Argument in favor of DRM

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by webroot

I dont know whether its good to say "drm is a total waste" because then law would be also a total waste because some people break the law. and there is always cases of crime.

eBook DRM is a total waste because it's ineffective. Dishonest people still steal, honest people still buy -- just as they would if there was no DRM in place. Those who enforce the law need to concentrate on the law breakers, instead of hobbling paying customers with the inconvenience of DRM. To assume that everyone would steal just because eBooks had no DRM is just flat wrong. You also have to understand that DRM (or any kind of encryption) is like waving a red flag at hackers. They love the challenge of breaking the code. And most of the time hackers are not thieves either. And, if you think CEOs of corporations are keeping DRM because it's "effective" or "beneficial" you're highly overestimating the intelligence of the average Corporate CEO. They do it because it's an entrenched practice, that's the way it was done when they came -- and it's pretty safe bet that some of them in the publishing business own stock in Adobe, or have cronies that work there. American corporate decisions are often made for stupid reasons or worse, because of personal greed.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Oddly enough, both Amazon and Kobo have per-book encryption keys. Amazon's scheme is based off a device-level key, so isn't exactly what you describe, but Kobo's scheme is precisely one key per book, key provided to the Kobo desktop reading software over the internet.

But all the keys must be stored by the reading software, to allow off-line reading. So it's just a question of getting access to the app's key store and reverse engineering the encryption scheme. [software name deleted]

Okay, if the keys are in persistent storage, that makes it easier for now. However, that can change. In my job, I'm working with Trusted Execution Environments that allow stuff to be encrypted and decrypted on the device without the keys being accessible within the main OS, and the environment is becoming more widely available in systems with ARM CPUs. Using the TEE to encrypt the key store would make it hard to crack. You'll probably be back to trying to fish the key out of the app when it has the ebook open (assuming that they don't keep the key in the TEE and do all decryption inside it).

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm for DRM encryption; I despise it for various reasons. However, I'm afraid that the attitude that DRM encryption is nothing to worry about because we'll _always_ be able to circumvent it easily is wrong.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Didn't Microsoft basically hamstring their new XBox by announcing such a scheme for game playing? They soon backed down on that plan. I'm guessing much the same will happen when/if eBook publishers try to use such a scheme on eReaders. The whole point of an eReader is portability of your library. There are still wide open spaces where there is no Internet connection. Can you imagine how happy an eBook customer would be if he couldn't read any of the thousand books on his eReader during a camping trip?

There are a lot of Readers out there that do not have WiFi and won't work with an online always type DRM. Plus, the chances of the firmware being updated for those devices is probably non-existent. I've been on vacation (cruise) where I did not have net access for days and it's the sort of place where a lot of reading is done. Plus, when I go out of the house, I don't always have WiFi access. So this sort of DRM would be a total bust. Also, having to have net access on all the time to read would really cut down on battery life. That would not do at all. All such DRM would do is take away our right to read when and where we want and in some cases, take away our ability to read.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm for DRM encryption; I despise it for various reasons. However, I'm afraid that the attitude that DRM encryption is nothing to worry about because we'll _always_ be able to circumvent it easily is wrong.

If eBook publishers go to a different sort of DRM, sales would plummet. Would I buy an eBook my my devices cannot handle? Nope! And a lot of people would be the same way. Change the DRM on ePub such that a lot of devices/software no longer understands it and Amazon will get more business bug time and that would give even more power to Amazon to dictate the terms of the contracts with the BPHs. If Hatchette thinks there's a problem now, just wait until a new DRM is created. Amazon will have even more control and a much larger customer base in which to use to tell Hatchette where to get off.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm for DRM encryption; I despise it for various reasons. However, I'm afraid that the attitude that DRM encryption is nothing to worry about because we'll _always_ be able to circumvent it easily is wrong.

I think it is more of a "lets not worry about DRM because at the moment it can be circumvented, but if in future we cannot, then we will do some major-time boycotts" sort of thing.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm for DRM encryption; I despise it for various reasons. However, I'm afraid that the attitude that DRM encryption is nothing to worry about because we'll _always_ be able to circumvent it easily is wrong.

So long as ebooks are readable on general purpose computers, DRM is crackable.

And even if someone did come up with an uncrackable DRM (by only allow their ebooks to be read on closed devices), there's screenshots and OCR (which would be very accurate because the letters would be pixel perfect), or in the worst case scenario, a digital camera.

Not that it would affect me. I just won't buy books where I can't remove the DRM.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And even if someone did come up with an uncrackable DRM (by only allow their ebooks to be read on closed devices), there's screenshots and OCR (which would be very accurate because the letters would be pixel perfect), or in the worst case scenario, a digital camera.DRM.

And 'real' pirates would do (and have already done) just that, but it would suck for those of us who just want to backup our stuff or format shift.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by ApK

And 'real' pirates would do (and have already done) just that, but it would suck for those of us who just want to backup our stuff or format shift.

