Unlocking the Gates of Alexandria: DRM, Competition and Access to E-Books

[charlie - uk]

I am quite aware, that the mobipocket format has been around for some time, that it is used by a small minority of publishers for some of their online offerings. I was refering to mainstream publishing houses, which invariably use DRM of one form or another, & who's titles are only availiable through Amazon, Kobo or B & N

I posess no confusion between formats & DRM & wether I choose to break the law, or not, is a matter for me thank's....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think whether digital watermarking is a form of DRM is an open question.

Only to people who are unaware of the actual meaning of the phrase "Digital Rights Management". To those who are aware of its meaning, it is entirely self-evident that watermarks are a form of DRM.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by charlie - uk

Gosh, something I said obviously touched a raw nerve :-), sorry if I've offended you in any way

"Offended" is a strong word...

I am disappointed, certainly, that ignorance of the true cause of lack-of-interoperability is so prevalent. If everyone keeps on blaming Amazon, just because that's what the media tells them to do, then nothing will ever change.

The publishers (who coincidentally own a large number of newspapers and other media outlets) have been putting that rumor around for a while now, trying (successfully) to pass on the blame for their own outrageous behavior.

Everyone criticizes Amazon, when there is nothing Amazon can do, and puts the "poor, beleaguered" publishers on a pedestal that is the exact opposite of what they deserve. The chances of that resulting in an outcome positive to consumers is somewhere between zero and nothing.

what content would that be then, there is no legal alternative content. Kindles won't read .epub, & most ebook stores are using .epub as an alternative to the closed .mobi, azw3 so legally there is no 'alternative content' for Kindle users to read.

Any content without DRM can be legally converted to work on a Kindle.
If you cannot find any non-DRMed content for sale, that is your problem. I assure you, many people here find a great deal of it.

You yourself admit to "illegally" (scare quotes because I don't regard it as illegal) DeDRMing your books, which by the way I approve of.
That being the case, your objections regarding the legality or lack thereof are ridiculous -- you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Once again, the fact that you cannot read DRMed EPUBs on a Kindle is not a walled-garden conspiracy by Jeff Bezos, in fact it is not even Amazon's fault in any way, shape or form.
Amazon *could* have chosen to use EPUB, true. But that would be a moot point if they didn't also choose to pay Adobe licensing fees for ADEPT.
iTunes (gah), calibre, Moon+ reader, Mantano, a wide variety of EPUB readers do not support ADEPT. They are just as locked out as Kindles are.

Incidentally, you have carefully ignored my other points -- namely that:

• Amazon is demonstrably happy for you to read your EPUBs or whatever other non-Amazon books on the Kindle.
• Every retailer uses DRM, so why did you direct a rant at Amazon and say they are the only ones?

Here without breaking the law, & stripping the DRM off files, Kindle users can't even access the electronic public library network, because of Kindle's lack of .epub support, obviously a calculated decision, on Amazons part, because currently 98 % of other e-reader's support the .epub format.

As I said above, even if Amazon used EPUB that would still be impossible. The same way innumerable apps do not support ADEPT, the same way calibre does not support ADEPT, Amazon would not support ADEPT.
My personal theory is that Amazon didn't want to have to pay through the nose for ADEPT, and used mobipocket as an excellent excuse to manufacture their own in-house DRM.

I'm e-book platform agnostic by the way, I buy from whoever I feel like . I don't actively support any platform, it's not necessary or needed.....

Sounds like you are not platform agnostic. You have an irrational hatred of Amazon.

Originally Posted by charlie - uk

I am quite aware, that the mobipocket format has been around for some time, that it is used by a small minority of publishers for some of their online offerings. I was refering to mainstream publishing houses, which invariably use DRM of one form or another, & who's titles are only availiable through Amazon, Kobo or B & N

I posess no confusion between formats & DRM & wether I choose to break the law, or not, is a matter for me thank's....

Congratulations on your tautology. Incidentally, you appear to be still confused between DRM and formats.
What does the prevalence or lack thereof of mobipocket have anything to do with who offers it, with or without DRM?



It is a matter for anyone who is confused by your hypocrisy.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Only to people who are unaware of the actual meaning of the phrase "Digital Rights Management". To those who are aware of its meaning, it is entirely self-evident that watermarks are a form of DRM.

