My perspective on buying books with DRM

[crane3]

I had thought that Calibre was useless for my needs at one time & so deleted it.

Then the lightbulb turned on when I tried to read an epub on the same device using a different ereader app that doesn't do DRM; wasn't able to read the book on the same device residing in the same place. After some cursing, got Calibre again & reinstalled & also installed the drm removal. Will be using Calibre to remove drm as my ereader app of choice is now Moon+ Reader Pro which doesn't do drm & may it never register as a drm app.

Another thing was that I found that having multiple drm registration is OK; BUT the problem is that it is NOT OK to have the device, ereader app, to have multiple drm IDs. This was the case where I have my tablet under a different email ID from what I was using for the public library which came first.

Removing drm is not only for sharing but for personal use with an ereader of choice.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

We've had this discussion not long ago, in a different thread. Sharing (among family and friends) is not the same as pirating at all. Moral arguments aside, the one is legal (details depending upon your place of residence), the other one isn't -- I therefore object to the "i.e."

Yes, I know that you think that giving copies of books to your neighbours is "being generous", but the law regards it as piracy, regardless of your views. Many retailers (eg Amazon) provide legal ways of sharing content with friends and family, however, and clearly that's not piracy.

Being able to trace persons who break the law may be desirable, but on the other hand, here it is part of the increasing traceability of everything we do -- an increase of control, which can easily be abused...

How could it be abused in this specific case? Can you give an example?

[ottdmk]

It should be noted that watermarks, at least under present technology, do not "phone home" in any way. Their chief use case is if the file ends up on a file share somewhere.

[LCF]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

I hate the idea of watermarking almost as much as drm.
I mean, treating your customer like thief ?? What company right in their mind do that ??

A lot of products have serial numbers for traceability. In case of digital purchases, there is (almost) no supply chain, so the item can be traced directly to the user, just like every new car. Still, if the watermark is just there and not "calling home", as someone put it, it is a very subtle way of DRM.

When I say DRM, I mostly mean the f****** useless s*** that makes reading my Amazon books on my Android CoolReader a 4 click affair, instead of 2 click one (because, lets be honest, two clicks is all it takes to strip the "protection"). I would have been perfectly comfortable with a watermark, which would make the Piratebay distribution of the book retraceable.

As it stands, the ebook DRM used by the biggest ebook suppliers achieves 3 things:

1. Annoys tech savvy users
2. Drives ebook prices up
3. Helps to keep most users in the ecosystem (which is the only real benefit, excluding the DRM supplier)

What DRM does not, is deter piracy. A simple proof is googling a random ebook, preferably from the last week.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Watermarking is a form of DRM.



You're honest, but sadly not everyone is. You probably lock your house door when you go out because you can't rely on the fact that everyone is as honest as you are.



But unfortunately, the same is not true for everyone.

I agree with the statement that watermarking is a form of DRM and so oppose it as well. I do not "share" ebooks I've purchased beyond letting other members of my household read ebooks I've purchased. I do consider it my right to be able to transfer an ebook purchased for viewing on an Amazon device to a device that uses epub book format or vice versa. When I purchase a book I have purchased that book. Not a temporary or revokable license to make use of that book. My ebook library did not contract by as much as 50% when I sold my Sony reader and replaced it with a Kindle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I agree with the statement that watermarking is a form of DRM and so oppose it as well.

I'm curious why you oppose watermarking? It in no way restricts your ability to use an ebook in any legal way you wish.

[cyanic]

On watermarking, I don't really mind. I think being able to get books at a lower price (e.g. SpringerLink is free if you're in academia) in exchange for a bit of something that can't do anything on its own is OK. More so for books than audio, considering, if applied well, that a watermark on books won't affect the display of content in any way, while with audio it may affect the audio quality. For example, a way of watermarking an EPUB file can be varying the line-ending characters (with or without carriage return) in XHTML and XML, or inserting small comments/invisible spans. On PDF text can be drawn outside the viewing area, and it wouldn't affect anything. Watermarks may be used for tracking, but they are passive and are basically a non-issue if you don't decide to post the files on the Internet. In any case, (technical) watermarks in books are probably easier to remove than with any other type of communication, so if you don't like the watermarks, they could be stripped out easily (as long as you know what the watermark is).

[Zetmolm]

Practically all publishers here in the Netherlands have switched from Adobe DRM to watermarking. Yes, it's a lot more user friendly. But...

In order to enforce traceability, the seller of watermarked books collects contact information of all buyers. Names, mail addresses, street addresses, and whatever else they think they need to ask. They can build a database of people interested in books. Valuable information. They might sell this database. Or I buy a book one day, and the next day get spammed. OK, it has not happened yet, but the risk is real.

On the other hand, if I was buying a watermarked book in order to give it away on the Internet, I would use a fake account with an untraceable mail address and make sure they cannot find me. And I could always remove the watermarks. It's not that difficult, really.

No form of DRM is free for publishers. I don't know what different forms of DRM cost, but in the end it's the law-abiding buyers of the books who pay for it. Books could be cheaper without DRM. I don't want to pay extra to have my book crippled, but I also don't want to pay extra for the privilege of having my mail address added to distribution lists for marketing purposes.

