TM: An alternative to DRM? Let's discuss.

[Ramen]

As for the general piracy debate, this thread lacks structure. I'll try to break the topic into sub-topics such that the discussion is more focused and less generalizing.

The corelation of copyright infringement and sales is unknown and specifically, any form of causality is unknown. Therefore I state the following axioms for the break-down.

Axiom1: The goal is to maximize profits
Axiom2: The effects of piracy are unknown
Lemma1: The goal is not to minimize copyright infringement. This may be a side-effect, though
Axiom2: There are customers that currently download illegal copies per default but that would acquire legal ebooks with the right deal
Axiom3: This only considers potential customers, i.e. people willing and able to spend money. Others who won't spend money practically irregardless of the situation/deal are excluded.

"Legend":

• Legal ebook: Bought from a bookstore, included with a physical book, free ebook, etc
• Illegal ebook: Format shifted version (illegal depending on local laws) or pirated version

I believe the following cases should cover most of the possibilities, when you are looking to buy an ebook:

• No legal ebook version available (Case A)
  At this point, there is no legal way to acquire an ebook
  
  • You already own the physical book (Case A.1)
    In this case, there is no lost sale.
    
    • You download an illegal ebook/scan the book yourself (Case A.1.1)
      There is no lost sale but the ebook may still be illegal, depending on local laws.
      
    • You drop the ebook (Case A.1.2)
      The customer may be disgruntled
      
  • You do not already own the physical book (Case A.2)
    
    • You buy the physical edition and download an illegal ebook/scan the book yourself (Case A.2.1)
      In this case, there is no lost sale but the ebook is still illegal, depending on local laws.
      `
    • You buy the physical edition and drop the ebook (Case A.2.2)
      In this case, there is no lost sale but this option may not always be available: out-of-print or insane delivery times, weight and size restrictions for traveling and the like, search-ability is required, dictionary integration is required, special accessibility features are required, etc
      
    • You download an illegal ebook (Case A.2.3)
      This would be a lost sale. If the physical book is unavailable for purchase (out-of-print, price, etc), the customer only has the choice between copyright infringement and dropping the book altogether. For normal books, price may be a small issue but for technical books required for your studies, this can be a large problem you cannot evade.
      
• Legal ebook version vailable (Case B)
  
  • The ebook is not DRMed (Case B.1)
    There should be no problem here, except maybe the price or format, though without DRM, there should be multiple formats to choose from (Case B.1.1)
    
  • The ebook is DRMed (Case B.2)
    
    • The DRM has been cracked (ignoring platform for a minute) (Case B.2.1)
      There is no lost sale but the cracked ebook may be illegal, depending on local laws (Case B.2.1.1)
      
    • The DRM has not been cracked (Case B.2.2)
      
      • The ebook is usable: Your platform (OS) is supported/the required reader is usable (Case B.2.2.1)
        
      • The ebook is unusable (Case B.2.2.2)
        In this case, you will have to download an illegal version or scan the book yourself. Else you can only drop the ebook
        
        • You buy the DRMed/physical edition and download an illegal copy/scan the book (Case B.2.2.2.1)
          There is no lost sale but the consumer still needs an illegal copy (depending on local laws), either downloaded or scanned
          
        • You only download an illegal copy (Case B.2.2.2.2)
          There is a lost sale here
        • You buy the physical edition and drop the ebook altogether (Case B.2.2.2.3)
          There is no lost sale here but the customer may be disgruntled
          
• You want both a physical and an electronic version (Case C)
  Part of this is covered above but I'd still like to make it it's own case. For normal books, this would amount to the physical book for reading at home and the ebook for on the road.
  For technical books, the physical is better for reading/studying where as the ebook is searchable and printable (hopefully) so that you can print the relevant parts and take them with you.
  Ideally, you'd buy the physical book and get a CD with the ebook as well. This is the case for some technical books. However, books are sold as publications, not as content, so the ebook and the physical edition are counted as two separate books, not just different formats. For this, a small surcharge for a dual-version would be okay.
  • An ebook is included for the normal price (Case C.1)
    Great deal for the customer, lost sale for the producer/publisher?
    • Ebook is in a usable format (OS, reader, etc)
    • Ebook is not in a usable format
      Again, you're stuck with an illegal download or cracking, depending on local laws, or scanning the book yourself. No lost sale, unless case C.1 is considered so.
  • No ebook is included (Case C.2)
    • Ebook available via small surcharge/as bundle (Case C.2.1)
      This would probably still satisfy most customers (Case C.2.2)
    • Ebook is completely separate
      • You download an illegal ebook (Case C.2.2.1)
        Is this considered a lost sale? After all, the customer has already bought the contents, just in an other format.
      • You consider buying the ebook as well (Case C.2.2.2, leading to cases A and B)

