Arguments For And Against DRM

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

With all due respect to authors and their right to be paid for their work, I believe the practice of "casually sharing books" to be far too ingrained in our reading culture/history for there to be any hope of a renaissance simply because of a medium shift from physical to digital.

Any publisher or author who truly believes their ultimate success/failure hinges on changing that cultural mindset (or on educating the masses on the differences between handing a book to someone and copying a file for them) should probably consider not producing ebooks at all. I don't say that to be mean, I just honestly believe it.

We have always shared our favorite stories/authors with those close to us, and we will very likely always want/try to continue to do so. Whether via paper or electrons. I've tried really hard, but I just can't view it as a "bad" thing.

I don't disagree. The habit is there. It will happen. But the original topic was (somewhere long ago) to point out pros and cons. And the pro for me is that DRM does often stop casual sharing.

I've tried pretty hard too, but I have not been able to view it is a good thing for me.

I see both sides of this coin, because I am a reader. I have a friend who so rarely has funds to buy books that she gets 99 percent of her books from the library. There are times I'd really love for her to join us in a buddy or book club read, but unless I buy her the book, she can't afford the book. Because they are indie books, they aren't in libraries very often. They aren't always lendable either. So I do know that urge. I just happen to believe that for me, the only way to "share" is to buy a gift copy. Even if I knew she would become a "future" buyer of all the other books, it would never work for me to just make that copy and share it.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you have a Kindle and it gets stolen. You have eBooks on there with a watermark and they get copied off and released on the net. You get them traced back to you and you get sued and have to pay the damages. Do you think that's fair? This is not carelessness on your part and it's not fair that you'd get in trouble for something someone else did.

That's why I think watermarking won't have a lot of impact. If a watermarked book makes it to a pirate site, things might not be so clear in an actual court. What exactly did the plaintiff do? Anyone who lost a Kindle could claim that someone must have copied the books from it. Or may be someone hacked their computer: are people legally required to password-protect their computers? It might be difficult to actually prove anything. Does anyone really want to take someone's great-aunt to court because a watermarked book she purchased wound up on a pirate site? It might be bad PR, and the great-aunt's probably going to win. Plus, it's unlikely she even heard of watermarking. If people aren't aware of DRM, how aware are they going to be of watermarking?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

There is a big difference.

I don't see it.

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

I'n you case anyone could get in. In the second case, i've just paid for something.
Do they believe people buy e-book to distribute them on the internet ???

Yes. There are plenty of examples.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

Good point. And its a better argument than "piracy costs billions a year" because you just can't quantify something something like that. Following your line of thinking, I actually can't think of a reason why a publisher shouldn't employ DRM.

The only reason to not use it is because it costs more than it returns. Either directly, paying licensing fees to Adobe or whomever, or in lost sales from unhappy customers. And it is my believe that the publishers (who survive) will eventually realize that's exactly what is happening, in fact, as recording studios did with MP3s. But it may take a while. Some publishers apparently got a double helping of stupid.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is there any hard evidence that DRM reduces piracy AT ALL?

There doesn't need to be. There's plenty of evidence that publishers believe it does. And they are obligated to run their companies based on what they honestly believe.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Certainly any large-scale piracy is not thwarted whatsoever. And any average reader who knows how to Google can learn how to remove DRM in a few minutes. The vast majority of readers probably are barely aware of DRM, since they're not trying to do anything that would require circumventing it.

What is accomplished by using DRM may or may not be related to what the intent is. I was speaking to the intent, not the actual effect. The claim was made that DRM is useless unless it is 100% effective. That is not a supportable argument.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Just for the sake of good order; the infringing of copyright is not "theft" as some here are stating (at least in the USA, where it has been tested, and in my own country, and I suspect many other places too).

Arguing about what word to use to describe it distracts from the fact that it is illegal, regardless of what it's called.

And while "theft" is incorrect in a technical, legal sense, it works just fine for casual conversation.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I do think the "casual" sharer is more dangerous than most people comprehend. I even had a relative "share" a file with a friend. Obviously a discussion ensued. The relative never thought a thing of it--certainly didn't think of it harming my income. It's ignorance and lack of forethought that is the biggest danger.

Most people do not distinguish, in their minds, between paper books and ebooks. They think of them in the same terms, and expect the same things from them. They share ebooks because they share paper books. When you're done with the latest detective novel, you pass it on to a buddy who likes them, but can't afford to buy them. That ebooks are fundamentally different from paper books in that regard is not all that obvious to the average person who isn't think about it.

