Pan Macmillan: DRM Is Not Evil

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

You as a publisher understandably, though definitely self-servingly, think so.

Many disagree, and it seems to me that there is every reason to believe that your interpretation of the matter will universally fall out of favour in a matter of time.

DRM is a fool's weapon for fighting other fools--but the people that DRM is supposed to fight are the very people who aren't fools enough to be inconvenienced by it.

- Ahi

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ahi

DRM is a fool's weapon for fighting other fools--but the people that DRM is supposed to fight are the very people who aren't fools enough to be inconvenienced by it.

DRM is just another form of security, something I am pretty sure you live with every day, if you lock your house, mind traffic lights, use a credit card, own a phone or web account, and shop at stores with security cameras or guards or security strips in the products. It took time to develop that security for those things, but it was done, and people today accept them... I imagine you do too, every day. And if you can live with those, why is it so impossible to believe you could live with e-book DRM?

This is why I fail to see the logic in the argument that DRM is absolutely EVIL. And so far, none of the DRM detractors have convinced me that that is not the case. It's condemning a system that hasn't been given a fair chance to develop... mainly because of customers who scream from every pinprick as if their arm has been cut off, making it all but impossible for sellers to experiment and develop workable systems and value-added services to make them viable.

Sure, DRM isn't perfect. Neither was the Model-T. That doesn't make it EVIL, it means it has a lot of room for development.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

People are going to steal digital files regardless of DRM. DRM does not and can not stop that.

DRM also prevents honest customers from using products fairly, and therefore costs the publisher in the long run.

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.

The reason the cable analogy is bad is that the two mediums are completely different.

Cable is a monthly rental agreement, and it suits the medium. You pay for access to content for a period of time. This content is also of a type that is by nature fixed to a location (i.e. your TV/cable box).

FWIW I have no issue with DRM on rental content. The Zune Pass is a good example. For $15 a month users can download as much music they like from the Zune store for no extra cost, and they get to keep 10 songs each month as well (without DRM). The DRM on the subscription tracks restricts use to that person's account, which can include a set number of PCs and Zune players (actually I think 1 subscription can be shared across a couple of accounts, but I could be wrong). This is an example of DRM that is fair to the customer. They are renting, not buying. I occasionally rent videos digitally. It's cheap and I know I'm only buying a licence to view the program once, and I'm aware that it will only work on a PC activated with my account.

Ebooks and music are different to cable TV. I have no interest in renting a book or music. I want to own what I buy so I can use it again and again on my terms. If I buy a digital file I must be able to use that file as I see fit, such as replacing the reading device, reading on multiple devices, accessing the files from a computer, etc. This is not possible with DRM. If I am expected to rent a book I will not pay the kind of prices the publishers are currently asking (i.e. the same price as buying a physical copy of the book).

Another reason the cable analogy fails is that there is no restriction on fair use with cable TV. You can record onto video tape for time shifting purposes, and you can change the TV you view the shows on or even move the box into another room. Letting a neighbour access your cable is not fair use, and most people would agree on that. Putting an ebook onto a phone to read when your reader is at home is something most people would expect to be able to do in the digital age.

If TV subscriptions were changed to be digital files downloaded to a computer the analogy would be more accurate. The cable TV paradigm is dated one, and one that itself will almost certainly die (or change significantly) as content is more easily available online. Will future generations be happy to watch what the TV channels pipe into their house on the network's schedule when they can get access to the programs they want easily online? I doubt it. When that happens, people will want to escape the current confines of cable.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

People are going to steal digital files regardless of DRM. DRM does not and can not stop that.

DRM also prevents honest customers from using products fairly, and therefore costs the publisher in the long run.

So: Give them an alternative that does not include the words "or I will steal it."

Originally Posted by djgreedo

The reason the cable analogy is bad is that the two mediums are completely different.

That's why it's an analogy. Of course the mediums are different! That doesn't mean the point is invalid.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So: Give them an alternative that does not include the words "or I will steal it."

DRM that doesn't inconvenience customers does not and cannot exist.

DRM that prevents copyright infringement (calling it stealing being primarily propaganda bullshit) on the long term does not and cannot exist.

These two sentences are plain and simple facts. Anything that contradicts them is necessarily nonsense.

- Ahi

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

DRM is just another form of security, something I am pretty sure you live with every day, if you lock your house, mind traffic lights, use a credit card, own a phone or web account, and shop at stores with security cameras or guards or security strips in the products. It took time to develop that security for those things, but it was done, and people today accept them... I imagine you do too, every day. And if you can live with those, why is it so impossible to believe you could live with e-book DRM?

