interesting take on DRM

[Alfy]

DRMs came about for a very good reason: protecting copyrights in a digital age where information can be easily duplicated. Fair enough, I can understand that. But how comes DRMs always end up generating interoperability problems that have NOTHING to do with copyrights?

I bought an iPod because I really liked the design, and for a time, I purchased on iTunes because it was so easy. I haven't regretted it yet, but what if another company comes up with a mp3 player I fancy more? All my tunes are locked to a single device, and as far as I know, that does not promote copyrights in any way. (yeah, yeah, I could always burn them on CDs and rip them afterwards, taking a few hours of my time and losing quality in the process...)

Same thing for ebooks. I have a sony PRS 505 but I live in France. For me, no books from the sony shop! And because of the Mobipocket/Kindle relationship (again, how does THAT promote any copyrights???), no Mobipocket on that device; same thing for eReader. The only way for me to do it is thus to remove the DRMs, which luckily enough is not illegal in this country. However, it is still crazy: I have to remove protection from books I HAVE purchased in order to read them on my own device!!!

And although I understand that "lending a book" can't have the same meaning with ebooks, I still have a problem with the fact I could not just tell a friend "here's a good book book I enjoyed, tell me what you think". How did technology managed to go forward and managed to lose that simple pleasure???

[pdurrant]

DRM does nothing to ensure writers get paid.

DRM does not stop copying of digital music, audio books or ebooks by those who are unwilling to pay. It just inconveniences the people who have paid.

Originally Posted by daffy4u

I'm not convinced that all DRM is bad. If I were a writer (which I would never be because I hate writing), I'd want to make sure I was paid for my work. I like the idea of it being tied to the person not the device and I think Audible comes close to that (encryption tied to my name but I can move it around to various devices without too much trouble).

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Sure, you are pointing out that the DRM could be circumvented; but that is besides the point. I shouldn't need to circumvent it. I buy the book, or the music track, or what have you. There should be no constraint, no matter how minor it may seem, to the exercise of my fair use rights.

The rules regarding DRM in DMCA are a classic example of bad laws; they served only the special interest and not the interests of the whole (and ultimately, did little or nothing to stop the real pirates).

--
Bill

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. They say that the DRM is about preventing piracy but all it takes is one person finding a way to get the content up somewhere and it's a moot point. You don't need thousands of people uploading. You just need one. These systems seem more about locking the customer in to the store and certain preferred devices than about preventing illegal file sharing.

[Alfy]

Originally Posted by Alisa

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. They say that the DRM is about preventing piracy but all it takes is one person finding a way to get the content up somewhere and it's a moot point. You don't need thousands of people uploading. You just need one. These systems seem more about locking the customer in to the store and certain preferred devices than about preventing illegal file sharing.

Absolutely. And the vicious circle starts, because with enough customers tied in, it is strongly in the interest of the proponents of DRMs to keep them in place, and the "real" issue of copyrights becomes a cover. So even if they prove to be more of hassle than anything else, it will be difficult to change the statu quo. DRMs were a dreadful idea and I really worry we're stuck with them for ages to come.

[Lemurion]

I'm a writer; every dollar I make comes from writing, so I have a vested interest in getting paid for my work.

Over the couple of years or so, my opinion on DRM has slowly started to soften; moving from rabid hatred to intense dislike, with a grudging acceptance that there are 'political' factors that sometimes necessitate its use. The only 'valid' reason for the use of DRM is as a tool to convince people who don't understand its wholly parasitic nature to release content for sale in electronic formats.

There is no evidence that DRM has ever prevented piracy, and if the outcry over Spore is any sign there is plenty of evidence that it has hurt sales. It's even spawned a lawsuit over the use of SecuROM DRM.

All DRM works by artificially limiting the consumer's use of the product. This is by design. So-called 'good' DRM is that which has a minimal impact on normal use, while in theory preventing use either by unauthorized persons or in ways the rights-holder does not allow. A classic example of this is the travesty of PDF files that one isn't allowed to print. It's a printing format, so removing that right removes most of its value.

Systems like iTunes and the Kindle DRM work because as long as you work with authorized devices you don't see the restrictions. As soon as you try to work outside the prescribed ecosystems you start seeing the issues.

Another problem lies in the nature of server-based authentication systems: as recent events have shown, once the servers go offline you lose most of the rights you've paid for. At least with ereader the worst situation you are going to be in is that of someone with a huge collection of eight-track tapes. You may have to struggle to find a device that can read them, but once you do you will be able to play them.

