Pan Macmillan: DRM Is Not Evil

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I've run into the exact same situation. When I contacted tech support for the company, they're the ones that actually told me to download a crack.

This brings up another point that hiasn't been explicitly stated in this thread so far:

Products with DRM are inferior to the pirated equivalent! They are crippled.

I have a PC game that I play regularly. I have a legal copy of the game that I bought from a shop. I use a 'crack' to enable playing the game without the disc because it's more convenient. When I have a computer with several hundred gigabytes of storage why should I be forced to insert a CD to run a game? And pirates use this as a reason (excuse) to download pirated games. They don't have to worry about the game not working or deactivating because the pirates have fixed it. This doesn't make pirating right, but to many people it justifies it.

I used to subscribe to my favourite soccer team's online videos, but I couldn't easily transfer those videos to the PC connected to my TV, so I stopped paying.

DRM artificially limits technology.
The people buying the media are not the ones pirating it either...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm still waiting for somebody to list one.



Are you kidding? Every media industry that has tried to push DRM has run into mule-stubborn customers that refuse to accept it.

I already have, more than once: The cable/satellite TV industry uses a DRM system (it's that little black box on your TV) to control their content. That box gives you access to some things, while restricting you from others, and making you pay for additional content (pay-per-view). They offer a lot of quality programming, which they use as a lever to convince you not to share your cable signal with your next-door neighbor.

And by and large, all those "mule-stubborn" customers have largely accepted this and either pay their bill and watch, or cut the service and go without.

As I said, it's not impossible to find a workable middle ground. It's also not within reason to expect people who don't like the service to simply do without, as opposed to stealing the content from another source just because the door's unlocked.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I already have, more than once: The cable/satellite TV industry uses a DRM system (it's that little black box on your TV) to control their content. That box gives you access to some things, while restricting you from others, and making you pay for additional content (pay-per-view). They offer a lot of quality programming, which they use as a lever to convince you not to share your cable signal with your next-door neighbor.

When you hit the "record" button you get a non-DRM version. The cable/satellite DRM you're talking about is between the industries service and their front end device. The data stream that comes from the cable box to the customer's display is non-DRM.

I wouldn't mind if eBooks are DRM'd from the retailers site as I download them to my PC, but when I read/save them the DRM is automatically stripped by the application. That's how the TV example works.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As I said, it's not impossible to find a workable middle ground. It's also not within reason to expect people who don't like the service to simply do without, as opposed to stealing the content from another source just because the door's unlocked.

I think that is the reason we still have DRM. Once the general consensus is that not paying for any work in digital form is stealing (unless the authors, composers, publishers, etc. agree to give it away) there will be no need for DRM. At the moment too many people think everything should be free. Never mind that DRM is mostly ineffective and cripples legal uses, publishers feel it is better than nothing. And I don't blame the publishers, I blame the "free" crowd.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And I don't blame the publishers, I blame the "free" crowd.

Really, both sides are to blame. Yes, it is human nature to take something for free if you are allowed to do so. That's why the darknet is still popular.

But people are also resistant to change. Publishers are still responsible for showing very little willingness to experiment, to try new financial models. One of those other models may very well function perfectly well without DRM, or with a DRM that is considered unobtrusive to customers. It will most likely be a new publisher that will find the e-publishing model that works, and existing publishers will either have to adapt the new model, or go out of business.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Really, both sides are to blame. Yes, it is human nature to take something for free if you are allowed to do so. That's why the darknet is still popular.

Plus the darknet has better products that work regardless of the device they are transferred to.

Better products at zero price or DRM-crippled products at a price?

Plus you can't even legally buy a lot of ebooks freely available on the darknet (Harry Potter, et. al).

I'm not defending piracy, but categorising all pirates as motivated only by cost is missing a lot of the point.

One of those other models may very well function perfectly well without DRM, or with a DRM that is considered unobtrusive to customers.

DRM and 'obtrusive to customers' go hand in hand though, and of course DRM doesn't prevent piracy anyway.

If they come up with a DRM scheme that lets me use DRMed media as if it were not DRMed then they will have a winner. But of course such a scheme would be pointless as it wouldn't prevent copying and sharing (not that any DRM scheme effectively does this anyway...)