That is a valid point. But the issue here is that it's currently impossible to protect digital media with DRM without hurting the customer, and it's impossible for DRM to prevent piracy.

There is no difference between what is sold only with DRM and what is sold without DRM when it comes to what is available illegally. I honestly think the publishers either don't understand this or choose to ignore it so they can gouge customers now before the inevitible crash of their industry.

Security for a car is not the same as security for digital files. A car is a physical object subject to the laws of physics (e.g. if the door isn't locked a thief can get in). The locks on the doors are protecting me and my property, they are not protecting Ford from me selling my car when I'm finished with it or using my car for a purpose Ford didn't forsee or intend.

Security cameras are there to protect physical objects from being stolen. If a security camera prevented me from using a product I bought at a store when I got it home I would be mightily annoyed. But that's not possible. It doesn't affect the product I walk out of the store with at all.

Security strips are a little closer to DRM. They harm the product in the name of security. If you're not careful you could tear a book page removing them I suppose. A minor pain. But they are effective in preventing theft, something you can't attribute to DRM. And if the strip made the product unusable you could almost certainly get your money back.

DRM isn't intended to provide me with any benefit, especially not security. It only serves to place artificial limits on what I can do with my media and technology.

I feel very strongly that technological advancement is a good thing.

This is why I fail to see the logic in the argument that DRM is absolutely EVIL. And so far, none of the DRM detractors have convinced me that that is not the case.

DRM is not evil. It can be useful in certain cases (such as the Zune Pass example in my previous post).

The problem is that DRM only serves to restrict technology and frustrate users. The publishers need to work out a way to make money without it because whether they use it or not their products are going to be freely available without DRM illegally.

And yes, it may be possible one day for a DRM scheme to work. But I doubt it will happen. The music industry tried for a decade and failed. It's sad that the publishing industry is largely choosing to ignore the mistakes that have almost certainly cost the music industry millions of dollars a year due to alienated customers who turned to Napster and 'forgot' their instinct to pay for their music.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That's why it's an analogy. Of course the mediums are different! That doesn't mean the point is invalid.

You didn't address the (overly) detailed explanation of why I said the analogy is invalid.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ahi

DRM that doesn't inconvenience customers does not and cannot exist.

DRM that prevents copyright infringement (calling it stealing being primarily propaganda bullshit) on the long term does not and cannot exist.

These two sentences are plain and simple facts. Anything that contradicts them is necessarily nonsense.

- Ahi

Ahi, while I agree with you, I think for the benefit of the debate it must be conceded that some DRM is in fact not 100% evil, such as the subscription models.

I can't imagine anybody would have issue with subscription services with set boundaries having suitable DRM as long as the terms are fair and properly communicated (e.g. the Zune Pass example I gave earlier). The alternative (with music) is that you simply buy what you want when you want without DRM on the tracks (as iTunes, Zune, Amazon, BigPond, etc. all allow for almost their entire catalogues now).

It's when DRM seeks to limit what we can do with the media we buy that it becomes horrible.

[anappo]

> A system with more plusses than minuses, but no security,
> gets taken advantage of.

DRM does not give you that security.

> (Try having absolutely no security in a supermarket, and see
> how much product you'll lose.)

In supermarket, your security will need to have enough success rate to make it likely that a thief gets caught. With say, 50% catch rate, it would be too risky for the thief. In case of DRM-ed digital object, you would need to have 100% success rate at preventing DRM removal by someone with intent to distribute that object. Historically, DRM has not been proven to be that reliable. Once the DRM gets removed and the object becomes available on darknet, then you are in a worse state than without DRM in the first place.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that DRM or no DRM, your object gets uploaded/seeded somewhere anyway.

Now there are two supermarkets. Legal supermarket and the darknet. Which one will the customers go for? The one that is cheaper (darknet) or the one that is closer (stuff on darknet is harder to find)? Now, if your object is difficult or impossible to find on the legal supermarket or it has restrictions on it - then there is no contest. If it is easier to find a legal copy, then it becomes a battle between greed and convenience + conscience.

You too can participate in that battle. Greed component you can affect by pricing.

Convenience you can affect in three ways: firstly by having your product available on online store with good reputation, secondly by sparing some effort on supression of your stuff on illegal channels and thirdly by not having restrictions on your product that could backfire on you or the user.

Conscience you can affect by either apparing to have good faith in your customer or appearing to believe that the only thing preventing your customer from becoming a thief is his ignorance.

