Social DRM Take 2

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Well, that's a bit wrong. You can set a "price" at which you want to sell your IP.... however it's value is technically what the market will bear. If you set the price at $300 a copy, that's not it's value if no one buys it.

I tend to look at it differently: The value isn't what the public says it is. That would suggest that if no one buys, the value of a product is zero. Price does not necessarily reflect the value for any product, it is truly arbitrary. But value can be figured against the cost of production, to the last penny.

At any rate, that's just semantics. You're right: I can set the price any way I want, but it's up to the consumer to accept that price.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That is the million dollar problem, in a nutshell: Until a consensus is reached regarding the status of electronic files, i.e., whether they can be considered "goods of worth," "completely worthless," or something else altogether

Treating electronic data like physical objects is stupid. They are obviously not the same, the analogy fails left and right. The information contained in electronic files can have worth, but nobody would argue that information can be handled in exactly the same way as physical goods.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I maintain that any and all electronic versions of one of my books, for instance, have a net worth, set by me.

No, you can set the price you would like to receive in exchange for the books. If nobody is willing to pay that price, the net worth differs from what you think it is. The net worth is what the market will bear, not something you decide. You can value your work at X, the production costs of the work can be Y, and the price the public is willing to pay for your work can be Z. But this is really not relevant to the larger discussion.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If someone wants to obtain a copy of that book, they are obligated to pay me the price I set for that book. If they do not want to pay that price, they are within their rights to try to bargain a new price with me, or they can walk away and not make the purchase. They are not within their rights to take it and not pay me, especially since the book is not a commodity that they can claim to require. This is how goods have been traded for the past few thousand years, on every continent on the planet, and electronic or not, I see no reason why the practice cannot continue unchanged.

You've just indicated that you are unsure whether electronic data is the same as physical objects (I believe the term 'million dollar question' was used), and now you wish to pretend nothing needs to change - but the variables of the equation have changed. We've gone from a model of scarcity to a model of ubiquity. I agree in principle that nobody has the right to just take what is not theirs, but the question is, can you stop them from taking it or, preferably, incite them to spend their money?

I would say evidence provided by the RIAA and MPAA so far says "no, you can't stop them" as they, for all their posturing have made no significant dent in movie and music piracy. Given that no authors are starving due to rampant piracy of their work I would say that yes, there are ways to get people to give you money. I've checked the p2p nets, your name doesn't come up. Whatever your problems with piracy are, piracy is not your problem. Obscurity is a far bigger problem, at least, if you are looking for selling or generating interest in your work.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I would not call that "damaging democracy"... I'd call it "testing democracy." You can argue that we have such an authority over what we see and hear already...

Let's view piracy as a separate market for a moment. So for a given work of literature, there is a paper book market, an electronic book market, and a pirate book market. Obviously, you cannot compete with the pirate market on price. Price of the pirate market is zero or near-zero. And your proposed method of competition with this pirate market is a draconian system of control.

How well do you think that is going to work out? How do you think your consumers will react? I'm not an economist but I can see from here that it will not end well for you, the author.

In addition, DRM does not, as a rule, hinder pirates. It hinders the rest of your potential consumers.

On a side note, I love the constant references to pirates. It always reminds me of the Dutch and the British who used to/still revere their own sea heroes, while viewing the other lot as a bunch of pirates. I'm not saying data pirates are sea heroes, I just thought it was funny.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Alas the heart of our difference of opinion. There are no guarantees in life. Technology can't guarantee payment or prevent theft, laws can't guarantee it and the government can't.

If it's socially acceptable to steal something then no technology or law can enforce it. The idea of social DRM is to influence people socially to respect the copyright. Today when people don't respect the draconian DRM technology they are Robin Hood.

Robin Hood didn't just arbitrarily steal. He fought to protect people who could not protect themselves, or their livelihood, from what was essentially organized crime taking what they wanted and giving nothing back.

Your example essentially equates me with the "Sheriff of Nottingham," and suggests that I am trying to deprive people of their livelihood by stealing their property from them and giving them nothing in return... and that those DRM-fighting "Robin Hoods" are restoring justice by stealing my books from me and giving them to everyone else. Thanks a lot.

