People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, I want to whittle it down to dozens of competing companies, who have different standards of "good," that they pitch to their target demographic customers.

One company focuses on science fiction only... for $10/month, you get a list of 100 sci-fi ebooks published in the last month that fit their standards of quality sci-fi. For an extra $5/month, you get less books, but more filtering: you only get space opera, or romantic sci-fi, or mysteries in sci-fi settings, or horror-esque stories, or so on.

Another company does romances. Another does YA novels. Another does "novels from 1st person POV." Another does nonfiction, with subgenres politics, health, technology, and self-help. And so on.

I'm not thinking of a single company; I'm pondering an industry in recommendations to replace the current publisher's name-stamp on the side of a book.

Publishers (and before them, literary agents) already do all this filtering, plus more, and have a track record. You want to replace one set of arbiters--who are putting their money where their mouth is--with another set of arbiters who have no reputation, no stake, and no credentials. And this is an improvement?

Still totally horrified.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world?

That's not the right question.

The question is this:

Does DRM induce authors to produce works that they would not produce without DRM?

Given that money has been substituted in modern society for honor, status, achievements, and pretty much everything else that might be considered a reward, we can convert that to "Does DRM enable authors to earn more money than they would without DRM?"

And the answer is no, it doesn't, because DRM doesn't stop the people who want to make copies of ebooks. It doesn't stop the people who want to turn pbooks into ebooks. It is impossible for DRM to prevent people from making DRM-free ebooks because, by definition, an ebook always needs to be displayed; if nothing else, someone can photograph their computer screen and OCR the resulting pictures. Remember, it only takes one person per book, and the genie is out of the bottle and on the torrents.

There are ways to discourage the sharing of ebooks. Education is one option ... of course, any publisher can tell customers "hey, don't give that book away, Joe Smith's groceries depend on it" while DRM is making money for its providers, giving them a tremendous incentive to encourage its use. The fact that there are people like me -- and we're all over MobileRead -- who are entirely capable of getting any book we want without paying for it, but nonetheless choose to pay for our books, shows that many people will be honest, and I suspect many of those who are on the border would be if they recognized the people involved (i.e., the authors) and not BigSuperCo Inc.

The standard response by the pro-DRM people is "anyone who opposes DRM is just one of those 'entitled' people who wants everything for free." They're missing something critical: we can already get it for free. That's not the issue at all. If that's all we wanted, we'd nod our heads and smile and say yes, DRM works fine, it's blocking my natural inclination to steal everything that isn't nailed down ... and then sneak off to the darknets and download every book in sight. An end to DRM will not make it any easier for the people like me who argue against it to obtain any ebook we want, because it's already easier to get an illicit copy than it is to buy the real thing. And it's free. So whatever someone may dream up to explain our reasoning, wanting ebooks for free isn't it -- it can't be it -- because we already have that. It would actually be better for ebook sharing if everyone pretended that DRM worked just fine, rather than continually arguing against it, and just quietly ignored it.

But anyway, back to the Apple rep's original question: DRM has no effect, unless that might be a negative one (people like me not buying their books at all) on whether or not authors and/or publishers can make a living. If they can make a living with DRM they can make a living without it. DRM doesn't change whether or not they can make a living.

By the way, there are a number of reasons why DRM works on video games but not on ebooks.

One simple one is chronological: How many games do you play that are 10 years old? How many are even more than a year old? A lot of people play a game through, beat it, maybe play it one more time, then toss it on the shelf. Even a totally replayable game, like a multi-player FPS, will be superseded by a new version and most players will migrate to that one. If it's unplayable a year from now, let alone ten years from now, they will most likely neither know nor care, because it's been replaced by newer and better games. The lifespan of the game is shorter than the lifespan of the device (PC, console, whatever) it's used on.

Another is the target market. By and large, people who buy video games are technologically at least competent. They know what they're buying and how they can use it in advance. If they have a Wii, they're not going to go buy games for an Xbox 360 instead. Downloadable games are generally downloaded on and through the device they will be used on. Physical games come in boxes with distinctive heraldry for each platform. There are very few equivalents to the would-be ebook readers who buy books from Amazon and can't read them on their Kobo.

Then there's the matter of circumvention. It's certainly possible to get a cracked version of pretty much any game you want. But just using the game you brought home from GameStop is generally easy and seamless, while there is a fair bit of effort required to get the cracked one to work properly. In other words, it's easier to be legit. In the case of DRM, it's the other way around: it can be harder to be a legitimate customer than just to go grab the darn thing off the darknet and avoid all the hassles. That's why it's hurting the wrong people.

Out of all of those, I think the time issue is the biggest. I have hundred-year-old pbooks; I doubt if anyone a hundred years from now is going to want to play any of today's computer games.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Publishers (and before them, literary agents) already do all this filtering, plus more, and have a track record. You want to replace one set of arbiters--who are putting their money where their mouth is--with another set of arbiters who have no reputation, no stake, and no credentials. And this is an improvement?

Still totally horrified.

I agree. I don't think I want pay for a list when the existing review sources seem to be working well. I can usually tell quite easily from amazon reviews and comments whether the book is good and whether it is for me or not.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Publishers (and before them, literary agents) already do all this filtering, plus more, and have a track record. You want to replace one set of arbiters--who are putting their money where their mouth is--with another set of arbiters who have no reputation, no stake, and no credentials. And this is an improvement?

Still totally horrified.

