Arguments For And Against DRM

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely. And, as you say, companies like Amazon do provide legitimate ways of sharing content between family members. If Aunt Mary is on your Amazon account, she can read all your books (and you can read hers).

But if some family members have Kobo and some have Kindles, then you cannot share between all family members and you have to strip/convert. I blame Amazon for not going ePub with the standard DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If the contract that you've entered into with the bookstore (ie their T&Cs) says, for example, that the content is licensed for your personal use only (and that, for example, is what Baen's says), then lending the content - on your reader - to another person probably constitutes a breach of contract.

But do the term & conditions count for anything when you never actually agreed to them? I've never actually agreed to any T&C from Amazon regarding eBooks. I've never been offered any sort of T&C page that I had to agree with from Amazon.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

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

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

Amazon used to sell eBooks before the Kindle. Amazon decided to stop selling eBooks and everyone was then unable to download what they bought. Some DRM back then was tied to the specific computer. So when the computer was changed, the eBook needed to be downloaded again. Also, Adobe changed the DRM for PDF and you needed to download the PDF again. Amazon pissed off a lot of people who needed to download some of their eBooks again in order to update the DRM. People tend to forget this atrocious thing Amazon did when opening the gate to the walled garden.

Apple and cohorts put a number of independent eBook stores out of business and if you need to download any of those eBooks in order to update the DRM, your screwed.

DRM might stop some from casual sharing, but all it takes is one time when you want to read an eBook you've paid for and cannot because of the DRM that you will curse DRM and try to see what you can do to bypass it or maybe even go out on the net to try to find that eBook for free. Once that happens and people find out how easy it is to get eBooks without paying, you've just converted your customer from paying to not-paying.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But do the term & conditions count for anything when you never actually agreed to them? I've never actually agreed to any T&C from Amazon regarding eBooks. I've never been offered any sort of T&C page that I had to agree with from Amazon.

Jon, dear lad:

(And, BTW: the bit about women today? Dear, dear. Didn't think that one through, did you?).

Of course you have. You bought a book? You accepted the T&C. You did so when you agreed to your device T&C, and your software (reader's) T&C, or when you signed up for Amazon, or for Prime. You may not remember, as it's been a while (you know how it is with older men and their memories, particularly about DETAIL stuff!!! ), but you did.



Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Jon, dear lad:

(And, BTW: the bit about women today? Dear, dear. Didn't think that one through, did you?).

Of course you have. You bought a book? You accepted the T&C. You did so when you agreed to your device T&C, and your software (reader's) T&C, or when you signed up for Amazon, or for Prime. You may not remember, as it's been a while (you know how it is with older men and their memories, particularly about DETAIL stuff!!! ), but you did.



Hitch

I've just had a look at Amazon's T&C for the first times. According to Amazon's T&C, most of us here have already violated the T&C.

1. Kindle Content

Use of Kindle Content. Upon your download of Kindle Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Kindle Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Supported Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Kindle Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider. The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Kindle Content. Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict. Some Kindle Content, such as Periodicals, may not be available to you through Reading Applications.

Bold is mine. What this means is that if we format shift, we've broken the T&C.

The UK now says that format shifting is legal, but Amazon says it's against their T&C. Who's right and who's wrong?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But if some family members have Kobo and some have Kindles, then you cannot share between all family members and you have to strip/convert. I blame Amazon for not going ePub with the standard DRM.

Yeah but ... but ... ePub didn't even exist when Amazon released their first Kindle. Mobi was more of a standard than ePub at the time, I believe. I know Sony didn't use ePub at the time and Kobo and Nook didn't exist.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yeah but ... but ... ePub didn't even exist when Amazon released their first Kindle. Mobi was more of a standard than ePub at the time, I believe. I know Sony didn't use ePub at the time and Kobo and Nook didn't exist.

If you want to go by age, then LRF/LRS is what we should all be reading now since that was the first format on a Sony Reader.

I think back then it was a toss-up between Mobi & MS Reader.

But Amazon did add KF8 AFTER ePub was already a standard for almost every other brand Reader but Amazon.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

DRM potentially inconveniences paying customers but does not stop piracy. So just what is the upside for authors and publishers?

As far as libraries go, that DRM doesn't stop piracy either.

Here's a question: If the same book were offered for sale with DRM a certain price, and without DRM for a slightly higher price, would you pay extra for the non-DRM book? I would pay a reasonable premium, just for the convenience.

Library DRM would go a lot further toward protecting ebooks if it wasn't the same DRM that "protects" purchases.

Apprentice Alf and friends are motivated to liberate purchases. If the only DRM was on library ebooks, they would not develop tools capable of removing it.

Library books would then be safe from being an entry point for piracy... at least until/unless the pirates do their own work on DeDRM tools. I doubt it will happen, it is much easier to find someone else's work on a widely-available location, bundled into easy-to-use plugins.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If watermarking became widespread, someone would write software that would make it trivial to remove. An e-book is essentially a glorified text file.

