Social DRM Take 2

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Fake and Taylor, what you're pointing out is that the "premium content" that is the usual requirement to justify a DRM-type system... isn't too premium in e-book cases, and in some cases, no premium content at all.

I don't argue the point. If these companies want to justify DRM, they have to provide premium content... and so far, they're not, by and large. That doesn't negate the point, but it clearly indicates what they are doing wrong if they plan to make DRM part of their marketing system.

We agree there. What's your take on the more fundamental question: why spend money on DRM instead of spending money on better products, marketing, etc?

Regards
Fake

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fake51

We agree there. What's your take on the more fundamental question: why spend money on DRM instead of spending money on better products, marketing, etc?

Regards
Fake

Why do you spend money on a lock for the door of your house? I would guess that the answer is "to deter casual thieves". Your door lock won't deter a professional criminal, and neither will DRM stop a professional criminal from copying a DRM protected book, but it perhaps deters the casual petty thief.

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you spend money on a lock for the door of your house? I would guess that the answer is "to deter casual thieves". Your door lock won't deter a professional criminal, and neither will DRM stop a professional criminal from copying a DRM protected book, but it perhaps deters the casual petty thief.

I spend money on a lock for my door because the things inside will be gone if they're taken. If someone could come along, take a copy of my things and leave the originals completely intact, then for everything except the most private things people are free to copy away.
In other words, your analogy fails because you're talking about deterring people that steal physical things while DRM is about deterring copy-making.

If I copy a CD, does the music-industry lose any money? No, they don't. In fact, they don't lose anything at all since they have as many resources and goods as before I made the copy. The only way you can make the case that I'm incurring a loss on their part is if you equal my copying of a CD to actually taking a CD from them without paying - but this is obviously not the case. I might never have had any intentions of purchasing the CD but seeing as I could get my hands on a copy for free went for that - in which case there isn't a loss in sales because there wouldn't have been a sale in the first place.
DRM is about stopping making of copies. I can see two reasons for it, off the top of my head: 1) to try and annoy more or less legitimate users into going/staying legitimate, or 2) trying to make sure that pirate users can't actually use the content they're copying. DRM fails horribly at both in most if not all situations we have seen involving computers.

Regards
Fake

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Fake51

In other words, your analogy fails because you're talking about deterring people that steal physical things while DRM is about deterring copy-making.

In fact, DRM does not have to be about copy-making at all (which, as we all know, it fails miserably at anyway). But DRM can be used effectively to make sure that in most cases someone pays for a document they obtain, then leave them alone.

As far as your original question: Of course I'd rather see a company spend its money on better quality content. On the other hand, you have to realize that such quality content is a popular target for thieves, no one wants to pay for content they can get for free, and companies want to make a profit... so we're back to companies trying to protect their premium content with DRM, a vicious circle. In other words, you either improve content AND create acceptable DRM to go with it... or you do neither, and easily-obtained basic content is often the result.

DRM, like salt, is best when used sparingly. Using it to guarantee a sale is fine. After that, let the user do what they will. If the companies did this, and then pressed governments and ISPs to do their jobs to bolster the security of online documents, their time would be better served.

Of course, improving online security is a wholly different can of worms, with the label "Big Brother" in bold, red letters emblazoned on it. But despite the fervent desire of many online users for 100% web anonymity, I've always felt that such a desire is unrealistic because it neuters online security. I expect (not "desire," not "hope for," but simply "expect") that, at some point, the web will be a lot less anonymous than it is now, and strictly for the benefit of businesses trying to protect their money, and governments trying to protect their secrets (ironic as that sounds).

But until that happens, you can't just expect companies to go 180 against every business rule they've ever known. Companies, by nature, do what works... and most of them let a very few pioneers try out new things, then jump on it after it becomes an unqualified success. DRM may not be perfect, but I don't see DRM going away until the companies find an alternative that they can believe in, however good or bad that alternative may be.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But until that happens, you can't just expect companies to go 180 against every business rule they've ever known. Companies, by nature, do what works... and most of them let a very few pioneers try out new things, then jump on it after it becomes an unqualified success. DRM may not be perfect, but I don't see DRM going away until the companies find an alternative that they can believe in, however good or bad that alternative may be.