And for those who do, they note that they pay the same price for both, and thus, expect the same abilities from both. A lot of people feel that if they aren't getting a steep discount, there's no reason they shouldn't treat it exactly the same.

I offer no opinion on the right or wrong of any of this. Ebooks are too new for the world to have figured all this out yet. But the lack of recognition of the differences is very real.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by taustin

Arguing about what word to use to describe it distracts from the fact that it is illegal, regardless of what it's called.

And while "theft" is incorrect in a technical, legal sense, it works just fine for casual conversation.

So, the difference between buying and licensing is important in casual conversation, but not in advertising? And the difference between theft and infringement is important in law, but not in casual conversation?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

There's a huge difference between a store locking its doors and DRM on eBooks.

I'm still not seeing it. If they didn't believe that their customers would steal from them if given the opportunity, there would be no need to spend money on locks.

Originally Posted by rcentros

A store can go out of business and I still own and can use whatever item I bought from them. If a DRM bookstore goes out of business and my DRM capable device dies (depending on the DRM scheme of course) the DRM encrypted book I bought can now become worthless.

Completely different issue. And regardless of what word Amazon (or whoever) might use in their TOS, you do not buy the ebook, you lease it. If you lease a car, and the leasing company goes out of business, the bankruptcy court will repossess the car (unless some other arrangement is made to the court's satisfaction, not unlike one bookseller buying out another when it goes out of business).

Originally Posted by rcentros

They say, locks "keep honest people honest," but I don't buy it. Honest people don't have to be "kept honest."

You obviously have little experience with people in the real world. It's not a binary equation. It isn't a matter of "this person will steal if given any opportunity" or "this person will never steal, no matter what." It's a continuous spectrum. The easier it is to steal, and the more valuable the goods, the more likely "honest people" are to take a walk on the wild side. Temptation is a fundamental part of human nature.

Originally Posted by rcentros

I say that the vast majority of eBook readers are honest and that the DRM "locks" are almost completely worthless in stopping piracy. They are very useful in being a pain in the butt, however.

How effective DRM is isn't really related to why it's used. Publishers believe it brings in more additional business that it costs, for reasons that are, I believe, incorrect, but not so obviously so as to be stupid to believe them.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

So, the difference between buying and licensing is important in casual conversation, but not in advertising? And the difference between theft and infringement is important in law, but not in casual conversation?

Depends on what, exactly, is being discussed. By and large, yeah, pretty much.

The discussion gets derailed before it even starts by the fact that very few people understand that when they "buy" an ebook, what they are buying is a lease.

There are fundamental differences between ebooks and paper books, and very few people understand that those differences exist, much less what they are. And once you've gotten off that wrongly, all else is just gas anyway.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course, but that's a totally different scenario. You're not creating an additional copy of the book in the process: that's the fundamental difference with ebooks. When you give someone else a copy, you still have it yourself. Two people have copies of the book, where previously only one did.

You have a point there, but the likelihood that I'm going to re-read the same book I just read is pretty slim. So, in practice, it's not much different.

That said, I'm not really in favor of copying eBooks. I would, however, like to be able give them away to someone else or donate them to the library.

My used NST w/Glowlight that I just bought had about 120 books on it -- some pretty big titles. And, unlike most used eReaders I buy, I was actually interested some of them (weren't all romance, as is normally the case). But, after giving in to temptation to read a couple short novellas by Stephen King ... and one promotional short book for another series (which was probably a giveaway), I made the conscious decision to reset the reader and not do any more "exploring." (I feel bad for reading the ones I did read.)

One more thing and then I'll to stay out of this thread. The main thing I don't like about DRM is that it stigmatizes with untrustworthiness (if that's a word). My opinion is that it is better to go after the pirates than to treat every customer as a potential pirate. It's kind of a "trust issue" to me. But then I'm old enough to remember when loans and deals were concluded with the shaking of hands.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by taustin

You obviously have little experience with people in the real world. It's not a binary equation. It isn't a matter of "this person will steal if given any opportunity" or "this person will never steal, no matter what." It's a continuous spectrum. The easier it is to steal, and the more valuable the goods, the more likely "honest people" are to take a walk on the wild side. Temptation is a fundamental part of human nature.