Maybe, I'm not so sure about that. But if so, it would be really difficult to publicize their work, so every pirate would have to write their own de-watermark tool. If the tool was published, say, on wordpress it would be really easy to have it taken down and prosecuted, versus the current tool which exists in a legal gray area and is arguably defensible.

Which is probably why no one has had it taken down -- it would really embarrass them if it was defended in court and won. No worries about winning against a de-watermarking tool.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And this is where I think good watermarking can help. Not the part of watermarking that's hidden but a nice big up-front 'Ex-Libris' page with a pretty graphic, details of the original purchasor, ebook store, perhaps even price paid, and an author's signature.

Remind people that the copy they've been given to read isn't really theirs - that it's effectively a loaned book.

I would actually LIKE to have well-done watermarking in this way, so that I don't have to keep track of where I bought an ebook myself! And a pretty graphic and signature of the author to make it a feature. I was disappointed by the watermarking in the HP books, which was very dull.

This would be an awesome move.

I had to edit my HP books in order to make the watermark page look less ugly -- so it's a good thing it wasn't encrypted.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Yes, I understand that by adding DRM I am inconveniencing a few of my customers. To avoid that, I sell most of my books direct from my site. If they wish to avoid the removal step, they can buy the books there. I try to be a reasonable seller. I try to accommodate and still protect my livelihood. Do not take my protective steps personally. It is not about you. It's not an 'accusation.' It is utilizing tools that are available to me to make the best decisions possible.

Just curious -- how did you discover that people who buy from your website are less likely to do casual sharing (and thus are less in need of DRM restrictions)?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Still dubious, TM. Let's take it to extremes, and see how it looks: a school buys 50 readers, buys one copy of a book needed for a particular subject, strips the DRM, and loads it onto all 50 readers which it then lends out to all the pupils who are studying the subject. Fair use? I don't think so.

Let's be fair -- this isn't really about fairness. DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent this, as the book can just as easily be loaded on(to all 50 ereaders) with the DRM intact.

Whether it is fair or not, it is currently permissible and aboveboard and abides by every restriction the bookstores AND publishers AND authors have placed.

Originally Posted by HarryT

That lending someone your entire reader does not avoid piracy: it is itself a form of piracy if you lend outside the terms permitted by the bookstore, which is generally intended to be your immediate family.

Where is that in the terms???

Originally Posted by HarryT

If the contract that you've entered into with the bookstore (ie their T&Cs) says, for example, that the content is licensed for your personal use only (and that, for example, is what Baen's says), then lending the content - on your reader - to another person probably constitutes a breach of contract.

So you mean I am also breaking the law if I lend my one and only ereader to my sister with my Amazon library on it, in addition to your case of lending out my 60 ereaders to all the students. I can only imagine this is news to Amazon, since they now encourage you to sign your Kindle into multiple accounts at once ("Family Library") in order to read your family's ebooks.


You are the first person I have ever heard suggest that a family cannot share an Amazon account...

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I have specifically asked Amazon this, and they're happy for anyone to read your books, so long as they do it on an authorised device.

Precisely.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That lending someone your entire reader does not avoid piracy: it is itself a form of piracy if you lend outside the terms permitted by the bookstore, which is generally intended to be your immediate family.

I've just had a look at Amazon's terms and conditions. Where does it say that a Kindle with legal Kindle content cannot be loaned?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Just curious -- how did you discover that people who buy from your website are less likely to do casual sharing (and thus are less in need of DRM restrictions)?

I didn't discover it and it may not be true. I can tell you that people who buy from my site know how to sideload books, so they are more computer savvy than some readers. They are usually already fans of mine rather than random people stopping by to browse (the exception being when I run free short stories from multiple authors. I more than quadruple my traffic then so some of that is word of mouth about the freebies. I doubt all of those people are already my fans and show up just because I offer one of my stories for free. I do see some sales at that time, and these are probably more "random" shoppers than my regular readers/fans. Most of my regular fans have already bought and read the stories from me that they are likely to buy--I see that spike in sales at my blog when a book is first released.)

It is entirely possible that those who shop at my store do so in order to get a copy they can share. That is where the trust comes in. It's a balancing act and one where I am constantly learning and trying to make the best possible decisions to keep sales, keep readers happy, have a manageable sales strategy and so on. None of it is perfect.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

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.

That has not been my experience in 53 years of life. Quite the contrary. Pretty much anyone can be tempted by the right circumstances. What you claim is that you live - literally - among saints. And I frankly don't believe you.

[taustin]

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?

You should write to your congresscritter and tell them that. That truth in advertising laws should be enforced. Good luck with it, and let us know how that works out.

In the meantime, I have the real world to live in.