Arguments For And Against DRM

[leaston]

In a number of ways, this is the same debate I was reading about back in the days of people copying cassette tapes of Spectrum and C64 games. Copy protection vs none and what effect pirating has on sales. Nothing has changed really, has it?

I still haven't seen any definitive evidence to prove that piracy truly hurts sales. The old argument seems to be exactly the same now as it was all those years ago...someone has an illegal copy of 'something'; is that a lost sale or would they never have made the purchase anyway? Does copy protection (DRM) work? Is it a deterrent?

What's my point? None really, I just find it fascinating that 30yrs on the discussion is almost exactly the same.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

If I leave my Kindle on a bus, that's unfortunate. I would hope I'd get it back. I would hope that the books on it didn't get uploaded to the internet. I shouldn't be in breach of some duty to protect the intellectual property rights of the publishers and authors of those books.

If my carelessness results in a loss to someone, I'm struggling to understand how I could be considered not to be responsible for that loss. The fact that I didn't do it maliciously, in no way changes the outcome of the event.

You seem to be arguing that you don't want the source of pirated books to be trackable, for fear of being held accountable for your actions?

[disconnected]

I'm afraid I'm getting into tinfoil hat territory here but I think it would feel somehow creepy to have these unseen identifiers in my books.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If my carelessness results in a loss to someone, I'm struggling to understand how I could be considered not to be responsible for that loss. The fact that I didn't do it maliciously, in no way changes the outcome of the event.

Lets say I lose a penknife (pick anything that could be used as a weapon) that is then used to hurt someone. Am I responsible for that 'outcome' of my 'carelessness'?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by leaston

Lets say I lose a penknife (pick anything that could be used as a weapon) that is then used to hurt someone. Am I responsible for that 'outcome' of my 'carelessness'?

You decide. What do you think?

This is all a "straw man" argument, though. We all know that the overwhelming majority - probably so close to 100% that the difference isn't worth noticing - of pirated books are uploaded deliberately and knowingly. Posing hypothetical "oh but what if I lose my reader!" counter-arguments is just a poor attempt to distract from the real point, which is that it would unquestionably act as a very large deterrent to book uploaders if they knew that their uploads could be traced back to them.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If my carelessness results in a loss to someone, I'm struggling to understand how I could be considered not to be responsible for that loss. The fact that I didn't do it maliciously, in no way changes the outcome of the event.

You seem to be arguing that you don't want the source of pirated books to be trackable, for fear of being held accountable for your actions?

Accountable for what, exactly? You should not be criminally accountable for someone else choosing to commit a crime. You're the one who likes the door-locking analogy, flawed though it is: do you think the police should be charging and prosecuting people who didn't use the latest, greatest, and most expensive door locks?

I leave a paper book lying around the house, and a flatmate takes photocopies of it, scans them, and distributes them. Should I be criminally liable for that, too? How about if my old vinyl records are stolen from the garage, digitised, and distributed? The criminal is the person who commits the crime.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

Accountable for what, exactly? You should not be criminally accountable for someone else choosing to commit a crime. You're the one who likes the door-locking analogy, flawed though it is: do you think the police should be charging and prosecuting people who didn't use the latest, greatest, and most expensive door locks?

I leave a paper book lying around the house, and a flatmate takes photocopies of it, scans them, and distributes them. Should I be criminally liable for that, too? How about if my old vinyl records are stolen from the garage, digitised, and distributed? The criminal is the person who commits the crime.

No, you shouldn't be "criminally liable". Copyright infringement is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a civil, not a criminal matter, and the police don't involve themselves in it. I certainly haven't heard anyone suggest that it should be a criminal offence. But if a rights-holder can show that you have failed to take precautions that a reasonable person would consider to be sensible, a court might well award damages on that basis. Clearly that does NOT include someone breaking into your house and stealing things.

[meeera]

We've barely scratched the surface with cloud services, digital goods, and watermarking. No-one can predict for certain how things are going to go in the future, and what methods large-scale copyright infringers will use. I suggest that it is reasonable to think that if watermarking becomes the way of the future, and is difficult to detect and strip reliably: distributing infringers will no longer purchase their own books & strip & distribute, but will seek other sources (i.e. books purchased by other people). These people are pretty committed to 'freeing' works.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, you shouldn't be "criminally liable". Copyright infringement is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a civil, not a criminal matter, and the police don't involve themselves in it. I certainly haven't heard anyone suggest that it should be a criminal offence.

When you're talking about distribution? There are criminal provisions for copyright infringement in my country, and in the USA, and I don't know which other countries. Criminal convictions can and have occurred here. Penalties include fines, community service, and custodial sentences.

The UK included, apparently.

http://www.worldipreview.com/news/uk...right-offences

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

When you're talking about distribution? There are criminal provisions for copyright infringement in my country, and in the USA, and I don't know which other countries. Criminal convictions can and have occurred here. Penalties include fines, community service, and custodial sentences.