> It took time to develop that security for those things, but it was done

Various software copy protection schemes have been around since 80s, if not earlier. First door locks, according to wiki, appeared ca 4000 years ago in Egypt. Didn't help much against locals looting the crypts.

> So: Give them an alternative that does not include the words "or I will steal it."

You cannot feasibly make it technically impossible for some bugger to download your stuff. iTunes and Amazon MP3 shop and folks here who read e-books are testament to that it is possible to sell lots of content to people who -could- get their hands on illegal copies but chose otherwise.

[Alfy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

DRM is just another form of security, something I am pretty sure you live with every day, if you lock your house, mind traffic lights, use a credit card, own a phone or web account, and shop at stores with security cameras or guards or security strips in the products. It took time to develop that security for those things, but it was done, and people today accept them... I imagine you do too, every day. And if you can live with those, why is it so impossible to believe you could live with e-book DRM?

You are quite right when you state that we all live with a certain level of security in our daily lives. But we also accept only a certain level of hassle. I have no problems with shopping malls security walking around and keeping an eye on everything. I WOULD definitly mind being thoroughly searched everytime I leave one, and the shopping mall that would try that kind of policy would see its revenues plummet.

DRMs provide an intolerable amount of hassle for the level of security it is supposed to provides. I will not list again all the reasons (interoperability, what happens when a DRM is not supported anymore...), but yes, for me, as a user and a LEGAL ebooks purchaser, DRMs are evil.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Alfy

DRMs provide an intolerable amount of hassle . .

I think this is the first time I've seen 'hassle' spelled correctly on the the Internet!

For some reason people always put a 't' in there.

Carry on with the debate...

[RobbieClarken]

Originally Posted by anappo

In supermarket, your security will need to have enough success rate to make it likely that a thief gets caught. With say, 50% catch rate, it would be too risky for the thief. In case of DRM-ed digital object, you would need to have 100% success rate at preventing DRM removal by someone with intent to distribute that object. Historically, DRM has not been proven to be that reliable. Once the DRM gets removed and the object becomes available on darknet, then you are in a worse state than without DRM in the first place.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that DRM or no DRM, your object gets uploaded/seeded somewhere anyway.

Not entirely true. If your DRM is sophisticated enough that only 1 in 20 customers have the ability to remove it and only 1 in 1000 customers have the desire to remove it then there is a reasonable chance your book wont be decrypted and shared online. However, as ebooks become more popular and sales increase, the chances that noone will share you book will become increasingly slim.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by RobbieClarken

Not entirely true. If your DRM is sophisticated enough that only 1 in 20 customers have the ability to remove it and only 1 in 1000 customers have the desire to remove it then there is a reasonable chance your book wont be decrypted and shared online. However, as ebooks become more popular and sales increase, the chances that noone will share you book will become increasingly slim.

It doesn't matter how sophisticated the DRM is. It only takes one and it's being shared on the peer to peer sites. It can also be scanned from a paper book. DRM doesn't stop the massive peer to peer sharing.

In your example it stops 999 from sharing the book with family and close friends which might be seen as having some benefit but this also damages the most reliable method of spreading the word about the book and getting new people to read your book and buy your future books.

It also stops 999 paying customers from 1) being able to read the book on an electronic reading program with the features of their choice 2) having a reasonable ability to read the book beyond 2 years from the purchase 3) read the book on the hardware device of their choice 4) use new features on the book as they're developed (ex: TTS, language conversion)

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan;530000
That's why it's an [I

analogy[/I]. Of course the mediums are different! That doesn't mean the point is invalid.

Yes it does. If you comparing apples to spaceships analogy will just give you "how smart I am" rush, but won't prove the point.

On top of it, it probably helps to read the entire post where your analogy was dissected and refuted point by point.

I am not surprised at your statement, that you are not convinced - you have to have an open mind on the matter to evaluate arguments. You look like you have a "Belief" in DRM, no clever arguments can shake the belief.

Me from reading this thread and having some experience with DRM introduced hassles - have totally different conclusion from yours.

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I can't imagine anybody would have issue with subscription services with set boundaries having suitable DRM as long as the terms are fair and properly communicated (e.g. the Zune Pass example I gave earlier). The alternative (with music) is that you simply buy what you want when you want without DRM on the tracks (as iTunes, Zune, Amazon, BigPond, etc. all allow for almost their entire catalogues now).

im game for the netflix of books. (netbooks?... man thats a bad name for it)

even with drm this would be cool as I dont read most books more then once.
they would just need to get large selecton of books before they could get anyone to pay money on it.

the few that you do you could go buy elsewere.