So, it is plainly obvious social DRM does not work any better than legal DRM. Does that mean we all throw up our hands and start stealing? Do we all just give up, and assume we are helpless against the mob? Open our doors, and let the Outsiders come in, take our goods, rape our women, and leave us for dead? Do we just abandon civilization as a doomed experiment?

Or... maybe... should we try to find a way to make a system that works?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're right: I can set the price any way I want, but it's up to the consumer to accept that price.

I like hearing that. I guess when I hear "value" I generally think market value which is ostensibly set by the market. For a commodity think like a non-fiction book there is usually only intrinsic value to perhaps the author.

BOb

[Selzernium]

I think its unwise to dismiss this system out of hand - whether its due to a lack of imagination or by force of habit - before we have even tried and seen how it works in real , and Its far from *obvious* that it is a failure. IMHO

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Treating electronic data like physical objects is stupid. They are obviously not the same, the analogy fails left and right. The information contained in electronic files can have worth, but nobody would argue that information can be handled in exactly the same way as physical goods.

You contradict yourself here: If an electronic file can be said to "have worth," then you can compare it to a physical object in terms of worth. Yes, they are different... but water and ice are also different, and can still be bought and sold as commodities. You simply have to make allowances for the container.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

You've just indicated that you are unsure whether electronic data is the same as physical objects (I believe the term 'million dollar question' was used), and now you wish to pretend nothing needs to change - but the variables of the equation have changed. We've gone from a model of scarcity to a model of ubiquity. I agree in principle that nobody has the right to just take what is not theirs, but the question is, can you stop them from taking it or, preferably, incite them to spend their money?

I didn't say I was unsure... I said that there is no consensus. Then I gave my opinion. As far as whether or not I can stop people from taking my books... actually, I can. I just stop writing them.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

And your proposed method of competition with this pirate market is a draconian system of control.

That is not "my proposed method." I have said repeatedly that present DRM systems may not work, but that others (so far undeveloped) could. I never indicated that they have to be so extreme as to be "draconian"... you just make the automatic assumption that any DRM system is draconian. You continue to suggest that any even infinitestimal amount of "control" is Big Brother Incarnate, which is a clear over-reaction. You argue for a Utopia of free goods and sanctioned thievery. Good luck with that.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You contradict yourself here: If an electronic file can be said to "have worth," then you can compare it to a physical object in terms of worth. Yes, they are different... but water and ice are also different, and can still be bought and sold as commodities. You simply have to make allowances for the container.

I do not contradict myself - information can have worth, but you can't treat it as a physical object, because it is not. Your example of water and ice is not appropriate at all, as both are still objects in the physical world. If you had compared water to, say, a secret or an idea I might agree.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I didn't say I was unsure... I said that there is no consensus. Then I gave my opinion. As far as whether or not I can stop people from taking my books... actually, I can. I just stop writing them.

Go right ahead. For you 10 others. You might overvalue your contribution to our culture and eternity just a teensy bit.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That is not "my proposed method." I have said repeatedly that present DRM systems may not work, but that others (so far undeveloped) could. I never indicated that they have to be so extreme as to be "draconian"... you just make the automatic assumption that any DRM system is draconian.

No, I'm just saying that any DRM that is not draconian in nature will fail almost instantly because it will be hacked to bits in days. The problem of DRM will always be that for offline versions you have to (sooner or later) give consumers the keys to the lock otherwise nobody can view the content (and even an application that can 'phone home' can be fooled to think it just did, leaving aside the fact that most people resent these methods), so that would leave options where you try to control every aspect of the hardware and the software and only release your information on that platform - in other words, draconian methods. Which sane consumers will never accept, and STILL this can and will be cracked if there is enough interest in the content.

So once again you are not stopping the pirates, but you are hampering the legitimate consumers (possibly to the breaking point where they will stop consuming your work).