The UK included, apparently.

http://www.worldipreview.com/news/uk...right-offences

True, but I don't see the relevance of this to the present discussion. Are you seriously saying that you consider the ability to trace a pirated book back to its purchaser to be a bad thing?

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You decide. What do you think?

Nope. It was you who made the argument that carelessness in losing something that subsequently lead to someone else breaking the law is the loser's responsibility.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But if a rights-holder can show that you have failed to take precautions that a reasonable person would consider to be sensible, a court might well award damages on that basis. Clearly that does NOT include someone breaking into your house and stealing things.

But, you're the one who said it's the person who loses an item who is responsible for any subsequent illegal copying and distribution. I don't understand how you can have your cake and eat it here. So, you're saying a genuine loss of something is the same as it being stolen in the sense that it's your fault?? I really am baffled. You can take all the precautions you like, but things still get lost. It's hardly a reason to punish someone for the finder's actions. Perhaps the onus should therefore be on the ebook reader manufacturers to ensure their devices are encrypted? Or provide us with locking briefcases with handcuffs to ensure we never lose an ebook. I really do think this argument is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by HarryT

which is that it would unquestionably act as a very large deterrent to book uploaders if they knew that their uploads could be traced back to them.

I disagree. There hasn't been a copy protection method invented that deters those who wish to copy and distribute. Most of them are circumvented or broken at some point anyway. This has been the argument for as long as I can remember. There is no deterrent. Piracy of games, books, music, movies etc. has been ongoing for many years and every so often a new DRM or protection method is released that will forever prevent or deter piracy. And yet, we're still here discussing said piracy and distribution. The deterrent simply doesn't work.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Note, in the following I am not making a case one way or the other regarding the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement or promoting or not DRM.



The correct comparison with copyright infringement is that you made a copy of the Rolls-Royce, not stole ("converted" in some jurisdictions) one. If you stole one your argument would be with the owner of the vehicle and the law enforcement, if you made a copy of one any argument would be with Rolls-Royce. To take a Rolls-Royce is theft, to make a copy of one is not theft.

As I alluded to before, the application of the term "theft" for copyright infringement is an emotionally charged one and is used mostly by those with some personal axe to grind and by exaggeration seeking sympathy for their case. In my view, by making such erroneous comparisons, they weaken their case.

John

John:

I'm well aware of the argument and position. The early laws for "copywrite" and "copyright" sought to add protections for the type of intangible property that is IP. The earliest laws, et al, are discussed ad nauseam on this forum; they can be looked up by anyone, so I shan't repeat them here.

Had the early lawmakers known that by calling it "copyright infringement" instead of outright "theft" would have created this loopholing, pedantic argument about how "copyright isn't really theft," I think that they would have been even more specific in their wording. The whole intent was to provide an additional layer of protection for those persons who created and shared intellectual ideas called ART. Not to diminish the theft--emotionally charged word or otherwise--of it. Not to create some lesser, second-class form of protection that is in place today. And, certainly, they could never have realistically foreseen the day when making digital copies would be a push-button operation.

It can be called piracy (which to my mind glorifies it), "borrowing," "copyright infringement," etc., but your tweaking of the analogy while not completely incorrect, is misleading. If you make a "copy" of the Rolls, then Rolls Royce is a) out the sale and b) if the copy is perfect enough, the counterfeit Rolls could enter the marketplace. If you think that RR wouldn't pursue that like a cat after Savory Salmon, you're wrong. Of COURSE they would.

(And...if the legal owner of the Rolls deliberately gave you the original to copy, knowing you'd strip it down, emulate the parts, use this and that to make the molds, etc., is he guilt-free of the now-conspiracy to dilute the value of RR, by making counterfeits available? You think that wouldn't be pursued as a theft of IP? You betcha. For the exact same reasons that an author does. The only difference is who is involved and for how much.)

Forgive me, but the whole, "let's defuse this situation by using the 'correct' legal term for it, 'copyright infringement,' instead of this emotionally-charged word, THIEF," is a form of deflection. That mayn't be your intent; perhaps you are, like I frequently am myself, simply being extremely correct in wanting everyone to understand the correct legal niceties and differences.

Let's analyze real-world cases: What's the difference between me/my company and an author, when the author's work is stolentaken?