The idea now is to:

• minimize lost sales as above
• capitalize on the group of axiom2
• generally increase exposure (you need to know about a book before you can download or buy it)

The net results of the cases overlap of course but the reasoning is different and so the solutions will likely differ as well

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Ramen,
Nicely done! I'd like to point out 2 things:

1. Your Axiom 1 and Lemma 1 do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to simultaneously maximize profits and limit copyright infringement.
2. In many cases, you are skipping options for someone who wants an e-book. For instance, on your Case B.2.2.2, you suggest that if a legal e-book is available, yet the book is DRM'd and uncrackable, you are left with no choice but to buy the illegal e-book. In fact, there is another choice: Not to buy. No one has to buy an illegal product. And another option is to bite the bullet and buy the printed book (and scan it if you really want the e-book version).

[Ramen]

Thanks and I welcome any additions people want. There are probably still lots of scenarios that are missing.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

1. Your Axiom 1 and Lemma 1 do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to simultaneously maximize profits and limit copyright infringement.

Absolutely.
What I meant is, axiom1 is the goal. If axiom1 is best served via reducing copyright infringement, then so be it. However, reducing copyright infringement (CI) is a tool, not a goal and since the relationship between CI and profit is unknown, reducing CI should not be a primary goal without specific reasons.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

1. In many cases, you are skipping options for someone who wants an e-book. For instance, on your Case B.2.2.2, you suggest that if a legal e-book is available, yet the book is DRM'd and uncrackable, you are left with no choice but to buy the illegal e-book. In fact, there is another choice: Not to buy. No one has to buy an illegal product. And another option is to bite the bullet and buy the printed book (and scan it if you really want the e-book version).

With illegal version, I mean a pirated version. I'll update the original post to reflect this.
Edit: I've added case B.2.2.2.3 and clarified B.2.2.2.1/2.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ramen

With illegal version, I mean a pirated version.

We've had plenty of discussion about the distinctions between "piracy" and "illegality." I'll just say that I consider them to be essentially the same thing, and leave it at that.

And BTW, your earlier post about the realities of internet monitoring is exactly what I was alluding to at the beginning. Presently, encryption is the only thing preventing ISPs or the authorities from identifying packets and documents going back and forth. Though it's not a popular opinion (nor a desired one), the fact is that this one roadblock can be taken down.

Imagine a new government regulation that restricts the encryption systems allowed by all national ISPs to a specific set of schemes, for which they have a universal or "skeleton" key... and the authority to outright block anything using a different encryption method. This is not only conceivable, it is enforceable, given today's technology. And as I stated before, if the government comes to consider it the only way to solve a problem, I can see them applying it without hesitation, "for the public safety."

Naturally, they would apply something like that to control some more heinous crime, like child porn. But if it happened to make other transactions more secure, they would consider it a win-win...

Again, I'm not saying that this is a desired direction... just a very possible one.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Again, I'm not saying that this is a desired direction... just a very possible one.

Ummm....Steve,

If you don't think this is a desirable direction, why did you start the thread (and suggest the methodology)?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I was inspired by Taylor514ce to start this discussion, which I touched on in another thread. In light of the fact that DRM doesn't do the job in preventing e-book piracy, I wanted to suggest an alternative, independent of the other discussions, and I'd like to hear comments on the idea.

The idea is based on current efforts in law enforcement, with internet developers, to devise a way to cut down child porn and find child pornographers through web traffic monitoring and detection. Their methods have been based around the idea of devising a way for child porn images to be identified by web technology as it moves through the web, even drilling into encrypted files to identify the elements common to child porn images. The theory is that any bit of data so identified can be tracked to a sender and a recipient, using new or existing technology at the ISP level, allowing the authorities to locate the computer used and apprehend the owner.

Substitute child porn images with copywritten texts, and you have the idea.

. . .

The question is whether or not this system would be workable and fair enough to justify sacrificing an amount of privacy to allow it? How much of an amount? Is any sacrifice of privacy worth catching copyright violators?

. . .

For the purposes of ease of discussion, I will refer to this idea as Traffic Management, or TM.

I invite comments. I'm interested to hear what others think of the workability of this idea.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Imagine a new government regulation that restricts the encryption systems allowed by all national ISPs to a specific set of schemes, for which they have a universal or "skeleton" key... and the authority to outright block anything using a different encryption method. This is not only conceivable, it is enforceable, given today's technology.