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You continue to suggest that any even infinitestimal amount of "control" is Big Brother Incarnate, which is a clear over-reaction. You argue for a Utopia of free goods and sanctioned thievery. Good luck with that

No, I argue that either DRM is laughable and easily cracked or draconian and bound to fail and that people like you will realise the easy DRM is no good and go straight for the draconian method, and nowhere do I say "hey, utopia of free goods and yay thieves". Overreaction is saying things like

"Open our doors, and let the Outsiders come in, take our goods, rape our women, and leave us for dead? Do we just abandon civilization as a doomed experiment?"

which is even more bizarre when we are talking about piracy than Jack Valenti's comments about how VCRs are to the American film producer and the American public like the Boston strangler is to young women. Good luck with that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I assume you mean a DRMed mobipocket file? Doesn't that make this a moot point. If there is DRM then you don't need "social" DRM.

BOb

No I meant a non DRM:ed file. You have to unpack it and for that you have to find the correct program. And there are no program out there that packs the html files identical to the original file since the unpacking programs does not preserve all meta data.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Don't just quote it... Read it. What's the point of securing exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries? So that they can gain due compensation for their efforts, to make them willing to produce for others... that's the fair part.

Where did you get "due" from? Were is is specified that "due compensation" is the goal?

That's why it was written, and there is no other conceivable reason to write it if it is not to establish fair compensation for the creator. (For the record, "fair" means "not taken advantage of.")

No the goal is not that the compensation is fair. The goal is that the compensation should stimulate production. So the real goal is to stimulate production. I do not understan why you do not realise this simple fact.

(sigh) I grow weary of this incessant wordplay, not to mention the clear implication that I'm a greedy, capitalist baby-eater with delusions of grandeur because I believe in neanderthal concepts like money. Let's cut to the chase, Tompe: Do I, as a creator, deserve to be paid what I ask for my creations?

From my standpoint your word play provokes me so I write here... Of course you do not deserve to be paid whatever you ask for your creations. I cannot see that if you ask one billion dollar for a copy of a book that you deserve to be paid that amount. You have the possibility to ask this price and you have the possibility not to sell the book if nobody wants to pay the price but you do not desverve to be paid whatever you ask.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Robin Hood didn't just arbitrarily steal. He fought to protect people who could not protect themselves, or their livelihood, from what was essentially organized crime taking what they wanted and giving nothing back.

Your example essentially equates me with the "Sheriff of Nottingham," and suggests that I am trying to deprive people of their livelihood by stealing their property from them and giving them nothing in return... and that those DRM-fighting "Robin Hoods" are restoring justice by stealing my books from me and giving them to everyone else. Thanks a lot.

So, it is plainly obvious social DRM does not work any better than legal DRM. Does that mean we all throw up our hands and start stealing? Do we all just give up, and assume we are helpless against the mob? Open our doors, and let the Outsiders come in, take our goods, rape our women, and leave us for dead? Do we just abandon civilization as a doomed experiment?

Or... maybe... should we try to find a way to make a system that works?

Social DRM does work it just doesn't work with a 100% guarantee. If you focus on the majority of the people that are honest and ignore the ones that will abuse it then you build the business model trusting the majority will pay.

I wasn't equating you to the Sheriff of Nottingham. My point was that you have to get society to work for you and not against you. When that happens you reduce the number of people that will abuse the system.

We have a system that works but it doesn't come with any guarantees.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I tend to look at it differently: The value isn't what the public says it is. That would suggest that if no one buys, the value of a product is zero. Price does not necessarily reflect the value for any product, it is truly arbitrary. But value can be figured against the cost of production, to the last penny.

At any rate, that's just semantics. You're right: I can set the price any way I want, but it's up to the consumer to accept that price.

Steve:

The thing you are calling "value" in the above is known to business and economics as "cost." And indeed, you can compute the cost of a product very accurately indeed. Further, economists (and business people) certainly agree that there is no reason why price and cost are or should be connected.

Value (in that terminology) is a very different animal. I buy something when its value (to me) is greater than its cost (to me). Note that "value" here includes both tangibles like immediate resale value, or commodity value (think gold); intangibles like sentimental value, my personal enjoyment, etc.; and imponderables, like the increased profit I think I can make using that improved tool/faster computer/whatever (imponderable, because my crystal ball may be, well... inaccurate).

If a business persistently produces some product at a tremendous cost that far exceeds that product's value to consumers, they lose a whole lot of money. After all, consumers won't pay more than that product's value to them.

