when their books are licensed to a third party.
Right now the publishers are telling authors ebooks are sales (and paying them that way) while telling readers they are licenses.
Sooner or later that double talk is going to get tested.

[pidgeon92]

Interestingly, the publishing "exec" quoted in the article seems to be careful to blame DRM on the retailers, not on the publishers.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The whole thing is untested in court because *author* contracts usually specify much higher royalties when their books are licensed to a third party.
Right now the publishers are telling authors ebooks are sales (and paying them that way) while telling readers they are licenses.
Sooner or later that double talk is going to get tested.

While that's all true, it is not relevant to the discussion of wether or not John Q. Public buying an ebook from Amazon (or B&N, or whoever) is a purchase or a license. The relevant ruling in California is Softman v. Adobe, and it's very clear.

[spindlegirl]

A publishing exec's take on breaking DRM.

I found the blog article interesting. Of course this is nothing new to many of us here, but it's nice to see validation from people in the biz, too.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Interestingly, the publishing "exec" quoted in the article seems to be careful to blame DRM on the retailers, not on the publishers.

At the moment retailers tend to blame the publishers for insisting on it, publishers blame the retailers. Nobody wants to be the "bad" guy. However, I think retailers are the ones standing to gain the most from having DRM since it provides vendor lock-in.

If most publishers publicly go DRM free, then over time customers will be advised not to shop at certain stores that insist on applying DRM anyway since it's then clear the motivations are lock-in.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by JoeD

At the moment retailers tend to blame the publishers for insisting on it, publishers blame the retailers. Nobody wants to be the "bad" guy. However, I think retailers are the ones standing to gain the most from having DRM since it provides vendor lock-in.

Actually, I think libraries benefit more. And they will probably insist on continued use of DRM, just as publishers will likely insist that as well. Which is perfectly fine with me. With a library it is a loan, and always has been.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by JoeD

At the moment retailers tend to blame the publishers for insisting on it, publishers blame the retailers. Nobody wants to be the "bad" guy. However, I think retailers are the ones standing to gain the most from having DRM since it provides vendor lock-in.

Music is now DRM free. Doesn't seem to be hurting sales for iTunes or Amazon.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Actually, I think libraries benefit more. And they will probably insist on continued use of DRM, just as publishers will likely insist that as well. Which is perfectly fine with me. With a library it is a loan, and always has been.

This is the only valid reason to have DRM on anything available to the public.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

A publishing exec's take on breaking DRM.

I found the blog article interesting. Of course this is nothing new to many of us here, but it's nice to see validation from people in the biz, too.

I hope you do know that was linked in the very first post of this thread.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I hope you do know that was linked in the very first post of this thread.

Spindlegirl had started another thread which has been mystically merged with this one

[spindlegirl]

oops 5thwiggle already answered.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Actually, I think libraries benefit more. And they will probably insist on continued use of DRM, just as publishers will likely insist that as well. Which is perfectly fine with me. With a library it is a loan, and always has been.

Library loans are the only things I am fine with using DRM. Since libraries are where loans actually belong.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

Spindlegirl had started another thread which has been mystically merged with this one

That I did not know.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

If you had purchased an actual product, you would have been allowed to use it, move it, copy it, format-shift it, lend it and give it away as you saw fit. The fact that you can't is a clear indication that you're purchasing a licence. The price doesn't enter into it at all.

Once purchased you are certainly free to do all of those things. As for the price, it most certainly does indicate that a product was purchased. For example: Renting a DVD costs $1 but purchasing a DVD costs around $10. Crystal clear to me...

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Once purchased you are certainly free to do all of those things. As for the price, it most certainly does indicate that a product was purchased. For example: Renting a DVD costs $1 but purchasing a DVD costs around $10. Crystal clear to me...

Yup. Charge me full price and I am purchasing it. Charge me a buck and I am renting it. Easy enough to understand.