The communication between two computer programs goes through the Internet as strings of numbers. Only the sender and the recipient understand what those bytes mean. For instance, in multiplayer games a single packet usually contains only a difference in position and rotation of certain player in the game from one of the previous packets/frames send by the client. It's just a few numbers.

There is no way in the world to be able to identify a string of bytes as encrypted, or not. Nearly everything that goes through ISPs network makes no sense to the ISPs computers. It may be plain and simple communication between two programs, not encrypted in any way, but nothing but those two programs will know what the numbers mean.

Only thing close to that I can see is identifying the stream as compressed - in compressed streams all values of bytes tend to show us with the same frequency... well compressed communication should be indistinguishable from noise. But that's not encrypted. And also nearly everything going through the Net is compressed. Jpg, Gif, Png, Tga formats are usually compressed, all video and audio streams used today have very good compression. Even if you send an uncompressed bmp image, you can count on the router one hop further to compress it in its chip so it takes less bytes to send to the next hop.

The thing you propose would probably make the government block all communication but www (only pure html is left, no java, no flash, nothing good looking, no audio, no video streams) and email.

And then in a few days someone would invent a way of sending everything disguised as emails or www pages, with proper html tags and everything, only different words would mean different bytes of the old communication for the sender and the recipient. If cleverly written, such communication would require reading by human to determine if its really www, or if its encoded signal disguised as www.

In short, from my technical point of view, I don't think it would work.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you don't think this is a desirable direction, why did you start the thread (and suggest the methodology)?

As I said... I was inviting comments... not passing judgement. Personally, I don't like the idea of having to track web traffic and spy on people. I also don't like DRM. And I don't like piracy. But there's reality to deal with here, so we're discussing whether the concept of TM would be workable, and if so, whether it would be better or worse than the alternatives. Nothing more.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by JeffElkins

Not least of which is the term "piracy." Violation of copyright is still (thank God) a civil violation. Real piracy still exists and is endemic in places like the South China Sea, and off the coast of Somalia. Calling a copyright violation "theft" or "piracy" devalues real crimes.

No it doesn't.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Ramen

As for the general piracy debate, this thread lacks structure. I'll try to break the topic into sub-topics such that the discussion is more focused and less generalizing.

This all is ridiculously specific (in a very good way), and I really can't find any significant holes in your descriptions.
This post is a good example of the finely segmented logic that should be somewhat compulsory for anybody discussing the topic of the e-book market in an even-handed mannner. The more "agumentatively valid" posts in this discussion will tend to resemble/address one or more of the contained segments of the logical tree described here, while those based upon an unreasonable agenda will tend to cross over gaps between topics or simply blanket many complex and specific issues under a single moral assertion. I wouldn't want to turn this description of this logical tree into yet another sticking point, but, as I kind of said, the arguments of somebody who constrains their assertions to the outer branches of such a tree will generally have a lot more grounding and be way harder to argue against as a bonus.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by spooky69

No it doesn't.

yes, it does ! and it's very serious.

in fact, a french boat, "Le Ponant", was taken over by pirates just this friday in the gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia. look :
http://www.google.fr/search?q=Le+Ponant+pirate

that's really on a whole different scale than copyright infringement.

[Lemurion]

I very much like Ramen's analysis, but I'm not 100% sold on his initial axiom (and by extension the lemma).

I agree that maximizing profit is not the same as minimizing copyright infringement, and that while it may lead to a decrease in copyright infringement that is only a beneficial side-effect, and not a direct goal in the case that he's putting forward.

The problem I have with his analysis is that I don't think it accurately represents the position of many publishers. I think that when it comes to electronic releases many are putting the lemma before the axiom. Much of their behavior can be better explained by stating that limiting copyright infringement is a more important goal than maximizing profit.

I don't think it's a rational stance, and the basic structure works very well if you do switch those two goals, but I do think it's a very common one.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Publishers more concerned with copyright infringement than profit? I wouldn't say so.

In fact, their behavior suggests that they are primarily concerned with profit, and that they believe copyright infringement (and, by extension, file sharing) is the single most serious threat to their profit.

Guys, let's pass on the "what is piracy" debates in this thread, and stay on topic, please.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

[...]
And BTW, your earlier post about the realities of internet monitoring is exactly what I was alluding to at the beginning. Presently, encryption is the only thing preventing ISPs or the authorities from identifying packets and documents going back and forth. Though it's not a popular opinion (nor a desired one), the fact is that this one roadblock can be taken down.