Xenophon

P.S. A poster-child example of the difference between production cost, price, and value is celebrity autographs. Production cost is near-zero. Price is ???. Value to consumers ranges from negative (my value for a Paris Hilton autograph), to zero (most collector's value for, say, MY autograph), to incredible (some Boomer's value for an authentic Elvis autograph).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course you do not deserve to be paid whatever you ask for your creations.

Then clearly you and I have nothing further to discuss. Go play your word games with someone who cares.

[nekokami]

I thought this was quite an interesting idea, actually. It could probably be done within HTML files using a new conditional tag, or something like that. Or it could be very simple to get included as part of the ePub specification. Of course, people could write a book viewer that would ignore the tag, just as people write ad blockers for browsers now. The trick would be to make the reminder notice just annoying enough to maximize the number of people who would feel like paying for the book, and convenient enough (e.g. an embedded link to a paypal site or something like that) so that people could make the payment quickly and easily and get on with life.

Naturally, no system is 100% perfect, and any DRM system can be circumvented. But if a system only provides a reminder that blinks at you for 10 seconds when you open the book until you pay for it, probably no one would bother circumventing it, and probably many people would pay for it. How many? Not everyone, but possibly more people would pay for the book if it were very widely distributed using this scheme, than would download it with an upfront payment to the author's site or a bookstore. And the costs of distribution would be lifted from the author.

As I said, I think it's an interesting idea. How would we actually test its value, rather than arguing about it? Could we find a set of books similar enough that we could try releasing them under different models and see which one generates the most revenue for the author? I think that would make the best test.

Though I suppose that depends on whether an author feels it's best to have the book "paid for" by the highest percentage of readers, or by the largest raw number of people. Personally, I'd go for highest raw number or highest revenue, even if it meant a lower percentage of readers actually paid for my work. But I'm more a pragmatist than an idealist.

[Lemurion]

Let's start at the beginning: Steve writes a novel; if I want to read his novel Steve deserves to be paid.

The problem with most DRM implementations is that at least in practice they appear to have a minimal effect on preventing piracy (at best). The two things DRM seems to do well are annoy paying customers, and facilitate vendor lock-in.

Mobipocket is a prime example of this in their refusal to allow their reader to be installed alongside any other reader with DRM support; at least on dedicated reader devices.

This is a clear example of both vendor lock-in and hypocrisy; especially since I have Mobipocket, MSReader, and EReader on my Windows PDA. My Palm T|X has Mobipocket and EReader.

The best form of social DRM is the kind Baen uses; even though they vehemently deny it's DRM. Jim Baen invited the readers into an electronic community, and fostering the idea that Baen Books was part of the readers' in-group. This put the publisher in the "us" part of "us vs. them" and the majority of people don't rip off their in-group.

That kind of DRM, which is based on using psychology to make people want to pay for things rather than pirate them is the only kind that will really work in the long run.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Let's start at the beginning: Steve writes a novel; if I want to read his novel Steve deserves to be paid.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem with most DRM implementations is that at least in practice they appear to have a minimal effect on preventing piracy (at best). The two things DRM seems to do well are annoy paying customers, and facilitate vendor lock-in.

The key to DRM is getting people to accept it, AND to refuse to cooperate with those who would break it. The best way to do that is to offer incentives to simultaneously accept and preserve DRM.

The best incentive for accepting DRM is usually exclusive or special content. Often the best incentive for preserving DRM is the threat to cut you off from using the service or buying the product, if you are found to be aiding and abetting a DRM breaker. (The carrot-and-stick approach.) Cable and satellite TV companies use that tactic in the U.S., and as most people do not want to lose their TV service, they refuse to allow others to "pirate" their signal, and risk getting caught. In fact, U.S. cable and satellite TV services may be the best example of consumer-accepted DRM systems around.

And the second-best might be... Amazon. They have developed a DRM system for the Kindle that seems to be pretty effective: They have exclusive content, you can only access their content through their reader, they get paid per download, and the customers accepts this because they like its ease, speed and reading quality. A textbook example of a working DRM system. So it's clearly not impossible to use DRM in an acceptable way.