A quick story on how DRM costs the industry:

A month or two ago I heard about a book on a podcast. A book about bananas. The author was talking about it. It sounded amazingly interesting, and I decided on the drive home as I listened that I would buy the book. It would be one of the first purchases for my new ebook reader.
I got home and almost immediately went online. I couldn't find the book in a DRM-free format. I actually emailed the author and enquired a few days later if there was a DRM-free version available. He replied that the publisher decided on such issues and said something about them being 'draconian' or something.

I thought 'what the hell?' Since the author was kind enough to respond I decided I'd buy a paper copy from the shop. (I couldn't buy a DRMed copy from the Sony store if I had wanted to either because I do not reside in the US). The book is not published in my country so I couldn't find it in a bookshop. By this time it was a couple of weeks since hearing about the book and I lost interest.

Twice I tried to buy a legal copy of that book. Twice I failed due to publishers suppressing technology.

I have so many things fighting for my money I'd rather spend it on products that meet my needs, not the manufacturer's needs.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I think that is the reason we still have DRM. Once the general consensus is that not paying for any work in digital form is stealing (unless the authors, composers, publishers, etc. agree to give it away) there will be no need for DRM. At the moment too many people think everything should be free. Never mind that DRM is mostly ineffective and cripples legal uses, publishers feel it is better than nothing.

I have to disagree for pragmatic reasons (not moral ones).

I think it's impossible to get people to pay for digital content the way we grew up paying for books, CDs, etc. Copying is too easy. There is no 'value' in a digital file, and evidence shows this is how younger generations think.

Everything should be free...not because it is right but because there is no other way in the digital age. I think it is inevitible that future generations will get all their media for free. I also think it is inevitible that media creators and artists will figure out a way to make money from their work. Everybody wins!

And I don't blame the publishers, I blame the "free" crowd.

Many of the "free" crowd justify their actions by citing the insane restrictions DRM places on availability and use of media. Do you think it would be easier to shut these people up if DRM didn't exist? Do you think the existence of DRM makes it any more difficult for them to get their media?

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I already have, more than once: The cable/satellite TV industry uses a DRM system (it's that little black box on your TV) to control their content. That box gives you access to some things, while restricting you from others, and making you pay for additional content (pay-per-view).

If you buy a new TV from a different manufacturer will your cable still work? I hope so. That's not the case with DRMed ebooks.

Cable is not a good analogy. You are paying a subscription for access to TV channels for a month at a time, and you're usually paying per TV, which is reasonable and logical. Pay-per-view is exactly that. You are paying for a rental to watch once, and it is priced accordingly, and you are aware of the rules when you sign up. If ebooks are to be tied to a device they should be priced as rentals.

And by and large, all those "mule-stubborn" customers have largely accepted this and either pay their bill and watch, or cut the service and go without.

Not the same as with books and music. I play my digital music on a variety of devices. If I had any music with DRM I wouldn't be able to use it on all my devices. It's not unusual to have an MP3 player, a few computers, a car stereo, phone, PDA, etc. that all support digital music. Same goes for books. I want to use ebooks on my reader and PC, maybe even my work PC...and any device I buy in the future, maybe my phone sometimes, etc.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I already have, more than once: The cable/satellite TV industry uses a DRM system (it's that little black box on your TV) to control their content. That box gives you access to some things, while restricting you from others, and making you pay for additional content (pay-per-view). They offer a lot of quality programming, which they use as a lever to convince you not to share your cable signal with your next-door neighbor.

Ohh, I watch DRM-free then as I don't have that black box... (at least, not on all our TV's)

(ok, we only have two, but all computers have a tv card as well...)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Everything should be free...not because it is right but because there is no other way in the digital age. I think it is inevitible that future generations will get all their media for free. I also think it is inevitible that media creators and artists will figure out a way to make money from their work. Everybody wins!

I disagree. I think that people will (& do) pay for digital media, even without DRM. Look at Baen Books. Look at iTunes.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I disagree. I think that people will (& do) pay for digital media, even without DRM. Look at Baen Books. Look at iTunes.