It's not going to be that way with mobi: once the servers go down for the last time the party will be over. No more new devices from that time forward.

DRM is not a good idea, and it doesn't prevent piracy. iTunes would have had the same success (if the labels had let them have access to content - see my point above) if it had started with DRM-free content. It's the cool factor of the iPod combined with the convenience of the iTunes store that made it a success. The only benefit DRM provided was 'political.'

Having said all that, there is one way in which DRM does appear to spur sales: by forcing people to re-buy the same content in order to access it on a new device that would have been able to access it but for the artificial limitations imposed by DRM.

As people moved from LPs to CDs with forays into first 8-Tracks and then cassettes, they often ended up buying the same music several times. I know I've bought REO Speedwagon's Hi-Infidelity on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I can't blame the content companies from becoming enamored of the idea of selling the same content repeatedly.

Unfortunately, this isn't the same situation as the music industry faced then. You can't put an 8-track tape in a CD player. It will not and cannot work. There was also the fact that in many cases the new formats brought other advantages as well. The 8-track really gave us the car stereo, and CDs brought their own advantages.

Now consider someone who moves from a Kindle to a Cybook Gen3, or vice versa. If they have any DRM-restricted ebooks they have to buy them again because you can't read secure mobipocket on a Kindle (at least not officially) and you can't read Kindle editions on a Cybook, even though they're essentially the same format!

It's this kind of artificial restriction that really fuels my anger about DRM. It's all about vendor lock-in and has nothing to do with preventing piracy. If piracy were the only concern Amazon could have just used mobi on the Kindle and avoided this artificial divide.

All DRM does is hurt those people who are willing to pay for content.

[junkml]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

I'm not convinced that all DRM is bad. If I were a writer (which I would never be because I hate writing), I'd want to make sure I was paid for my work. I like the idea of it being tied to the person not the device and I think Audible comes close to that (encryption tied to my name but I can move it around to various devices without too much trouble).

The problem I have with DRM and the argument of "authors should be paid" (and I agree that they should be paid!) is that it seems to spring from the assumption that all of their potential customers are thieves and can't be trusted. It seems to me that the majority of people who are into e-books don't have a problem with paying the author. Starting off by assuming they can't be trusted, so we must have DRM seems like starting off on the wrong foot.

Plus, for the "true" pirates (those that pirate for commercial gain), no DRM will ever stop them. As long as anything has to be made audible or visible to a human, DRM can always be circumvented.

For the rest of us, it's at best an inconvenience.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'm a writer; every dollar I make comes from writing, so I have a vested interest in getting paid for my work.

Over the couple of years or so, my opinion on DRM has slowly started to soften; moving from rabid hatred to intense dislike, with a grudging acceptance that there are 'political' factors that sometimes necessitate its use. The only 'valid' reason for the use of DRM is as a tool to convince people who don't understand its wholly parasitic nature to release content for sale in electronic formats.

There is no evidence that DRM has ever prevented piracy, and if the outcry over Spore is any sign there is plenty of evidence that it has hurt sales. It's even spawned a lawsuit over the use of SecuROM DRM.

All DRM works by artificially limiting the consumer's use of the product. This is by design. So-called 'good' DRM is that which has a minimal impact on normal use, while in theory preventing use either by unauthorized persons or in ways the rights-holder does not allow. A classic example of this is the travesty of PDF files that one isn't allowed to print. It's a printing format, so removing that right removes most of its value.

Systems like iTunes and the Kindle DRM work because as long as you work with authorized devices you don't see the restrictions. As soon as you try to work outside the prescribed ecosystems you start seeing the issues.

Another problem lies in the nature of server-based authentication systems: as recent events have shown, once the servers go offline you lose most of the rights you've paid for. At least with ereader the worst situation you are going to be in is that of someone with a huge collection of eight-track tapes. You may have to struggle to find a device that can read them, but once you do you will be able to play them.

It's not going to be that way with mobi: once the servers go down for the last time the party will be over. No more new devices from that time forward.

DRM is not a good idea, and it doesn't prevent piracy. iTunes would have had the same success (if the labels had let them have access to content - see my point above) if it had started with DRM-free content. It's the cool factor of the iPod combined with the convenience of the iTunes store that made it a success. The only benefit DRM provided was 'political.'

Having said all that, there is one way in which DRM does appear to spur sales: by forcing people to re-buy the same content in order to access it on a new device that would have been able to access it but for the artificial limitations imposed by DRM.

