“Sony Developing New DRM to Make Used eBooks Viable”

[taustin]

Originally Posted by darryl

The problem as I see it can be neatly summed up in a single question. Why would anyone "buy" a "new" ebook when they could get a "used" ebook of identical quality for a lower price?

There are reasons other than price to buy used books. Some people object to having any part of the purchase price go to the publisher, or as royalties to the author, for instance. (And publishers who promote the idea of making selling any book used illegal, for that very reason. That goes back centuries.)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by darryl

But the market would very quickly reach a point where there would be no sales of "new" ebooks. I'm not saying it is not possible to create a so-called used market for ebooks. It is just very foreign to the basic concept of electronic files, and would be very highly contrived.

There's been an active market in "used" software for about as long as there's been software for sale. It's been highly contentious in recent years, for all the same reasons. But it's certainly nothing new.

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not at all. We are neither missing anything nor is it senseless or illogical. We quite simply acknowledge the reality of our system of economic need and incentive. It's the best system anyone has come up with so far, though you are free to try to make a better one.
In our system scarcity is merely one factor we use to determine value, not the only one. In fact we've made laws and treaties specifically to help establish and protect the value of intangibles like intellectual property. Calling the transfer of a license 'selling a used eBook' makes perfect sense, both as a convenient analog to used pbook sales, as as a literal reference to selling your licensed rights after you have used them.

What makes you think I'm not aware of this? The fact is a sales model created for limited goods makes zero sense for something that is theoretically unlimited.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

What makes you think I'm not aware of this? The fact is a sales model created for limited goods makes zero sense for something that is theoretically unlimited.

Are you one of those people that thinks that repeating your opinion is the same thing as making an argument?

It makes sense because it works. It's familiarity gives it broad acceptance and understanding. That has enabled it to be instantly and widely implemented and has allowed it to be the mechanism for the development and growth of a huge amount of content, and for the growth of the economy and the standard of living, spreading from the developed world out.

It makes sense because as a society of law and reason, we CAN assign a value to the rights of access even if there is no natural tie to scarcity.

And, if you MUST bring scarcity into it for some reason (which you seem to claim to understand that we need not do), it still works because you can work in, as variable in the value calculation, the very limited and irreplaceable time that human being have available to them that they spend to create the intellectual property that we are selling access to.

And it also makes sense because the resources used to market, distribute and otherwise manage the content are indeed finite.

That's why it make sense.

Now, can you tell me why you think it doesn't? Can you come up with a better model, and way to get it broadly accepted?

Or do you just want to repeat your opinion again?

ApK

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by ApK

Are you one of those people that thinks that repeating your opinion is the same thing as making an argument?

It makes sense because it works. It's familiarity gives it broad acceptance and understanding. That has enabled it to be instantly and widely implemented and has allowed it to be the mechanism for the development and growth of a huge amount of content, and for the growth of the economy and the standard of living, spreading from the developed world out.

It makes sense because as a society of law and reason, we CAN assign a value to the rights of access even if there is no natural tie to scarcity.

And, if you MUST bring scarcity into it for some reason (which you seem to claim to understand that we need not do), it still works because you can work in, as variable in the value calculation, the very limited and irreplaceable time that human being have available to them that they spend to create the intellectual property that we are selling access to.

And it also makes sense because the resources used to market, distribute and otherwise manage the content are indeed finite.

That's why it make sense.

Now, can you tell me why you think it doesn't? Can you come up with a better model, and way to get it broadly accepted?

Or do you just want to repeat your opinion again?

ApK

Are you one of those people who thinks that being shrill and condescending is the same thing as making an argument?

You say, "It makes sense because it works." That's a logical fallacy known as begging the question (which is to say that the conclusion of the argument is contained in one of its premises). It might "work" in the sense that publishers make money, but since treating a theoretically unlimited good as if it were perishable and limited is illogical, I can't help but think that another system might "work" better.

