Social DRM Take 2

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

The real goal here is to throw our society into another dark age by making it impossible to preserve information.

Are you sure you're not over-reacting... just a tad?

The goal here is to make sure producers get fairly compensated, and consumers get fairly entertained.

Political speeches (only slightly here) are being preserved by many entities, and if you want archives of them, you can get them from sources other than YouTube.

[pilotbob]

Hi Folks...

OK, I guess calling my idea DRM was a mistake. It was more of a way to make people aware that this book is NOT free... and if you got it for free you are violating the law. Of course, it won't stop them if they don't care. But, it won't hurt REAL customers because it is easy to implement on any device, doesn't require any type of key management or third party. It doesn't require any type of key server or connection to the internet (are we calling it the cloud these days?).

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The goal here is to make sure producers get fairly compensated, and consumers get fairly entertained.

Who have these goals? Historically fair compensation (whatever that is) have never been the goal. The goal have been to stimulate wanted production. By sneaking in concepts like "fairly compensated" you are restricting the possible good developments.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Who have these goals?

People who want to get paid for their work. How do you think you stimulate wanted production?

Originally Posted by tompe

Historically fair compensation (whatever that is) have never been the goal.

Fairness has always been the goal.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Hi Folks...

OK, I guess calling my idea DRM was a mistake. It was more of a way to make people aware that this book is NOT free... and if you got it for free you are violating the law. Of course, it won't stop them if they don't care. But, it won't hurt REAL customers because it is easy to implement on any device, doesn't require any type of key management or third party. It doesn't require any type of key server or connection to the internet (are we calling it the cloud these days?).

BOb

I thought we were calling the internet "the pipes"... I gotta keep up.

Anyhow, I just don't see the point to adding a system that will not actually enforce compliance of something. As for informing them of the status of the book, a simple copyright notice serves that purpose. Whether you are a legitimate customer or a "darknet downloader," the majority of the former (and all of the latter) will just ignore it... then likely complain that it is there taking up an entire page that they could be reading.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's also not better to cry "I want my books, and I deserve to get them free."

You're right 100%.
But I see thousands of people actually getting them for free, not crying.
And I see also that there's no way to stop them without hurting democracy.
And honestly, that's what I fear most.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And consumers have to accept a new reality: If good producers feel they will not be compensated for their work, they'll stop producing; and there will be less quality product available on the market. Consumers will also have to accept that most of the remaining product will be of noticeably lesser quality than professionally-produced content.

Again, you're right.
What I'm saying is: if corporations agree to a little loss of income, AND consumer agree to a fair compensation, with a new efficient business model, nobody will be forced to stop production or to quit reading.

The pay-per-copy model cannot work in a system where copies can be produced effortlessly, endlessly and at virtually no cost. it's good for paper books, it's a failure for e-books.
And the I-disconnect-you-if-you-give-your-book-to-your-wife Sarkozy model, is an unbalanced one.
To spend millions for suing the Pirate Bay won't lead us nowhere.

The only way to build a system that works is to come to an agreement: the ones who are getting content for free have to agree to pay for it, and the ones who are getting paid (and "robbed", like they say) have to agree to earn less that they are now. If not, it's just the same old story: the one with the biggest gun gets it all.

There are three basic principles:

1. There has to be a limit to the earnings for the single author/creator
2. Every user of the content have to pay for access that content
3. Electronic digital editions cannot be paid per copy; hardcopies (CD, DVD, pbook, LP, whatever...) can be sold like they are now.

If creators don't want to agree with point 1 (which is compatible with a sort of meritocracy) like I suppose, then there's no way users will agree to point 2 (there will always be the "pirates", or just schoolboys sharing music and books between them).
A "pay-per-copy" enforced with weapons, like they're trying to do now, is a lose-lose situation. And eventually it'll destroy every good production, like you're saying.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

People who want to get paid for their work. How do you think you stimulate wanted production?

Fairness has always been the goal.

Yes, and I have as a goal to get money without working but how is this relevant? A lot if not most of great literature has been produced without money stimulation. So why do you believe that control through market is best for producing great literature? The thing I object to is your assumption that there is only one solution and then you build that into the goal and claim that this is the goal some entity have.

Fairness have never been the goal at least not for copyright. But who are these entities you are talking about that have this fairness goal?

[sianon]

I recently purchased a book from Pan Macmillan which was DRM free but placed th following text in the downloaded file:

Order Ref: Karen Sutherland [karensutherland@optushome.com.au] Downloaded: 10 September This is copyrighted material.

Perfectly acceptable Social DRM as far as I am concerned.

Karen

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by sianon

I recently purchased a book from Pan Macmillan which was DRM free but placed th following text in the downloaded file:

Order Ref: Karen Sutherland [karensutherland@optushome.com.au] Downloaded: 10 September This is copyrighted material.

Perfectly acceptable Social DRM as far as I am concerned.

Karen

I agree. The goal of the digital rights management should be to identify if it's a legal copy or not. It shouldn't be to try to enforce the DRM i.e. where and when you can copy it (because you'll never be able to) or try to destroy/disable the file.

Update the copyright to indicate that if you tamper with the purchase information in the file you've violated the copyright and it's an illegal copy. It would be easy to update the software to indicate to the person reading the book who purchased the file so they can't claim they didn't know.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Update the copyright to indicate that if you tamper with the purchase information in the file you've violated the copyright and it's an illegal copy. It would be easy to update the software to indicate to the person reading the book who purchased the file so they can't claim they didn't know.

That is regulated by law and you cannot make it forbidden by some statements. In most countries you always allowed to make a modified copy for yourself of copyrighted material.

[Argel]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is regulated by law and you cannot make it forbidden by some statements. In most countries you always allowed to make a modified copy for yourself of copyrighted material.

But it is not unreasonable for the law to forbid the alteration of the copyright statement itself, including the statement of ownership. That doesn't infringe my freedom.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's not "blackmailware" if you ask for payment up-front before reading... it's "capitalist-ware." (And saying you'll just swipe a copy from the Darknet isn't helping!)

I'm not talking about paying up front. I'm talking about reading so much of the book and then having to pay to unlock the rest of it. So you have a complete copy that's on;y able to be fully read if you pay. This is not a sample where you know it's not all there and if you want the real thing, you pay. This is saying, here is the full thing, but you cannot have it unless you pay to unlock it. if I download an entire copy of a book, I want it there able to be read when I am ready to read it.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by sianon

I recently purchased a book from Pan Macmillan which was DRM free but placed th following text in the downloaded file:

Order Ref: Karen Sutherland [karensutherland@optushome.com.au] Downloaded: 10 September This is copyrighted material.

Of course, since it is DRM free it is very easy for you to edit this out of the document and upload it to the internet. So, why even bother putting it in the file?

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Of course, since it is DRM free it is very easy for you to edit this out of the document and upload it to the internet. So, why even bother putting it in the file?

BOb

Well, if is is a mobipocket file it is not very easy at least and most people will not do it. I thinks also that this method is aimed at people giving away copies to a limited group of people.

[sianon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Of course, since it is DRM free it is very easy for you to edit this out of the document and upload it to the internet. So, why even bother putting it in the file?

BOb

Bob, I have no idea how to edit it out of the file and nor would a lot of users. It stops as much illegal copying as more intrusive DRM. The people who will illegally distribute content will do so regardless of what DRM is used. This method at least does not inconvenience the honest user.

Karen