Social DRM Take 2

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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. .

Steve, your nice little pro-DRM rant completely failed to address the issue Lemurion raised, so I will repeat his quote:

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.

Then you go on about cable TV for a bit, blithely ignoring the fact that these days, people "pirate" TV simply by downloading the shows they want from the internet in addition to the more established signal pirating, which you seem to think doesn't exist any longer. With the advent of bittorrent, the whole issue has become moot.

As for Amazon, just wait until first time the Amazon DRM servers go down and refuse to authenticate your reader. Remember the outcry when the same happened to the MobiPocket DRM servers? People who accept DRM that needs to talk to a third-party server are insane. By my utopian standards, of course.

And regarding "exclusive" (are you really saying that being able to buy some books only on the Kindle is a good thing? Vendor lock-in sound like fun to you?), as far as I know their content is also available in other legal formats like mobi (easily cracked and done habitually on this forum and elsewhere in the interest of format-shifting) or on the p2p networks. As long as there are alternatives available, the whole system might chug along for a while. It is when there are no other alternatives available that hacking DRM becomes an interesting proposition, and it is when there are no other alternatives available that consumers lose big time.

[Format C:]

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, much of the debate over the issue of copying-versus-stealing is... well, not quite pointless, but certainly premature (and possibly counter-productive, as the debate only seems to bring out angst and frustration in those who discuss it).

I maintain that any and all electronic versions of one of my books, for instance, have a net worth, set by me. The ease of production has absolutely no bearing on the cost, because the value is not in the production... the value is in the literature, and I have the right to choose what value to place on my literature.

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.

The issue of making copies of files you already own, for your own use, is a separate one, and one I personally don't have problems with. I restrict my considerations to obtaining copies of documents you do not already own, and whether a creator deserves payment for that file.



You're right... I would not call that "damaging democracy"... I'd call it "testing democracy." One of the powers of democracy is that it is designed to be malleable and self-correcting as the world changes around it (pending proper public participation in the system, of course). You can argue that we have such an authority over what we see and hear already... and we haven't devolved to anarchy.

You don't call a rapist "thief" because he steals a woman's dignity, nor you call a murderer "thief" because he steals one's life, do you?
They're far worse than actual thieves.

In analogy, the one who break copyright laws is not a "thief", the latter being far worse.

No space for discussion in it. At least in my country, where the code of laws give a clear definition of "thief".



About the "right to set a value": imagine that one day baby sitters start to lobby with the same power of oil companies.
Suddenly laws and bills are promulgated to forbid granmas to sit children, and to grant the BabySitter's Association a monopoly.
So they set a 1000$/hour price for their work.
Do they have that right?
I'm not sure.

In another case, Mercedes Benz sets a very high price for its cars, and lot of people pay for it, without any enforcement, and without any special law.
And every car producer in the world is using Mr Benz's ideas...

Why does this happen?

It's because every "copy" of a Mercedes SLK has an intrinsic value, and nobody can actually "copy" it without effort and cost.
So, Mercedes are sold "per-copy" and it actually works.
It has worked - even not without flaws - for artistic content also, as long the hardcopies had intrinsic value and added value.
But now, digital copies of art (or entertainment) have no intrinsic value (the real value is in the original content, not in the copy itself), and have less added value than illegal competitors.

To stick to a per-copy model, having the brute force of law as the only mean to compete and to grant "fair compensation" will just lead to a "war" between publishers and general public. And authors will be crushed in between.

The sooner a new and better model will be proposed and accepted the better for everyone.

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The key to DRM is getting people to accept it, AND to refuse to cooperate with those who would break it.

Actually, the key to DRM is breaking it. The only parties that gain from DRM are vendors - and they only gain short-term.

DRM - just say no, in every possible way.

Regards
Fake

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As far as whether or not I can stop people from taking my books... actually, I can. I just stop writing them.

If I buy one copy of your book, and I read it to my 10 children when I put them to bed, are they thieves?
If I buy one single copy of your book and I install it on my iLiad AND on my wife's cybook, is she a thief?
If I learn it by heart and I repeat it to 50 of my relatives, am I stealing?
If I read it 12 times, am I taking something from you?

You don't have to stop people from taking your books! You have to be paid for your work.
After you're paid, the more people take the book, the better for them and for you.
You can get more money from paper, from audio cassettes, from movie theaters. But nor from every single copy of a file. That's unfair.
Unless you actually go at reader's home and copy that file typing it in a word processor....

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. 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.

In my proposed method, a writer is fairly paid for the work, people pay access to content, no matter how many copies they do and spread.
Is it possible? Yes.
Will it stop piracy? No, it will reduce it at a small fraction of what it is now.
Will publishers increase their income? Definitely not.
Will authors be billionaires? Not at all.

The last two points are where the system will fail in the real world. Authors and Publisher actually prefer to point a gun at the customers head rather than reduce their income to a fair amount.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by nekokami

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.

Try this:
Put at the END of the book a set of buttons linked to a payment system, querying "how much this book is worth for you" with a 0$/5$/8$/10$/15$ option, and wait.

I can bet on the total amount over 100 copies....

[Format C:]

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.

That's the old fashioned per-copy business model.

IMHO Steve deserves to be paid (not too much) just for the work he put in that novel, even if you don't read it.
And, after that, he deserves to be paid more (not too much, and in any case not infinite) for his next work if the previous one was a success.

Like any other working man in the world, Steve deserves to be paid, and he deserves raises if his work is good enough.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Format C:

IMHO Steve deserves to be paid (not too much) just for the work he put in that novel, even if you don't read it.
And, after that, he deserves to be paid more (not too much, and in any case not infinite) for his next work if the previous one was a success.