Imagine a new government regulation that restricts the encryption systems allowed by all national ISPs to a specific set of schemes, for which they have a universal or "skeleton" key... and the authority to outright block anything using a different encryption method. This is not only conceivable, it is enforceable, given today's technology. And as I stated before, if the government comes to consider it the only way to solve a problem, I can see them applying it without hesitation, "for the public safety."

Naturally, they would apply something like that to control some more heinous crime, like child porn. But if it happened to make other transactions more secure, they would consider it a win-win...
[...]

Others have already responded, so I'll only add what I still see missing.

Assuming your ban were workable, the US would crash spectacularly. Foreign corporations and governments would have a field-day as would the various (serious) crime syndicates. If you enforce this internationally, all countries would suffer.
Remember, there are crucial and very legal crypto applications:

• multi-national corporations (or any corp with more than one location)
• banks (they deserve specific mentioning)
• online-banking
• online shopping (all ebook sales included)
• anything requiring passwords. If you're hooked via ADSL/ISDN or some such, it's not as tragic but if you have cable, anyone in your house or even block can listen in on your traffic (depending on ISP of course). It's a shared, local LAN, after all.
• All wireless access points
• ...

Now, taking your second scheme, all countries would need the same set of keys or some other distribution, as the internet isn't a national thing. Currently, fresh keys are generated on the fly to greatly improve security which would be a problem with this new scheme. This also brings things like forward secrecy into the play.
Also, delibaretly breaking or crippling an encryption scheme is never more secure. It makes them monitored and it adds a huge central point of failure. Don't you remember the multiple personal record thefts last year?

Last but not least, what you are describing is the very definition of a police state, mind you. All these schemes would be pointless if the government (or whoever) wouldn't log/monitor all traffic. You cannot retroactively log an incriminating packet, you need to log them beforehand.
If you have proper hints that a crime will happen, the current legal system gives you sufficient ways to monitor a suspect. These new methods only facilitate investigating large parts of the population at once and without prior evidence.



I'd like to note that I left out things like judical or congressional oversight, as they are jokes. Likewise, I did not make a distinction between pure logging and actual monitoring, as the former always leads to the later.
See the US spying scandal of last year.

We should rememner that privacy is essential to a democray (or a republic in the case of the US/a const. monarchy in the UK). Abolishing privacy is unconstitutional and should thus call the Office for the Protection of the Constitution into action. Same for violating the separation of powers and the separation of church and state.

In the end, the question is really: What is more important to you, a free society or your profit?
The same goes for terrorism and the like. What point is there in security, if you've destroyed your country in the process (with respect to it's principles or "soul"). Especially, when most anti-terror measures are little more than snake-oil to appease the masses.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

yes, it does ! and it's very serious.

I'll take you at your word and mock this sentiment pretty straight-on (dead ahead, as actual pirates would say in Indonesian-speak).
The label of "piracy" on infringement of intellectual property probably has about as much relevance to actual naval piracy as a wine cork floating in the Baltic Sea where somebody took a permanent marker and wrote the word "piracy" on it.
I'm pretty well aware of the whole "naval piracy was almost completely wiped out at one point and various factors have led to a resurgence in naval piracy in various waters of the world without adequate water police" concept. If I'm on a cruise ship that's being shot by rocket launchers (actual real thing that happened), then I'll start to worry about naval piracy, but until then I'll focus more on disapproving the various "higher" factors that create an atmosphere conducive to piracy, such as the child sex trade and general rampant pedophilia that pervades every damn island east of Asia including Japan, partially as a result of US intervention at some point in history.
But, like I said, until then...
When the pirate parties in Europe start representing outlaw navality, I'll just assume that they're abandoned representing individual rights in a new intellectual environment and adopted the ideal of total anarchy for those guys who boarded Bill Murray's big boat in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. It's possible that my assumption at that point might be extremely off-base if they're not just a bunch of hipsters who, like sassy world citizens since times past immaterial, just want to be noticed by other Norwegians.
Should this be the case, I would argue that the pirate flag that looks like a tape in The Pirate Bay's logo is actually a real flag containing valuable intellectual property.

Edit: Just re-read and realized that you were assuming that I was responding to something that I wasn't, and I was responding to you responding to something besides that which I thought I was responding to in reference to an earlier, now somewhat irrelevant post. All in all, my post that I am editing here, right now, stands as a very effective commentary about the part of that one post that I was originally replying to, but this post doesn't contain quite the same bite that it would have had I been responding to a response to the thing I thought I was responsibly responding to and not the mistaken response to my response to the response to this thread.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Ramen

Assuming your ban were workable, the US would crash spectacularly.

Citing a potential scenario where the entire United States economy dissipates based one single, ultra-important factor isn't a good way to start off an argument centered around the United States economy's potential future.