Social DRM Take 2

[Fake51]

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.

But can it? Isn't that quite an assumption to make? Haven't we already reached the point where you can easily get to tools to break most DRM schemes? Aren't there better ways of achieving that people pay?

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.

Here we disagree. You assume that people will be choosing between a) free and b) not free. But how many people in this thread alone have bought content while having access to the free content? I received a CD in the mail a couple of days ago - I could easily have leeched it from the net. According to your generalisation I should have taken the free version. Can you explain why I didn't?
Furthermore, at the current state of the internet it's not as if "bad content" is less available than "quality content" - if you want something you can find it. Quality content won't be more of a target than any other content (and if you don't believe, trawl through a few warez sites and write down the names you know compared with the names you don't know).
In short, the copies WILL be available on the internet for those who want to copy them, and the users that want to pay for content WILL keep doing so. DRM is not a necessary part of any of this.

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.

I disagree, as should be obvious by now. DRM is like DDT, best when not used at all.

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).

I'm not too sure about this. The techies of the net have been working very hard to ensure anonymity - just take bittorrent encryption for one thing, plus what TPB and other torrent sites are doing to keep their users anonymous.
A lot of what is happening is taking a familiar route: the tech-savvy people come up with something that then spreads very quickly and empowers a whole bunch of people that are not tech-savvy.

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.

I expect companies to be interested in making profits. If this involves NOT using DRM I expect them to not use DRM. So far I can't see the case FOR DRM, hence I would expect them to not use DRM.
Unfortunately, the content industries don't seem to be very rational about things. They're doing a lot of things to piss off their consumers and very few things to make their consumers happy. THIS amounts to going "180 against every business rule" that I've ever known: keep your customers happy, keep them coming back for more.

Regards
Fake

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Dude: The people are going to Amazon and iTunes. Most of them are using IE, and most of them aren't bothering with ad blockers... too much trouble. No one's buying newspapers, because they get their news on TV and online. People are flocking to the online storefronts right now, and nothing you and I can say will change that. The MPAA and RIAA have more pull with the government than we do.

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

The genie is out of the bottle, Steve.

I see 'im. Check out the Disney logo on his sleeve.

Sure, the people are on the internet. But don't be fooled: It's the businesses that are running it... not us.

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

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.

Web-based ad metrics are required now, because the industry is still trying to work out the cost-vs-benefit ratios. Eventually, they will adopt formulas that will allow them to be a lot more forgiving on the specific metrics. Book ads are no good to provide specifics, but they will fit into those more relaxed metrics.

[nekokami]

An anti-anonymous internet would be more expensive than what we have now. I don't think it's all that likely, in part because there are many countries in the world that just don't place the value on "IP" that tends to be assumed in some of these threads. I think it's more likely that there will continue to be individual sites and mechanisms that require identity verification, but most sites will not.

On the other hand, I think ad-supported ebooks are quite likely. As Steve says, TV ad values are based on estimated audiences, and this seems to have held up even through the massive proliferation of cable and satellite stations. I agree that links to sites with ads are also quite possible, but I think ads at the ends of chapters or every 20 pages or whatever, especially if they are for books or other media in the same genre as the current book, could be well-tolerated and effective.

However, there is a potential problem with making all media ad-supported. It's just a huge Ponzi scheme unless someone, somewhere, is actually paying some money into the system. Imagine: I publish a book and Steve pays for some ads for his books, so I can give away my books. But Steve sells me ads in his books, too... we're both potentially breaking even, but neither of us is going to make money unless we also manage to book some ads from Virgin Intergalactic WorldCon or something that someone is actually willing to pay for. (Examples selected based on the fact that Steve and I both write SF, though he's distributing his and I'm not, yet.)

[Lemurion]

Companies are concerned with the bottom line.

Most companies that use DRM do so because they believe not using it will hurt their bottom line. This may be through reducing losses due to piracy, encouraging repeat sales of the same content as a way of format-shifting, or even enticing creators who believe in DRM to release content through them.

It's also important to note that publishers who insist on eBook DRM are not simply thinking of eBook sales. Many are also concerned that DRM-free eBooks may lead to decreased pBook sales. This is particularly true when dealing with books with large advances.

If a publisher pays a large advance for a given book, they are going to want to get as many sales from the more expensive editions as possible as it lets them recover that cost. Hardcover royalties are a bigger percentage of a larger cover price which helps recover those costs more rapidly that paperbacks. Readily available cheap eBook editions could hurt hardcover sales and possibly make the difference between a book that earns out and one that doesn't.

I'm not saying that this is what happens, but it is a concern.

One way Baen gets around this is by having three separate eBook releases for their top titles. First the eArc, then twice through webscriptions.

The end result is that there may be companies that are deliberately using DRM and inflated eBook prices to drive customers toward higher-priced pBook editions. Remember, the publisher sells to the distributor not the reader, so they don't take the same hit from deep discounting as retailers do.

The only way to solve the problem of DRM is to unequivocally demonstrate that not using DRM helps a company's overall bottom line. It's not enough to increase eBook sales; it's also necessary to make it appear that hardcover sales aren't falling off because of it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The only way to solve the problem of DRM is to unequivocally demonstrate that not using DRM helps a company's overall bottom line. It's not enough to increase eBook sales; it's also necessary to make it appear that hardcover sales aren't falling off because of it.

What he said.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The only way to solve the problem of DRM is to unequivocally demonstrate that not using DRM helps a company's overall bottom line. It's not enough to increase eBook sales; it's also necessary to make it appear that hardcover sales aren't falling off because of it.

But does it? Can it be demonstrated that removing DRM from music has resulted in a reduction in music piracy? I think you'd be very hard-pressed to show that!

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But does it? Can it be demonstrated that removing DRM from music has resulted in a reduction in music piracy? I think you'd be very hard-pressed to show that!

I'll be honest; I don't know if removing DRM from music has had any measurable effect on music piracy one way or the other. However, for the purposes of the argument I don't care either.

Piracy is impossible to measure accurately so I'm not even going to try.

My question is whether removing DRM increases overall sales and net revenue, not whether it reduces piracy. Increasing sales should have a similar net effect to reducing piracy, and it's much more quantifiable.

So back to the music industry.

The real question is: "Can it be demonstrated that removing DRM from music has resulted in an overall increase in profitability?"

If removing DRM from music correlates with increased profit for the music industry then it is better for the industry to remove DRM whether it affects illicit downloads or not.

I'm not saying that preventing piracy is either bad or unnecessary, but that increasing sales and revenue is both more important and much easier to measure.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But does it? Can it be demonstrated that removing DRM from music has resulted in a reduction in music piracy? I think you'd be very hard-pressed to show that!

Who cares? Isn't the question has sale of eMusic increased since the removal of DRM? My understanding is that it has. This is measurable.

BOB