As people moved from LPs to CDs with forays into first 8-Tracks and then cassettes, they often ended up buying the same music several times. I know I've bought REO Speedwagon's Hi-Infidelity on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I can't blame the content companies from becoming enamored of the idea of selling the same content repeatedly.

Unfortunately, this isn't the same situation as the music industry faced then. You can't put an 8-track tape in a CD player. It will not and cannot work. There was also the fact that in many cases the new formats brought other advantages as well. The 8-track really gave us the car stereo, and CDs brought their own advantages.

Now consider someone who moves from a Kindle to a Cybook Gen3, or vice versa. If they have any DRM-restricted ebooks they have to buy them again because you can't read secure mobipocket on a Kindle (at least not officially) and you can't read Kindle editions on a Cybook, even though they're essentially the same format!

It's this kind of artificial restriction that really fuels my anger about DRM. It's all about vendor lock-in and has nothing to do with preventing piracy. If piracy were the only concern Amazon could have just used mobi on the Kindle and avoided this artificial divide.

All DRM does is hurt those people who are willing to pay for content.

Lemurion,

Thanks a lot for your input. Some of your examples made the issue clearer to me, especially the forced repurchase of music in various formats.

I'm not a big re-reader so DRM on eBooks doesn't affect me very much (I won't re-listen to most of the 100's of audiobooks I've purchased either). However, I too have music in various formats.

I'm reading through some Wikipedia articles on DRM now and may come back with more questions or comments.

Thanks again.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

Lemurion,

Thanks a lot for your input. Some of your examples made the issue clearer to me, especially the forced repurchase of music in various formats.

I'm not a big re-reader so DRM on eBooks doesn't affect me very much (I won't re-listen to most of the 100's of audiobooks I've purchased either). However, I too have music in various formats.

I'm reading through some Wikipedia articles on DRM now and may come back with more questions or comments.

Thanks again.

I'm no longer a big re-reader either, but it's not just re-readers who lose in that situation. In the last month I've bought 25 books from Fictionwise and 5 more from Books On Board, and I don't think those numbers are in any way unusual. So far I've read about six of them. Now of those thirty or so books, I would say no more than ten or twelve are multi-format; which leaves something close to twenty books that are in secure formats.

Currently I primarily read on my Palm, but I'm planning to get a Sony Reader as soon as I can scrape up the spare cash. Whenever I buy one I can guarantee you that I will have secure format ebooks in my 'to-read' pile, that will not be compatible with the Sony.

There you go: vendor lock-in in action; and not just for people who reread.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

DRM does nothing to ensure writers get paid.

DRM does not stop copying of digital music, audio books or ebooks by those who are unwilling to pay. It just inconveniences the people who have paid.

The people who will pirate the DRMed material will do so without the DRm. So the DRM is only really hurting the people trying to be legal.

[bill_mchale]

Ultimately, I think DRM is an example of corporations trying to erode our freedoms in order to pad their bottom line. Ultimately copyright laws are increasingly drifting away from their original purpose (i.e. to encourage the creation of original works and placing them in the public domain by ensuring a limited term monopoly on said works). I think it is time we voted against such actions at the ballot box and at ebook store.

--
Bill

[JSWolf]

There is another problem besides DRM and it's in some ways worse then DRM. It's exclusivity. Amazon is the best one for that and unless you own a Kindle, you cannot get anything Amazon has that nobody else does. So you have to spend $360 (roughly) for a Kindle just to get access to a $10 (or so) eBook. Tor is giving Amazon exclusive rights to eBooks. This means that those of us who do not own a Kindle cannot read the rest of the series that we started because Tor gave away a lot of Book Ones. How does this help? it doesn't. What it does is take the larger group of people (non-Kindle eBook readers) and pisses them off so they won't buy Tor eBooks if they ever get released outside of Amazon. So basically, it's bad for business. It's bad for eBooks, it's worse then DRM.

Yes, I've seen Walmart & Target have exclusive CDs or versions on CD. That's ok. You can still go to Target or Walmart and get these or if you want, order online and get. You are not forced to buy some expensive device from either to be able to purchase these exclusive CDs. But Amazon forces you to get a Kindle to get their exclusive releases.

At least with DRM, I can read that book now. With exclusivity, chances are I'll not be one of the ones who can get it and that means I cannot read it. So yes, it's worse then DRM. It hurts sales, pisses off customers and denies consumers the choice to read what they want.