Yeah, at 58 years old I know nothing about the "real world." But I do know what words mean. If someone is honest, he doesn't have to be "kept honest." If he has to be "kept honest" he never was honest in the first place. Point, blank, period.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by taustin

The discussion gets derailed before it even starts by the fact that very few people understand that when they "buy" an ebook, what they are buying is a lease.

Then the publishers, who insist on DRM, need to insure that, when you buy a book at B&N or Amazon, or wherever you buy it, you get a button that says "Rent it Now," or "Lease it Now" instead of "Buy it Now." Because most book buyers don't speak or think in "lawyer-ize." And guess what. If publishers were honest it upfront about it, a lot of buyers might not "pull the trigger." Time for full disclosure. And, by the way, some Kindle books can be rented as opposed to bought ... err ... "leased?" What's that all about?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

If the watermarking is in the markup, it could be easily stripped basically the same way the HP books got out there: OCR. This is why companies are looking into the very dodgy practice of covertly individualising the actual text of the book as a crypto-watermark.

I'm not talking about the scanned HP eBooks, but the official for sale HP eBooks. Those had the watermarking removed.

As for crypto-watermarking, I think once it;s found out that that's what's going on, I think that would cause a very big riot (so to speak).

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Then the publishers, who insist on DRM, need to insure that, when you buy a book at B&N or Amazon, or wherever you buy it, you get a button that says "Rent it Now," or "Lease it Now" instead of "Buy it Now." Because most book buyers don't speak or think in "lawyer-ize." And guess what. If publishers were honest it upfront about it, a lot of buyers might not "pull the trigger." Time for full disclosure. And, by the way, some Kindle books can be rented as opposed to bought ... err ... "leased?" What's that all about?

When it comes to DRM and not-theft-but-just-as-bad (NTBJAB, my new acronym for "copyright infringement,") we needn't all go bonkers here. I have NO issue with Suzie or Fred lending an ebook to their (insert whatever here). If it were trackable, I probably wouldn't even care if it was more than a single lend, as the average person/reader probably doesn't lend PBooks more than a single time--perhaps, say, 3x. If they're like me, they lent and never got BACK quite a few (speaking of honesty...).

But we all know that's just not the real issue. Folks on Amazon can lend their books; hell, Amazon has a big old "lend your copy" button, somewhere, on the webpage, to make it simple, IIRC. The issue is many-faced: you can "lend" copies of non-DRM'ed books whilst not losing your own use of your copy; and you can "lend" (give) copies to others who will in turn, lend them again, like ripples in a pond. Some of those ripples might not be Auntie Suzie or Uncle Fred or some equally mostly-honest person. That third party might be scum. And could be someone that, had you been asked, you'd never have agreed to "lend to" in the first place (as you mightn't with a PBook, either). I mean, I have a very good friend of whom I'm genuinely fond...but she breaks spines. (of books, of course). I can't bear to lend her my books. it drives me nuts to get them back broken. Yes, this part is OT, but you get my drift.

I would have ZERO problem with a scheme that would allow legal and understandable and not-too-prohibitive "lending." I normally have a book open on about 3-4 devices at once (my KFire, my PPW, my iPad [intermittently, usually if the others are charging] and my HTC1 smartphone in K4Droid). I could, if I wished to, lend out a device. OR, lend a book via the Amazon program, albeit, once lent, I'd have to wait to revisit the book, until it was returned (like a PBook, mind you).

I do--I genuinely do--understand the desire to have real control over the content, so that an expired company can't take your library with them. I have NO issues with that very legitimate reason for loathing DRM.

But I do wish that some form of watermarking and viable tracking were in place, so this endlessly stupid and vitriolic and hyperbolic discussion of how "DRM is EVIL!!!" and how corporations are screwing people, etc., could END. Or that piracy doesn't hurt anyone. (Anyone who didn't read Steve Eisenberg's attachments, in his post, should). The idea that everybody out there is some latent MR'er, angrily trying to get rid of DRM is just daft, as is the idea that everyone out there is some angel who would NEVER make off with a book. Neither is true. And if we could all, at least, agree on THAT, and that the retailers, publishers and authors have legitimate concerns, we could move a lot further forward in intelligent discussion.

Oh, AND: for those of us in the mostly-real world, it also has to be something that could survive being sold by retailers--because most authors will still have books going through Amazon, B&N, iBooks, Google, etc. So, it can't be something that would fail there, or be stripped. Not and have a viable chance of success. My $.02. You've all heard--or not--everything else I've had to say.

Hitch