Interestingly, Tor seems to have finally been convinced to try the Baen model (no DRM, good content, service and community, moderate cost). Several other publishers seem to be testing the waters, as well. We'll see what actually happens.

I don't think anonymous internet usage is ever really going to go away, for the same reason that DRM can't succeed -- anyone who is really motivated to do so can create a false or anonymous identity online, and if the system ever becomes rigorous enough to prevent this, a parallel system will emerge (perhaps using mesh or other peer-to-peer networking).

[Peadar Ó Guilín]

Originally Posted by Fake51

I spend money on a lock for my door because the things inside will be gone if they're taken. If someone could come along, take a copy of my things and leave the originals completely intact, then for everything except the most private things people are free to copy away.
In other words, your analogy fails because you're talking about deterring people that steal physical things while DRM is about deterring copy-making.

But your analogy fails too. What if the items in your house decreased in value every time somebody copied them? For example, if you will allow me yet another dodgy analogy: imagine you could make a perfect copy of banknotes. You wouldn't be stealing from anybody -- all the people in the street still have all their money safe in their wallets. However, if these perfect copies became common enough, inflation would rise and everybody else (except you) would be worse off.

The problem with copying software is not that the original is now gone, but rather, that it has lost some of its value.

[Taylor514ce]

Any economic model involving digital content must be able to assume that copying cannot be controlled, distribution cannot be controlled, and that there might as well be a billion copies floating around. I don't have the answer, but any attempt to constrain, limit, or ignore the above is doomed.

I know in my case, I don't give away content I've paid for, even if it's easy to do. There is still the "I paid for this, go get your own" mentality. I think it's more realistic to assume this attitude on the part of the consumer than the "if they can give it away, they will" attitude implied by DRM systems.

I'm still thinking about a system where the content points to a site, and the site itself generates the revenue through advertising and sponsorship. Thus the content acts as an advertisement for the site, in effect. In that model, the more copies of the content there are, the better. It doesn't fight the ease of distributing digital content, it embraces it. People would go to the site for more content, for social networking with the content author and other fans... and all of this traffic is monetized and part of the profits go back to the authors.

The TOR site is almost there, it's a swing and a miss, but intriguing nonetheless.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I don't think anonymous internet usage is ever really going to go away, for the same reason that DRM can't succeed -- anyone who is really motivated to do so can create a false or anonymous identity online, and if the system ever becomes rigorous enough to prevent this, a parallel system will emerge (perhaps using mesh or other peer-to-peer networking).

The one thing about a parallel system is, it must be endorsed by legitimate businesses and governments, or there will be no products on it, and limited access.

If businesses and governments see the "non-anonymous" internet as the best way for them to make money, they'll act like the "anonymous" internet doesn't exist, ISPs will be pressured (excuse me, recommended) to favor the "non-anonymous" internet, and most users will be pressured (excuse me, enticed) by ISP deals to stay with the "non-anonymous" internet. Governments can even be influenced (excuse me, bribed) to block one in favor of the other.

Sure, the "anonymous" internet will swap illicit copies, but you'll have to buy them in the first place on the "non-anonymous" internet. Which might actually satisfy the businesses after all.

I've also been expecting a parallel internet to emerge eventually, and with the new web standards being developed, I suspect most commercial and media traffic will move to the new system (which, I understand, has more rigorous security protocols, by the way), while more "pure" internet use (less business, less multimedia, more raw data, etc) will stay on the existing system.

The result will be the parallel web Neko postulates, with tighter-security business and selling being transacted on the new protocol. Hopefully the businesses won't figure out some way to encrypt their content so it will not move on the old protocol...

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If businesses and governments see the "non-anonymous" internet as the best way for them to make money, they'll act like the "anonymous" internet doesn't exist, ISPs will be pressured (excuse me, recommended) to favor the "non-anonymous" internet, and most users will be pressured (excuse me, enticed) by ISP deals to stay with the "non-anonymous" internet. Governments can even be influenced (excuse me, bribed) to block one in favor of the other.

Please read "Little Brother" by Cory Doctorow.

