E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

These items are only "bad news" if you are categorically against DRM, or a particular store, in principle. Both examples ably demonstrate that DRM (just another form of product security) is workable, and that a store who gets its selling model right is accepted by the consumers, however monopolistic.

I'm pretty much on record around here as not being against DRM in principle... but against DRM in current practice. Valuable products need some level of security, or they get stolen, plain and simple. To solve that dilemma, you can only do 3 things: Add effective and acceptable security; remove the value; or make someone else pay for the product.

Advertising models can satisfy the third solution, as long as you can get consumers to accept the ads, supposedly by making them aware that the ads are what allow them to get free content. Low prices serve to satisfy #2, if you are okay with a smaller return on the product.

As has been pointed out, there are forms of DRM that are considered effective by vendors and acceptable to many consumers. But if this is not considered acceptable to others, choosing the 2nd or 3rd solution (or both) would seem to make more sense. In time, I believe a "practically bulletproof" DRM system would be possible and effective (think biometrics), but we're a long ways from that.

The important thing to understand is that all of these solutions are compromises, and we have to accept at least some compromise, either one of the above or something else you devise, to make the system workable. But the public has accepted these compromises in other areas, so there's no reason to expect they can't accept them here as well.

When they come up with a 'workable' biometric DRM, it's time to round up every person involved in the project and kill them. Not just the techies, but also the managment and the legislators urging on the production.

Why? Because it won't stop there.

Derek

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If the publishers/industry can implement something like that to force ebooks to emulate pbooks and everyone agrees this is how it should work and it's a common format etc. I'm all for it.

They absolutely can, if they want to. The only reason they don't is because they choose not to.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You're both trying to fit a new technological world back into the old mold. Just doing it differently.

It's like trying to discuss how to return to medieval chivalry twenty years after cannons have started blasting castles into rubble, and blowing knight out of their saddles....

I'm not advocating the old mold at all Ralph. I'm specifically saying that the new format - the new technology - can't be managed in the same way as the old. The current attempts at DRM are a stab by the publishers at maintaining that old methodology.

I'm not saying we need need the same thing, but I am saying that in order for society to benefit from the creativity of individuals there must be some methodology in place to allow that creative individual to benefit (i.e. make a living) from their work. That is the point of Copyright and that is the reason for implementing DRM to protect the creative property. Without that methodology in place the products of creativity which potentially benefit all of us will languish.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They absolutely can, if they want to. The only reason they don't is because they choose not to.

On this we'll just have disagree. I've stated my case above and will stand by it.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Happ

Until you show publishers how that is not going to wreck their business completely you will not have their attention. And you will not be even nearer that if you do not see the economic difference between lending p-books and lending e-books.

Won't happen because it's all about control - and reaching the 100% profit margin. Now, maximizing profit is good, but there's never going to be a system that reaches that level and guarantees that it can be maintained. Yet we constantly see upper managment trying to do so time after time. They seem to have forgotten that there is a level of profits that absolutely WILL cause upstart firms to work to steal a share of the market - if only by rejecting the 'protections' on *their* products the customers find so onerus (onerous?).

Derek

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Now who's talking about something that doesn't exist.
If the publishers/industry can implement something like that to force ebooks to emulate pbooks and everyone agrees this is how it should work and it's a common format etc. I'm all for it. ... DRM may change to allow selling, lending, or burning just like pbooks but it's not there yet

B&N has a method for sharing DRM'd ebooks.

But they only allow you to use it once, for two weeks, and only for some publishers--unlike your physical books, which can be loaned for any length of time, to any number of people, regardless of publisher.

That's a pretty solid indication that publishers aren't interested in allowing people to treat their ebooks like pbooks; they want to discourage sharing as much as they can get away with.

There's no reason Adobe couldn't create a transfer-of-DRM option... if it costs to maintain the servers, maybe charge $.50 or $1 to move ownership of an ebook to a new account. If they did that, people could resell their DRM'd ebooks for $2, make a bit of profit & cover the expense of moving the file... but the publishers don't want people reselling ebooks.

Everyone doesn't have to agree on how it should work, for publishers using current DRM to offer the ability to legally transfer ownership of an ebook. Right now, none of them are offering that option--all claim that the original purchaser is the only lawful owner/user of the book. Some even claim it's not legal to sell your ebook device with ebooks still on it.

They're not seeking to prevent illegal copies; they're trying to prevent the secondhand book market from going digital.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Hey, the Japanese managed it.

For how long? A couple of centuries and the cannons came sailing in and took over, like it or lump it....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That may change, the DRM may change to allow selling, lending, or burning just like pbooks but it's not there yet and unlike you I don't think it's a conspiracy or intentional on the part of the publishers, it's just that we are not there yet

I envy you your naivete, and yes, we are there. The technology to create a DRM system to do just that is not beyond current capabilities. It's just a direction that they don't want to go. If they can get away with protecting their rights, and at the same time taking away consumer's rights, it works out in their favor.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Happ

You cannot share a pbook with 2000 people. Well, you can in principle, but that is not going to happen. However, you can easily share an ebook with a million people. That is the economic difference.

Sure I can. I just get a place where I can gather them together and I read it to them! And there's absolutely NOTHING publishers can do to stop it!

Derek

[Bob T]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They absolutely can, if they want to. The only reason they don't is because they choose not to.

Last year I bought Adobe Flash CS3 software, used, legally.
CS4 is the latest version, CS3 is an older revision.
The original owner deactivated his legal copy through Adobe and sold it to me.
I installed it, legally reactivated it through Adobe and now it is legally mine to use with Adobe's permission.

I've known people to do the same thing with Sony VegasPro and other software...
It can be done...and is being done, yes...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not saying we need need the same thing, but I am saying that in order for society to benefit from the creativity of individuals there must be some methodology in place to allow that creative individual to benefit (i.e. make a living) from their work. That is the point of Copyright and that is the reason for implementing DRM to protect the creative property. Without that methodology in place the products of creativity which potentially benefit all of us will languish.

Artists seem to have been doing fine when society had fair use and first sale rights up until now.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I envy you your naivete, and yes, we are there. The technology to create a DRM system to do just that is not beyond current capabilities. It's just a direction that they don't want to go. If they can get away with protecting their rights, and at the same time taking away consumer's rights, it works out in their favor.

Let's not get personal. As I said above. You are arguing something you don't really know -- unless you are on the Board of Directors of HarperCollins. You are assuming that is the reason. It's not. They could care less, they just want to protect their rights. The technology to enforce DRM in the same manner as pbooks if not trival by any means. That's not naive, that's reality.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Artists seem to have been doing fine when society had fair use and first sale rights up until now.

Not in the digital world. The same issues exist.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

On this we'll just have disagree.

It's already been done.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not advocating the old mold at all Ralph. I'm specifically saying that the new format - the new technology - can't be managed in the same way as the old. The current attempts at DRM are a stab by the publishers at maintaining that old methodology.

I'm not saying we need need the same thing, but I am saying that in order for society to benefit from the creativity of individuals there must be some methodology in place to allow that creative individual to benefit (i.e. make a living) from their work. That is the point of Copyright and that is the reason for implementing DRM to protect the creative property. Without that methodology in place the products of creativity which potentially benefit all of us will languish.

But you are advocating the old mold. Copyright was self-enforcing when it took lots and lots of capital to make a copy of a product as cheaply as the copyright owner could. So no one would risk the capital to make copies. Now anybody can do it, for peanuts. Any way to compensate authors has to accept that fact, and work with it. Maybe there's no answer, I don't know. But I do know you can't stuff the trumpet note back into the trumpet.