I think part of the problem is that publishers are an outdated concept when it comes to digital goods. Authors used to need publishers simply because printing and distributing a physical book is prohibitively expensive for most people, but it's a different story when an author can sell directly to consumers, and ebooks are cheap and easy to make and distribute. The only reason people even care about "used" ebooks (as nonsensical as that concept is) is because ebooks sold through the obsolete publisher model are overpriced.

Maybe we can take some lessons from the PC gaming industry which has enthusiastically embraced digital distribution and all but eschewed physical media. Steam, I think, is a good model for the future of digital books, where small and independent developers can gain broad exposure while avoiding the overhead typically associated with the traditional publisher model. As a result, their wares are considerably cheaper and more attractive to consumers. Who cares about buying "used" when you can buy new for a small fraction of the price of the big publisher offerings?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

You say, "It makes sense because it works." That's a logical fallacy known as begging the question (which is to say that the conclusion of the argument is contained in one of its premises). It might "work" in the sense that publishers make money, but since treating a theoretically unlimited good as if it were perishable and limited is illogical, I can't help but think that another system might "work" better.

The fact that you can make an unlimited number of copies of something doesn't mean that it's not worth anything. Price still has to be based on the expected sales volumes, and very often sales are not particularly price-dependent.

I think part of the problem is that publishers are an outdated concept when it comes to digital goods. Authors used to need publishers simply because printing and distributing a physical book is prohibitively expensive for most people, but it's a different story when an author can sell directly to consumers, and ebooks are cheap and easy to make and distribute.

Publishers are still very necessary, to my mind. They play a vital role as "gatekeepers" to filter out the garbage, and they also provide services such as editing the book. Yes, in theory a self-published author can simply buy in equivalent services as needed, but in practice, the overwhelming majority don't. That's why I still buy virtually all my ebooks from mainstream publishers: life is too short to try to find the few gems that undoubtedly exist within the mountain of self-published crap.

The only reason people even care about "used" ebooks (as nonsensical as that concept is) is because ebooks sold through the obsolete publisher model are overpriced.

You may consider them to be overpriced. I don't. I'm paying about half for the typical commercially-published ebook that I used to pay for paperbacks.

Maybe we can take some lessons from the PC gaming industry which has enthusiastically embraced digital distribution and all but eschewed physical media. Steam, I think, is a good model for the future of digital books, where small and independent developers can gain broad exposure while avoiding the overhead typically associated with the traditional publisher model.

Steam is also a system which has rigorous DRM, and where games can only be played if you have an active Internet connection. I don't want to have to be connected to the Internet to read books.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by hansl

The file is not ageing but the content is.

How so? Is there a best by date associated with fiction books? Non fiction sometimes ages fast, especially technology, but more fiction is published, bought and read.

One of the great joys of eBooks for me, was being able to read older titles by my favorite authors that I didn't even know existed. And often I was able to get these books from the library which is an added bonus. The ones I bought have never disappointed me even if written mid 19th century or earlier.

And I am not alone on this. Many (maybe more than 1/2) of the books on MR's What are you reading forum are for books 10 to 50 years old. Not public domain, you have to buy or borrow them.

Many books are ageless IMO, Nero Wolfe, Agatha Christie, A. A. Fair, Charles Dickens for a few. (I could write a book on ageless books). Tolkien seems to still be pretty well regarded as does Shakespeare oddly enough since they weren't writing recently.

I know quite a few people who are compelled to buy the latest best seller or fad and as often as not express disappointment in that they aren't as good as previous books by same author.

I disregard the age of the content. A good book is a good book, and a really good book is even better. The writing doesn't deteriorate with time, and if the book is significantly older it often offers insight to changes in our society over time.

Helen

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

How so? Is there a best by date associated with fiction books? Non fiction sometimes ages fast, especially technology, but more fiction is published, bought and read.