I think your scenario is completely unrealistic. People will not tolerate such a tightly controlled internet. Businesses will ignore the "grass roots alternative free internet"? Hardly. Since that's where the users will be, that's where the businesses will move.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In fact, DRM does not have to be about copy-making at all (which, as we all know, it fails miserably at anyway). But DRM can be used effectively to make sure that in most cases someone pays for a document they obtain, then leave them alone.

That's why you have ecommerece web sites. So that someone can't come and download your ebooks without paying for them. As we know, once people have the file they're "in the house".

BOb

[Peadar Ó Guilín]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

I'm still thinking about a system where the content points to a site, and the site itself generates the revenue through advertising and sponsorship. Thus the content acts as an advertisement for the site, in effect. In that model, the more copies of the content there are, the better. It doesn't fight the ease of distributing digital content, it embraces it.

Yeah, that might work. With ebooks, it could be even simpler, of course. A book with an advert on every twentieth page would only become more valuable (to the vendor) the more it is copied. Also, the one advert every twenty pages would be too trivial an annoyance to be worth hacking.

[Taylor514ce]

No - no embedded ads on the book. Advertisers would have no method of gauging the effectiveness of an ad. The only "ad" in the book would be a title page, header, footer, end page, etc. which prominently displayed the authors' / publisher's site URL, or graphic/logo for the site. Things such as "Did you like this book? Read an excerpt from Book 2 on www...com. Read the author's blog on how he developed the character, and download more books..."

The site itself would contain the ads, much as MobileRead (or any forum, for that matter) does now.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Please read "Little Brother" by Cory Doctorow.

I think your scenario is completely unrealistic. People will not tolerate such a tightly controlled internet. Businesses will ignore the "grass roots alternative free internet"? Hardly. Since that's where the users will be, that's where the businesses will move.

Read it. Although it was wonderfully paranoid and anti-government, not to mention occasionally hilarious (Bite Bite Bite!), it glossed over the influence of businesses on the web, and on the public, which is critical to this subject.

And no, the scenario isn't unrealistic, because of one important factor: If the businesses see the "non-anonymous" internet as the one that will make them the most money, they will do whatever they have to to entice users to want to use it, and abandon the "anonymous" internet along the way... and if they offer the right content and perks, people will follow.

I think you assume too much when you say "people won't tolerate a tightly-controlled internet." People already tolerate a hell of a lot that is not in their best interests, every day, for the sake of enjoyment, convenience or saving money. The internet is no different, as people have already sacrificed their anonymity and ponied up personal information by the terabyte to buy products online, watch TV shows and access dodgy content by barely-legitimate sellers on lawless islands.

Historically, businesses are very, very good at convincing the public that they want things that they'd never even heard of the day before. Historically, the public is very, very good at ignoring little details (like anonymity, safety, sensibility, and even price) when it gets in the way of what they want. As I haven't yet seen any sign that basic human or business nature has changed, I expect history to continue pretty much as it has been.

Not necessarily an optimistic point of view... but definitely a realistic one.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

No - no embedded ads on the book. Advertisers would have no method of gauging the effectiveness of an ad.

Not directly, but they can make guesstimations based on the number of "eyeballs" that see their ads... much like television ads do now.

Personally, I don't have a problem of ads inside the book, as long as they are not distracting from the actual reading. As an author, I'd accept ads in my books... especially if it meant I could give the books for free.

Of course, ads on the site are better.

[Taylor514ce]

I can't think of any internet innovation that is the result of a carefully crafted plan by Corporate America. Businesses are not driving the internet, users are. Then business follows. And when business gets a bit too heavy-handed, people go elsewhere.

The genie is out of the bottle, Steve. Big Business isn't going to take over the internet and dictate how and when and what in terms of content.

Regarding ads, in order to make the system attractive to advertisers, one has to provide actual metrics. Traffic analysis, click-through statistics, new membership rates. It's very had to do that with ads in the book.

Though, on a case by case basis, I can imagine an author getting a particular sponsor for a book. Hard to do on an individual basis, which is why the idea of a site, working on behalf of multiple authors, is a better way to go.