[Alisa]

I think the exclusives actually encourage piracy especially when the content is something like SciFi/Fantasy where much of the audience is tech-savvy and have strong opinions regarding DRM. Maybe the average reader of best-sellers or some other genres may look at Kindle exclusives as a reason to buy a Kindle over another reader, but I think you're less likely to get that reaction from this audience. I'm sure many will think it a fine excuse to upload and download those titles at will.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is another problem besides DRM and it's in some ways worse then DRM. It's exclusivity. Amazon is the best one for that and unless you own a Kindle, you cannot get anything Amazon has that nobody else does. So you have to spend $360 (roughly) for a Kindle just to get access to a $10 (or so) eBook. Tor is giving Amazon exclusive rights to eBooks. This means that those of us who do not own a Kindle cannot read the rest of the series that we started because Tor gave away a lot of Book Ones. How does this help? it doesn't. What it does is take the larger group of people (non-Kindle eBook readers) and pisses them off so they won't buy Tor eBooks if they ever get released outside of Amazon. So basically, it's bad for business. It's bad for eBooks, it's worse then DRM.

Yes, I've seen Walmart & Target have exclusive CDs or versions on CD. That's ok. You can still go to Target or Walmart and get these or if you want, order online and get. You are not forced to buy some expensive device from either to be able to purchase these exclusive CDs. But Amazon forces you to get a Kindle to get their exclusive releases.

At least with DRM, I can read that book now. With exclusivity, chances are I'll not be one of the ones who can get it and that means I cannot read it. So yes, it's worse then DRM. It hurts sales, pisses off customers and denies consumers the choice to read what they want.

Also those Walmart and Target exclusives aren't the same as Amazon's. Take the Iron Man DVD that was released last month. Both Walmart and Target have their own exclusive versions, but if someone just wants the movie (without the exclusive extras) they can get it anywhere.

That's a big difference from Kindle or nothing.

I agree that it's a huge problem, however I don't know that I would separate it from DRM. The artificial distinction between Amazon's Kindle and mobi DRM is a clear statement that maintaining this kind of vendor lock-in and forced exclusivity is the whole purpose of DRM.

Get rid of DRM and this kind of exclusionary tactic becomes much less viable.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is another problem besides DRM and it's in some ways worse then DRM. It's exclusivity. Amazon is the best one for that and unless you own a Kindle, you cannot get anything Amazon has that nobody else does. So you have to spend $360 (roughly) for a Kindle just to get access to a $10 (or so) eBook. Tor is giving Amazon exclusive rights to eBooks. This means that those of us who do not own a Kindle cannot read the rest of the series that we started because Tor gave away a lot of Book Ones. How does this help? it doesn't. What it does is take the larger group of people (non-Kindle eBook readers) and pisses them off so they won't buy Tor eBooks if they ever get released outside of Amazon. So basically, it's bad for business. It's bad for eBooks, it's worse then DRM.

Yes, I've seen Walmart & Target have exclusive CDs or versions on CD. That's ok. You can still go to Target or Walmart and get these or if you want, order online and get. You are not forced to buy some expensive device from either to be able to purchase these exclusive CDs. But Amazon forces you to get a Kindle to get their exclusive releases.

At least with DRM, I can read that book now. With exclusivity, chances are I'll not be one of the ones who can get it and that means I cannot read it. So yes, it's worse then DRM. It hurts sales, pisses off customers and denies consumers the choice to read what they want.

The exclusivity and the DRM go together. Without DRM, there is no practical way that a vendor can force you to read the book on their platform. If I buy a non-DRM'd book in most formats, it is relatively easy to convert it to another format. Even if there is only a single reader that supports the format, it almost certainly can and will be reversed engineered by the same sorts of people who gave us Stanza and FBreader and ultimately will at least be readable on a computer.

--
Bill

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

The exclusivity and the DRM go together.

Yes and no. If an ebook is exclusive with Kindle, even if they didn't have DRM on the Kindle ebooks, they don't let you buy a Kindle ebook unless you own a Kindle. I expect they do that to get around the fact that they are selling eBooks cheaper than mobipocket.com sells them and there is some type of agreement that Mobipocket will not discount books so that mobi resellers have a value add.

Of course, Kindles exclusives are only for a short time so I'm not sure what everyone is all up in arms about it. I've seen "Blockbuster" exclusive DVD rentals and also exclusive stuff. Of course, anyone can go to Blockbuster so I guess it is a bit different.

BOb