Yes, that's my concern in all this.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If eBook publishers go to a different sort of DRM, sales would plummet. Would I buy an eBook my my devices cannot handle? Nope! And a lot of people would be the same way. Change the DRM on ePub such that a lot of devices/software no longer understands it and Amazon will get more business bug time and that would give even more power to Amazon to dictate the terms of the contracts with the BPHs. If Hatchette thinks there's a problem now, just wait until a new DRM is created. Amazon will have even more control and a much larger customer base in which to use to tell Hatchette where to get off.

Honestly, I'd say the majority of eBook buyers would still buy books just like they do now. Most of them have no idea what DRM is or how it works, they just know they're buying a Kindle book, or Nook book, Kobo, etc. and don't really expect it will work with some other system. Sure many folks who hang out at places like MR would balk and might stop buying, but I don't know about sales plummeting.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Honestly, I'd say the majority of eBook buyers would still buy books just like they do now.

I'd agree. Most people don't notice the DRM except for a tiny amount of hassle 'authorising' ADE devices. It's only people who like to keep/re-read their older books that will notice if they ever want to switch to a device with a different DRM scheme.

Of course, those of us who've been through several ebook stores shuttting up shop, and a couple of generations of DRM schemes, do care about DRM and won't buy DRMed books where the DRM can't be removed.

But we are, currently, a very small minority of book buyers. Although I suppose we probably buy a much larger proportion of ebooks than our numbers would suggest.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by ApK

And 'real' pirates would do (and have already done) just that, but it would suck for those of us who just want to backup our stuff or format shift.

Indeed. DRM is a negligible inconvenience for free-loaders, and a very real inconvenience to the paying masses.

That's no accident. The real money to be creamed by publishers comes from the willful paying customers, who will have to buy multiple copies in the event of device/media loss, or device migration.

Publishers hope consumers will naively think DRM is a tool against free-loading. The fools who pay for DRM'd content pay for their ignorance. In principal we could say "so what? Let them." The problem is-- smart consumers will lose their non-DRM options because they are vastly outnumbered by naive consumers.

So dumb consumers who buy DRM media will ruin the market for wise consumers.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by rcentros

eBook DRM is a total waste because it's ineffective. Dishonest people still steal, honest people still buy -- just as they would if there was no DRM in place. Those who enforce the law need to concentrate on the law breakers, instead of hobbling paying customers with the inconvenience of DRM.

DRM is not just a technological barricade. When combined with the DMCA it becomes a legal tool. DRM introduces encryption, which in turn triggers the DMCA statutes.

Note that encryption need not be strong to trigger the DMCA. There was a company that made barcode scanners that internally rearranged the order of the numbers that were fed to the software. That simple reordering was enough to call it "encryption", enabling the vendor to prosecute someone who wrote their own software.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

DRM is not just a technological barricade. When combined with the DMCA it becomes a legal tool. DRM introduces encryption, which in turn triggers the DMCA statutes.

A very good point. It's why iTunes won't rip DVDs like it rips CDs.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

Indeed. DRM is a negligible inconvenience for free-loaders, and a very real inconvenience to the paying masses.

That's no accident. The real money to be creamed by publishers comes from the willful paying customers, who will have to buy multiple copies in the event of device/media loss, or device migration.

Publishers hope consumers will naively think DRM is a tool against free-loading. The fools who pay for DRM'd content pay for their ignorance. In principal we could say "so what? Let them." The problem is-- smart consumers will lose their non-DRM options because they are vastly outnumbered by naive consumers.

So dumb consumers who buy DRM media will ruin the market for wise consumers.

Back before the ebook explosion, one could get most of the major books as ebooks from scans. Whole newsgroups were dedicated to it. For many people it was a hobby. A large group of people would get together and split up a book, with each person scanning X pages, convert them to text then hand that text off to the next person to be proofed.

I think you see conspiracy where there is none. I once heard Jerry Pournelle refer to his backlist as his 401K. The old model was to re-release backlist books on a regular schedule which would bring in enough money to help make ends meet. A lot of authors were very worried that piracy would destroy that revenue stream. Some still are.

For authors, the real question with ebooks is will the monthly revenue from new readers finding backlist books provide enough of a revenue stream. That is still an ongoing experiment.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think you see conspiracy where there is none.

It's not conspiracy. It's "capitalism".

Not convinced? Suppose you buy a standard red-book CD, COTS. Over the years it gets scratched up.. no longer plays correctly. Why can't you just exchange your damaged copy for a new one, paying only the 17 cent cost of material? Capitalism. They already have the right to charge you full retail price (secured by an artificial manipulation of pure capitalism called "copyright"), and they can charge you multiple times over, so where's the business interest in being fair? As soon as a CEO tries to be fair to consumers, he's sackable for not working in the shareholders interest.

Publishers are quite happy to make the willful conformist consumers pay multiple times for the same content. They are so confident and cavalier in their powerful lobby that they do not even bother to mitigate consumer loss. E.g. to justify laws blocking backup copies, they could offer replacements at cost - but they don't see the need. The lobby is strong enough that it's simply acceptable to re-charge consumers for the same content they've already paid for. DRM is designed to accommodate this. If an expat lives in multiple regions, why wouldn't publishers want to charge them in each region? It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism. It's the bottom line.