Here's a link to an article today by Nate Hoffelder about DRM which peripherally discusses whether digital watermarking is DRM:
http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...rm-in-germany/

I don't claim to have any kind of authoritative answer but I really like what the linguists say about dictionaries, that they're descriptive and not prescriptive, and I think that might apply here. Words have the meanings we give them, and that's always changing.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"Digital rights management (DRM) is a class of copy protection technologies that are used by hardware and software manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale; there are, however, many competing definitions. With first-generation DRM software, the intent is to control copying; with second-generation DRM, the intent is to control executing, viewing, copying, printing, and altering of works or devices. The term is also sometimes referred to as copy protection, copy prevention, and copy control, although the correctness of doing so is disputed. DRM is a set of access control technologies."

Further down that page there are descriptions that even include simple restrictive licensing under the term DRM.

Barry

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Once again, the fact that you cannot read DRMed EPUBs on a Kindle is not a walled-garden conspiracy by Jeff Bezos, in fact it is not even Amazon's fault in any way, shape or form.
Amazon *could* have chosen to use EPUB, true. But that would be a moot point if they didn't also choose to pay Adobe licensing fees for ADEPT.
iTunes (gah), calibre, Moon+ reader, Mantano, a wide variety of EPUB readers do not support ADEPT. They are just as locked out as Kindles are.

Okay, but isn't it correct that Amazon has essentially walled off their content from other e-readers by refusing to license their DRM to anybody's reader that can use epub? Adobe certainly doesn't refuse to license ADEPT, it's the individual programs that are deciding they don't want to. B&N couldn't add support for AZW, even if they wanted to.

Incidentally, you have carefully ignored my other points -- namely that:

• Amazon is demonstrably happy for you to read your EPUBs or whatever other non-Amazon books on the Kindle.

Can you expand an this? I thought Kindles didn't read EPUB, period.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Okay, but isn't it correct that Amazon has essentially walled off their content from other e-readers by refusing to license their DRM to anybody's reader that can use epub? Adobe certainly doesn't refuse to license ADEPT, it's the individual programs that are deciding they don't want to. B&N couldn't add support for AZW, even if they wanted to.

Maybe -- but I don't consider DRM to be fundamentally interoperable, and as a linux user I am just as screwed over by ADEPT as by Kindle DRM.
The solution to ebooks that are locked to Kindles-only is not "license the DRM to another device", it is "down with DRM".

It is not unusual for people to vastly prefer free, independent (and sometimes open-source) ereader apps, at least on tablets and smartphones (which are taking off in a major, major way as an ereader platform) -- and as a general rule of thumb no such product will pay a dime to license any DRM scheme, no matter who offers it.

DRM-supporting ereaders tend to be of the integrated-bookstore variety.




I seriously doubt B&N wants people to buy Kindle books and read them on the Nook, even if Amazon offered it.

Can you expand an this? I thought Kindles didn't read EPUB, period.

Well... you *may* have heard of an interesting program called "calibre".

[eschwartz]

And IIRC Amazon made an open offer to license their Whispernet infrastructure, including format (the updated KF8 which unlike mobi7 is not available commercially) and DRM.

No one took them up on it, though.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And IIRC Amazon made an open offer to license their Whispernet infrastructure, including format (the updated KF8 which unlike mobi7 is not available commercially) and DRM.

No one took them up on it, though.

Okay, I'm probably remembering it from the JetBook days, but didn't Amazon make it a requirement that if a company wants to use Amazon's DRM format, it has to be the only DRM format?

I may be phrasing it wrong, and I'm oversimplifying the format names, but it seemed like you could have "epub (DRM free), Amazon (DRM and DRM-free)" or you could have "epub (DRM and DRM free), Amazon (DRM-free only)".

I'm reaching for really old memories, so I'm more than willing to admit I've gotten this wrong, if it is.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Okay, but isn't it correct that Amazon has essentially walled off their content from other e-readers .

Compared to, say, Apple, it's pretty low wall, with lots of spaces to walk through. On the wall spectrum, it's far more a wall of encouragement than of imprisonment.

Amazon created a REALLY REALLY GOOD AND POPULAR ebook ecosystem, and part of it's success is because it works so well, people keep CHOOSING to operate in it.