I don't know if the OP meant the story, or the format of the electronic version itself. We see the formats change all the time as new features are added; and some go through significant changes (e.g. EPUB2 to EPUB3). It's possible that, in fifteen years time, few readers will be able to handle a current ebook in its original form (including DRM encryption). That problem, of course, will be felt as keenly by the original buyer as the second hand one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't know if the OP meant the story, or the format of the electronic version itself. We see the formats change all the time as new features are added; and some go through significant changes (e.g. EPUB2 to EPUB3). It's possible that, in fifteen years time, few readers will be able to handle a current ebook in its original form (including DRM encryption). That problem, of course, will be felt as keenly by the original buyer as the second hand one.

No big deal. I've been buying commercial ebooks since the late 1990s, and some of those books have changed their format 3 or 4 times in that period. There have always been format conversion tools around, and I'm sure there always will be.

I strongly suspect that it's a complete non-issue for most people. Very few people collect books: most people buy them, read them, then throw them away.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No big deal. I've been buying commercial ebooks since the late 1990s, and some of those books have changed their format 3 or 4 times in that period. There have always been format conversion tools around, and I'm sure there always will be.

I strongly suspect that it's a complete non-issue for most people. Very few people collect books: most people buy them, read them, then throw them away.

But this is in the context of selling the original as a used ebook and giving up the license to it. If people can keep illicit copies under Sony's scheme, then I don't expect it to last very long.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

But this is in the context of selling the original as a used ebook and giving up the license to it. If people can keep illicit copies under Sony's scheme, then I don't expect it to last very long.

Yes, I agree. And that's precisely why I said, earlier in the thread, that realistically, a 2nd-hand ebook market can only exist when combined with strong DRM, to prevent this from happening.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I agree. And that's precisely why I said, earlier in the thread, that realistically, a 2nd-hand ebook market can only exist when combined with strong DRM, to prevent this from happening.

Agreed. Unfortunately the strong DRM is also likely to leave the book unreadable (and thus unsellable) after a while. It's hard to see how the scheme would work beyond a few years at most per book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Agreed. Unfortunately the strong DRM is also likely to leave the book unreadable (and thus unsellable) after a while. It's hard to see how the scheme would work beyond a few years at most per book.

Now I understand the point you were making . Yes, I agree with you.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't know if the OP meant the story, or the format of the electronic version itself. We see the formats change all the time as new features are added; and some go through significant changes (e.g. EPUB2 to EPUB3). It's possible that, in fifteen years time, few readers will be able to handle a current ebook in its original form (including DRM encryption). That problem, of course, will be felt as keenly by the original buyer as the second hand one.

I assumed content meant story, because the op said the file is not aging but the content is?

It is quite possible few readers will read older formats as has happened with .lrf, .lit already. Same as new computers do not do well with older software. And not that easy to find an 8 track player these days.

It is quite possible that reading with ones eyes or even reading at all will be considered odd some day. And many predictions about the death of ereaders. Maybe the content will be beamed into our brains someday and erased an hour later. Horrifying thought but could happen.

We seem to be living more and more in a disposable, use once and throw away world.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't know if the OP meant the story, or the format of the electronic version itself. We see the formats change all the time as new features are added; and some go through significant changes (e.g. EPUB2 to EPUB3). It's possible that, in fifteen years time, few readers will be able to handle a current ebook in its original form (including DRM encryption). That problem, of course, will be felt as keenly by the original buyer as the second hand one.

I assumed content meant story, because the op said the file is not aging but the content is?

It is quite possible few readers will read older formats as has happened with .lrf, .lit already. Same as new computers do not do well with older software. And not that easy to find an 8 track player these days.

It is quite possible that reading with ones eyes or even reading at all will be considered odd some day. And many predictions about the death of ereaders. Maybe the content will be beamed into our brains someday and erased an hour later. Horrifying thought but could happen.

We seem to be living more and more in a disposable, use once and throw away world.