Conclusion: watermarking may be more user-friendly than other forms of DRM, but it is bad from a privacy perspective, completely useless as measure to fight piracy, and a waste of your and my money.

[cyanic]

I see what you're getting at. Publishers can collect information under the guise of enforcing watermarks while really just building their customer databases. But are online ebook stores not already doing this to a degree, regardless of whether watermarking is used?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm curious why you oppose watermarking? It in no way restricts your ability to use an ebook in any legal way you wish.

My main problem is that it says "we don't trust you" in red letters.

Interesting point about the fake mail. But then credit card (or whatever you pay with), won't be spoofed that easy.

[eschwartz]

It says "we don't trust all our readers" in large red letters, and I consider that to be very reasonable grounds... for them to use security measures that don't negatively affect me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It says "we don't trust all our readers" in large red letters, and I consider that to be very reasonable grounds... for them to use security measures that don't negatively affect me.

Precisely. Unfortunately it is undeniably true that not everyone is honest. It is not saying that everyone is dishonest, any more than the fact that your car has a number plate allowing it to be traced is an accusation that every driver breaks the law.

[Zetmolm]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

My main problem is that it says "we don't trust you" in red letters.

Interesting point about the fake mail. But then credit card (or whatever you pay with), won't be spoofed that easy.

Use an anonymous prepaid card.

Or first use an an anonymous prepaid card to buy an anonymous gift card. Then use the gift card to buy the books.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I know that you think that giving copies of books to your neighbours is "being generous", but the law regards it as piracy, regardless of your views.

To repeat what I've said before:

A commentary to the Austrian Urheberrecht law, referring to printed books, says (in my clumsy translation):

Everyone -- including legal entities -- is allowed to make individual copies for their own private or professional use, though not for the purpose of making the work available to the public. Copies may be shared within the "private sphere." (my emphasis) The law says "individual" copies, but does not define a maximum number. The often voiced assumption that this maximum number is 7 does not agree with actual judicature, according to which this number has to be decided in each case, taking into consideration the intended use of those copies. It is not a fact that "individual" copies necessarily always means a small number.

(This text is from 1996, so details may have changed, but the basic principle still holds.)

A copy of one of my posts in a different thread, refering to digital files:

Germany:
http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrech...eberrecht.html

Austria:
http://www.illsinger.at/wordpress/?p=442

In both countries, an individual person is entitled to make a limited number of copies ("Musik, Filme, e-Books" -- music, movies, ebooks) for private use, as long as they are not sold, not made available to the public, and as long as the original had been lawfully obtained.

Some differences between German and Austrian laws exist, for instance, in Germany it is illegal to circumvent copy protection, while in Austria it is not, but to a large degree they are similar.

From the first source:

"Die Kopien dürfen nur für den eigenen privaten Gebrauch gemacht werden, zum Beispiel für den CD-Player im Fahrzeug oder als Zuwendung für Personen, zu denen man eine engere persönliche Beziehung hat, wie Verwandte oder Freunde. Mit diesen Kopien darf kein Erwerbszweck verbunden sein."

My attempt at translation: "Copies may only be made for private use, for instance to be used with the CD player in the car, or to be given to persons with whom a close personal relationship exists, as with relatives or friends. No monetary gain may be sought from these copies."

Copyright laws differ between European countries, but Austrian law is not unique, and German law, for instance, is rather similar (in Germany it is illegal to cirvumvent DRM, though, while in Austria it isn't).

End of quoting myself. You have been active in both threads, and have read and replied to my posts, so why do you say now "the law regards it as piracy, regardless of your view"? (Admittedly I do not know much about US law, which is of little relevance to me.)

Many retailers (eg Amazon) provide legal ways of sharing content with friends and family, however, and clearly that's not piracy.

How is this really different? The "do not share with a friend" argument is that by doing this you "steal" from the author and from the publisher, who are deprived of the chance to sell another copy. They are equally deprived of this chance when I share the book with an owner of a Kindle, with Amazon's blessings, so this is stealing, too -- or isn't it?

How could it be abused in this specific case? Can you give an example?

It has been said here that e-readers do not "phone home" to report watermarks, but they could. When I exercise my legal right to share a book with a friend, Amazon or Google or the NSA or whoever might then be informed of the fact. It's just another invasion of our privacy in the name of defending the law, but I suppose this will ultimately lead to an "is Edward Snowdon a traitor or a hero" discussion, which probably would need to be moved to the Politics and Religion section.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Zetmolm

In order to enforce traceability, the seller of watermarked books collects contact information of all buyers. Names, mail addresses, street addresses, and whatever else they think they need to ask. They can build a database of people interested in books. Valuable information. They might sell this database. Or I buy a book one day, and the next day get spammed. OK, it has not happened yet, but the risk is real.

So, you are saying that they collect exactly the same information as an online store would need to, say, sell you a paper book.

Looks like your going to have to pay cash at second hand bookshops (which don't have CCTV of course).