I pay for ebooks, music, videos without DRM too (I will NOT buy digital media with DRM). But I don't think there is a practical way of getting upcoming generations to pay for what they increasingly see as just bits of data copied- at no cost- from other bits of data. These generations don't percieve any value in what they can get for free. They don't see it as stealing. I'm not saying it's right or a good thing, but I do think it is inevitible.

Once everyone has an MP3 player, ereader, portable video player, etc. and grandmas and toddlers regularly download digital media...it will be impossible to convince everybody to pay for what they can get for free. It will be a total honour system, which I can't see working. I think eventually the media producers will have to concede that they can no longer sell digital files and will find other ways to profit from digital media.

Already we see a lot of musicians starting to really focus on making their money from anything but the actual music recordings. That is easier for musicians than authors, of course.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I'm not defending piracy, but categorising all pirates as motivated only by cost is missing a lot of the point.

Not really. People can be as altruistic as they want, but when your perfectly viable alternative is simply not to get the product at all, stealing it via the darknet is exactly the point.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

DRM and 'obtrusive to customers' go hand in hand though, and of course DRM doesn't prevent piracy anyway.

As I described in the cable scenario, the DRM used there is not obtrusive to customers... they are fine with it, in fact, rarely complain about it anymore, because they appreciate the service they're given enough to overlook the security issues.

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Cable is not a good analogy...

I never said the two were exactly alike... of course they're not. But the analogy is still a good one. You pay for a service that includes security (you can't share with other households). If you move, you have to close your old account and open a new one (or at least have the account transferred to the new residence). Copyright is still in effect: You can watch shows, you can tape them and watch them later, but you are still forbidden to use those shows for your own profit.

But because you happen to like seeing House in crystal-clear HD, you put up with all of that... which, coincidentally, is exactly the opposite of the e-book consumer, who would look at the above scenario and say "the cable industry is EVIL, and I'm going to steal my TV shows from my neighbor."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Ohh, I watch DRM-free then as I don't have that black box... (at least, not on all our TV's)

We used to, as well... until we switched to a new service that required control boxes. Which means, yes, tighter restrictions.

On the other hand, it also means pay-per-view, movies on demand, a clearer picture, more channels, and reduced overall communications utility bills throughout my house. Overall, I'd say the pluses outweigh the minuses handily.

That's really all DRM needs to work: A service that requires more plusses than minuses. Right now, the e-book industry cannot make that claim, and that's why their customers are so upset about DRM. They either have to make e-books (and the process of getting them) more value-added, to compensate for DRM... or leave it as-is and drop the DRM, because it doesn't merit the service.

But as I said before, the former is not impossible.

[anappo]

> One of those other models may very well function perfectly
> well without DRM, or with a DRM that is considered
> unobtrusive to customers.

Baen's Webscriptions has functioned without DRM for 10 years now. They appear to be doing quite well.

> It will most likely be a new publisher that will find the e-publishing

Or it can be a new online service that refuses to enter contracts with authors & publishers that require them to provide crippled goods. So far the only one I know is Russian one - www.litres.ru

Which is where I have been buying my e-books ever since fictionwise informed me that due to my obviously inferior country of origin, they are no longer allowed by the publishing industry to accept me paying for their products.

> Yes, it is human nature to take something for free if you are
> allowed to do so. That's why the darknet is still popular.

It is also in human nature to be lazy. Hunting stuff down on the darknet and then messing with format shifting currently requires more effort than it does to buy it on something like amazon. Unless the "official" channels refuse your money. Or until the first time the customer comes face to face with DRM.

> That's really all DRM needs to work: A service that requires more plusses
> than minuses.

A service that has more plusses than minuses doesn't need DRM to work.

Having had close encounters with DRM from both implementation side and as a customer, I'd say that what DRM really needs to work is a miracle.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by anappo

A service that has more plusses than minuses doesn't need DRM to work.

A system with more plusses than minuses, but no security, gets taken advantage of. That's why they need some security, to prevent widespread theft. (Try having absolutely no security in a supermarket, and see how much product you'll lose.)

The system with more plusses than minuses provides the incentive to accept DRM, which also allows a less obtrusive DRM to be used and still be effective. So a system with enough plusses to outweigh the minuses (including the DRM minus) can work.