At my company,

• I paid employees and paid overhead on each and worked hours myself on all of the book(s) that was/were done by my company, that weren't paid for.
• Did someone break into my office, hold me at gunpoint, and steal actual, real, money from my petty cash drawer?
• NO: they unlawfully took (stole) a copy of a file that I had on my computer, to which they were not legally entitled.
• How is that different from a casual thief, who takes a book from a friend, to which they are not entitled?
• The author and publisher--let's use BearMountain, simply because s/he is here, has paid time and sweat, and perhaps monies, into the work itself, copyediting, proofreading, cover design, layout, printing...or for eBooks, formatting, just as I paid my employees, in my situation, above.
• When a "pirate" steals a file that Amazon has on its computer, or BearMountainBooks has on his/hers, that's the SAME thing.
• I can't file a report of "theft" for the books that were stolen from me.
• Nor can BearMountainBooks file a report of "theft" for the books taken from him/her, by those who give them to their friends.
• And if those gifts bear fruit and multiply, onto the Darknet, she can't do a damn thing about that, either, without taking the miscreant to civil court.
• In both instances, I have to file a contract dispute; while
• s/he has to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

I don't know ANYONE who thinks--or perhaps they just won't say it to my face--that I am not entitled to be paid for the books we produced for those THIEVES. Contract-breakers. Whatever polite, not-emotionally-charged phrase you want to use. But many of those same folks will make the same arguments about "piracy;" well, nobody is hurt. I still don't see how those two scenarios are different--I have spent money and time, and created eBooks. So has a Publisher. When I get ripped off, the general consensus seems to be I should be able to get MY MONEY.

If that's true..then why is a publisher less entitled? What, EXACTLY, are the real, practical differences between what's happened to me, in my business (thankfully, in the past) and what happens to authors now? And yes, I know that legally, it's "copyright infringement," but I find it offensive to use such a deflecting phrase to describe what, in my opinion, can really hurt authors like the client I mentioned in the last post. (OH, and BTW, all you publicity folks: ask, go ahead and ask, just how much "free publicity" and increased sales he got from that walloping bunch of piracy. Go ahead. I dare you. Suffice it to say, we could count the "big increased sales" on ALL of his digits and toes.)

And, yes: for some of us, the discussion of general public honesty is an emotionally-charged one. Maybe it's because unlike authors, I have a way to actually SEE and TRACK and quantify exactly how much I'm being ripped off for my digital work. Authors/Publishers--and the people who want to be able to use those products as they see fit--can easily ignore the numbers, because they are unknown.

However, given my own numbers--6% of our annual gross, when those people COULD be identified, and COULD be sued for contract breach, versus the creeps hiding in the shadows of the Darknet, who can't easily be identified, and thus have far, far less risk--and given the DWA's figures, y'all mightn't be so cozy with the idea that it's just "not that many."

I'm done. Nobody on this topic ever changes their mind, not until they've been hit in the pocketbook, too.

Hitch

[HarryT]

Very, very well said, Hitch.

Interesting to note, by the way, that the term "piracy" has been used to refer to unauthorised copying of literary works for well over 400 years. The term was coined by Thomas Dekker, in his best-selling 1603 blockbuster "The Wonderfull yeare: 1603, Wherein is shewed the picture of London, lying sicke of the Plague" (they went in for catchy titles back then), in which he says:

Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere. Or if they will needes be stealing your Heliconian Nectar, let them (like the dogs of Nylus,) onely lap and away. For this Goatish swarme are those (that where for these many thousand yeares you went for pure maides) haue taken away your good names, these are they that deflowre your beauties. These are those ranck-riders of Art, that haue so spur-gald your lustie wingd Pegasus, that now he begins to be out of flesh, and (euen only for prouander-sake) is glad to shew tricks like Bancks his Curtall.

http://www.luminarium.org/renascence...ons/yeare.html

Words to ponder indeed!

[Nabodita]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn. There have been a lot of arguments about loss of sales, not just due to piracy (or thievery, according to some... which I'm not saying I disagree with... just maybe not so self righteously) but due to the ripple effect of *casual* sharing with friends and family. This particular debate cannot have a conclusion... not because there are people on both sides who feel equally strongly about the matter but because there are no hard facts and figures on either side of the argument. Can we just agree to differ and leave it there?

I'd like to summarize what I understand of the arguments against and in favour of DRM based on different opinions expressed here. I'll try and stiick to points grounded in reality and not based on an ideal scenario.

The Question: Should I encourage or discourage my clients (publishers) from using DRM?

Arguments against DRM

1. Annoys the paying customer.

2. All present methods of encryption have been already been cracked. Anyone who knows how to Google can strip DRM from their ebooks.

3. Sharing books amounts to word of mouth recommendations, widely acknowledged as the best form of publicity.

Arguments in favour of DRM

1. The cost of implementing DRM is usually less than additional revenue earned.

2. DRM reminds the buyer that its not OK to freely distribute copies of ebooks they've purchased.

3. Losses due to piracy outweighs the so-called benefits of publicity. (Hitch has been able to quantify this; interested in how this was done...)

That's pretty much it so far. Can anyone think of any other reason?

[pdurrant]

The first argument in favour of DRM you list is (to say the least) disputed. I don't think adding DRM (of the current encryption kind) to a book leads to any additional revenue.