I understand that you're proposing a "work for hire" system of remunerating authors, rather than a royalty system. Let's suppose publishers pay authors up front for books. The publisher then has the problem that they need to recover that cost. How do you propose they do it?

Alternatively, let's suppose "the government" provides a grant to an author for books completed that are "worthy." First, who gets to decide which books get paid for, and which don't? Second, the largest government we really have is at the country level, but electronic distribution is worldwide. Do we need a world government (and taxation) to make this work?

These are not rhetorical questions. I disagree with you that people will be willing to pay for ebooks, because I think they will effectively pay for the service value of being able to find the ebook they want, in the format they want, quickly, easily, and with minimal risk (e.g. malware). But if you really think paying authors for work completed is the best way to go, I'd like to hear your ideas of where you expect that money to come from, and how a fair system of determining the "value" of the book--and the author's payment-- would work.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Format C:

IMHO Steve deserves to be paid (not too much) just for the work he put in that novel, even if you don't read it.
And, after that, he deserves to be paid more (not too much, and in any case not infinite) for his next work if the previous one was a success.

Okay, my only comment: Who said anything about "infinite"? And what's with the "not too much" $#!+?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, my only comment: Who said anything about "infinite"? And what's with the "not too much" $#!+?

The "not too much" might be a reference to the few writers who actually make substantial sums of money. I think "infinite" is being used to mean "unlimited" here, i.e. in the current system, you (as the author and publisher) assume all risk related to being compensated for your effort, but theoretically the amount of income a single piece of work can generate for you is unlimited.

But that's just my interpretation.

[Lemurion]

Format C: it just so happens that I've written 3 novels myself, and only been paid for one of them. Are you suggesting that I send you a bill for the other two?

I wasn't necessarily meaning the pay per copy method-- though I wasn't ruling it out either. Anything from a subscription based method through patronage would work too. I was however working on the principle that given that the audience gains the most benefit from a creator's work, they are the ones who should bear the burden of supporting the creator.

Steve you made an interesting point about DRM when you said the key was to get people to accept it and refuse to cooperate with those who break it.

Once that happens you no longer need DRM.

The key is always in the mind of the user.

That's why the best system is one that gives people an incentive to pay which generally means getting rid of DRM. Look at the Spore fiasco for a good view of most people's opinion of DRM.

DRM works best when it gets in the way the least. For everything except vendor lock-in you get more benefits from building a relationship with your customers so they don't want to rip you off than from DRM.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

The "not too much" might be a reference to the few writers who actually make substantial sums of money. I think "infinite" is being used to mean "unlimited" here, i.e. in the current system, you (as the author and publisher) assume all risk related to being compensated for your effort, but theoretically the amount of income a single piece of work can generate for you is unlimited.

But that's just my interpretation.

Well, I think that anyone who honestly believes they have the right to dictate how much money someone else is allowed to make from their efforts is pretty much full of it. I also think that those who are unilaterally against others who make a lot of money are speaking from a personal jealousy that they can't make as much. I also see that as a not-even-slightly-subtle personal attack on my person.

But that's just my interpretation.

I'm not sure when this discussion about a possible DRM system turned into a "Steve Jordan doesn't deserve to make a living, 'cos he's such a jerk," but I'm all for accepting that some people around here just think I'm a jerk, and go back to the DRM discussion. So:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Steve you made an interesting point about DRM when you said the key was to get people to accept it and refuse to cooperate with those who break it.

Once that happens you no longer need DRM.

There are always going to be people who want to take what other people have, and not pay for it. And very often, the way they get it is by taking it from legitimate customers. That's why you would continue to need DRM, until you reached the point that the amount of loss from violators is not considered significant enough to bother.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That's why you would continue to need DRM, until you reached the point that the amount of loss from violators is not considered significant enough to bother.

...because DRM has been such a smashing success up till now and has stopped pirates dead in their tracks without bothering legitimate customers, right?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

...because DRM has been such a smashing success up till now and has stopped pirates dead in their tracks without bothering legitimate customers, right?

Feel free to stop attacking me personally, when you have something constructive to discuss.

[nekokami]

Well, but the thing is, Steve, many of us do feel that DRM is more of a hindrance to legitimate customers than it is to pirates, and that the hoped for advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages. Even those of us who do think that authors should be remunerated for every copy of their book that a customer actually reads (or downloads, or whatever the author has specified as the criterion) can reasonably disagree that DRM is a good way of guaranteeing that. I don't think if someone posts that they think DRM is disadvantageous, or even that they think that authors should be paid a flat rate per book rather than a royalty, that it is necessarily a personal attack on you.

[Lemurion]

Actually, I don't know if we're going to reach the point where the loss from violators is not enough to bother or the point where the loss due to DRM is too great to ignore first.

DRM costs money to implement, which means it reduces profitability and leads to increased prices. This reduces sales in two ways: some people refuse to buy because of the DRM, others refuse to buy because the price is too high. There is also at least anecdotal evidence that the presence of DRM actually promotes piracy with people choosing to pirate games rather than buy them purely because of DRM.

Right now the biggest challenge facing PC game makers is to turn players into customers. Anyone can find an illegal copy to download of almost any game in a matter of minutes, regardless of DRM, so it's not preventing piracy.

The only thing that really works is getting people to want to pay for things rather than pirate them; and the first step toward that is making them feel that the creator is not the enemy.

The presence of DRM makes the statement that the creator/publisher considers you part of their out-group not their in-group. That means they are setting up an adversarial (one might even say enemy) relationship.

One of the basic fundamentals of human socialization is that it's okay to cheat the enemy. This is why it's so important to make people want to pay, because it will reduce (nothing can eliminate it) piracy and render DRM irrelevant.