If some significant fraction of the market were telling Amazon that they would love a Kindle, but would only want to buy books from ADEPT-epub retailers, never from Amazon, then Kindles would probably read ADEPT-epub books (or Amazon would stop making Kindles),
And if enough of the market was telling them they'd love to buy ebooks from Amazon, but they all want to read on Nooks, Kobos, and other lesser-known brands of eink readers, never on a Kindle, nor on any of the other platforms that Kindle Reader software is available for, then the Amazon store would be selling ADEPT-epubs (or they would indeed be licensing out their DRM system.)

But that's not happening. In the gazillion-dollar markets that Amazon cares about, Kindle is already the #1 eink reader, and their store is the number one store, so why would they change?
Amazon is in the business of selling stuff from Amazon, not from other retailers, right?

[eschwartz]

@FizzyWater,

I'm not sure either, to be honest. My memories of it are probably dimmer than yours.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Okay, I'm probably remembering it from the JetBook days, but didn't Amazon make it a requirement that if a company wants to use Amazon's DRM format, it has to be the only DRM format?

Yes, as did Mobipocket back before Amazon owned them IIRC*. Amazon also said that anyone wanting to licence Kindle DRM had to make their devices work with Whispersync (this was back when most devices weren't wireless). At one time Adobe had the same rule (that they be the only form of DRM on a device), but that must have changed since Kobo has both Adobe and Kobo DRM.


*My old Cybook Opus had two firmwares available, one with Mobi DRM and one with Adobe Adept.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Okay, I'm probably remembering it from the JetBook days, but didn't Amazon make it a requirement that if a company wants to use Amazon's DRM format, it has to be the only DRM format?

I may be phrasing it wrong, and I'm oversimplifying the format names, but it seemed like you could have "epub (DRM free), Amazon (DRM and DRM-free)" or you could have "epub (DRM and DRM free), Amazon (DRM-free only)".

I'm reaching for really old memories, so I'm more than willing to admit I've gotten this wrong, if it is.

That was certainly the case when it was mobipocket (My Hanlin V3 could have either ADE or MOBI firmware but not both at the same time), after Amazon bought the format out the MOBI firmware was discontinued.

I don't know if Amazon ever allowed their DRM to be used after they took over but AFAIK no non-Amazon reader after then has supported Amazon DRM.

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

At one time Adobe had the same rule (that they be the only form of DRM on a device), but that must have changed since Kobo has both Adobe and Kobo DRM.

I don't remember this, Sony eReaders had ADE and Marlin from at least the 505 onwards, and IIRC that was the same year epub started.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I don't remember this, Sony eReaders had ADE and Marlin from at least the 505 onwards, and IIRC that was the same year epub started.

Sony added ePub support (& DRM PDF) to the 505 in July of 2008, before that it didn't support the format. They later switched their store to ePub in December 2009. I could be wrong about the rule though. I just thought I had remembered something in the early days.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Sony added ePub support (& DRM PDF) to the 505 in July of 2008, before that it didn't support the format. They later switched their store to ePub in December 2009. I could be wrong about the rule though. I just thought I had remembered something in the early days.

Ah, right, cheers. It didn't get to the UK until late 2008 so that makes sense

[barryem]

I suspect that a lot of DRM policies are either decided by publishers or decided by retailers to please the publishers, and that the retailers don't feel they have a lot of choice.

I had a bit of exposure to some of this a few years ago when I participated in a forum formed by Audible where about 50 customers such as me discussed issues with heads of departments at Audible. They chose a number of customers for this based on the extent of their activity in their public forums.

On the Audible side were several Audible vice presidents including the head of development and the head of marketing. Also the president of German Audible was pretty active in it. So I'm pretty sure those guys knew what they were talking about. I'm less sure they told us anything they didn't want us to know so I don't think they're 100% reliable as sources about Audible's thinking, but over time it was easy enough to get ideas about their thoughts.

First, none of them liked DRM at all. They saw it as a major cost both in and of itself and because it was the main cause of customer support incidents, but necessary to get titles from publishers. And this wasn't hype. Their frustration was all over the place. They disliked it almost as much as customers did.

This was before Amazon bought Audible so none of this realistically tells me anything about Amazon's feelings but I see no reason to think they're any different.

My guess is that most retailers would love to drop DRM. I don't know that but I'll be surprised if it isn't true. My first thought when thinking of possible exceptions is Apple, and yet they were the first, or among the first, to drop DRM on music.

I hope DRM goes away. It's a pain. But I suspect it'll be the publishers who decide.

Barry