Publishers charge authors 75-95% of a book's income for doing all that, including features an author may not need. (Some authors can do their own formatting better than the publisher.) Authors who aren't willing to give up that percentage are looking for other options.

I'm not talking about swapping a set of arbiters--I'm looking for a set to fill in for the ones I've already lost. I don't buy from the Big 6, because they don't sell in formats I'll read. So I'm looking for filter methods that work on the books I am interested in. And I'd be willing to pay for someone to read-and-review substantial portions of the thousands of indie ebooks that come out every month.

A new set of reviewers could build a reputation and put a stake in the books. And I'd have grounds for trusting someone who said, "pay us for reviews of other people's books"--because the month I decide the reviews aren't good enough, I stop paying them. And then I'm out that $10, oh darn. That's the price of one bad mmpb purchase.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I agree. I don't think I want pay for a list when the existing review sources seem to be working well. I can usually tell quite easily from amazon reviews and comments whether the book is good and whether it is for me or not.

I don't buy at Amazon. And if I did, or looked over their books, I'd still be willing to throw a few dollars a month at someone who could give me a list of books that were worth looking at, instead of me having to wade through everything on my own.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't buy at Amazon. And if I did, or looked over their books, I'd still be willing to throw a few dollars a month at someone who could give me a list of books that were worth looking at, instead of me having to wade through everything on my own.

To each his own. As I said I think the current sources I use (and most people use - including this site) work just fine and are not tied to the publishers etc. If you want to pay fine by me.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by MartinC

I would rather put my faith in the opinion of someone who is going to lose a wad of cash if they make the wrong call.

So you like Twilight, then?

(sorry, I just had to....)

[JSWolf]

Speaking of sales of music going down....

CDs cost too much. The RIAA are a bunch of morons for keeping prices high.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by stonetools

But it does apparently do something for writers and publishers . THAT is why the vast majority of writers and publishers still insist on them. And I haven't really heard a serious, detailed answer to the question I posed above. Maybe you can help with that. Apparently answering that question isn't that easy, compared to say, challenging my analogies.

It's called being DELUSIONAL! They only screw the honest people and the dishonest people aren't bothered.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I'm really damned sorry about this, but I'm going to restrict my responses to the data and to the arguments, and not personally attack anyone or disclose personal data. Possibly we should take this up with the moderators and ask whether we need to disclose personal informatiopn whenver we contest the preferred position on these forums. I don't recall Babi Yuga (sp? ) being asked whether he/she was in the pocket of the publishers when he defended agency pricing.

Kali Yuga. And you haven't been around long enough, apparently, to have read when I asked about that very thing. There are four people on MobileRead that I believe are employed by, or astroturfing for, third parties. I'll leave you to guess who the other two are. Hint: one was defending a particular device with only limited connections to ebooks, and seems to have gone away again, and the other I keep getting into arguments with.

There's another thread about paying for reviews, and a big discussion over whether a review should be paid for, whether a paid reviewer can be objective, whether a free book, or a job at a publication which accepts advertising, is enough payment to compromise objectivity, and so on. I think the consensus has come down to disclosure: that is, a reviewer should state what outside influences (free books, payola from authors, whatever) are involved, and let readers decide which reviews they'd trust. In my belief, the same is true of publishers' representatives. I'd like to have more of them, by the way, the same way we encourage authors to post here and discuss their books. But I want to know who they are, just as I want authors to say they wrote a given book instead of (as the occasional idiot does) trying to pretend it's someone else's book they've just found and want to hype.

But there's really little need to ask. Your response to the question told us all we need to know. Not that most of us didn't figure it out a long time ago.

For the record, I am not employed by any publisher. I'm a freelance website designer. I've never even designed or built a website for anyone who sells books. <obligatory plug>If you have a book for sale and need a website, feel free to get in touch.</obligatory plug> My opinions on ebooks, on ebook readers, on DRM, and everything else I post here, are entirely the opinions of an individual, not speaking on behalf of any person or organization.

I have no problems disclosing that, as it is germane to this discussion. I doubt if anyone else here -- at least anyone else not astroturfing -- has a problem with doing so either.

[Freeshadow]

A lot of good stuff in the quoted posting apart from the fragment below:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

One simple one is chronological: How many games do you play that are 10 years old? How many are even more than a year old? A lot of people play a game through, beat it, maybe play it one more time, then toss it on the shelf. Even a totally replayable game, like a multi-player FPS, will be superseded by a new version and most players will migrate to that one. If it's unplayable a year from now, let alone ten years from now, they will most likely neither know nor care, because it's been replaced by newer and better games. The lifespan of the game is shorter than the lifespan of the device (PC, console, whatever) it's used on.

A 1-word answer to that: ScummVM

[Lemurion]

In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a freelance writer and editor who does mostly work-for-hire. I've also managed a chain bookstore and worked for a "publishing service." (Their own term for vanity press - one of those places where the author pays for the "privilege" of publication.)

As someone who's studied the industry for years, I think DRM is stupid, far too many eBooks are over-priced, and that commercial publishers aren't actually trying to screw us - either as writers or as readers.

I'm not as fond of the indie scene as many around here because while some indie books are as good as anything out there, others are truly terrible and I don't have the time to sort through the chaff.

I'm also a Vancouver Canucks fan - and think Hockey is the only major sport that matters.

[JSWolf]

Amazon used to sell eBooks before the Kindle came along. Amazon stopped selling them and took away the ability to download them. People who needed to download them again because they changed computers were unable to do so. So the copies they owned were useless because the DRM prevented them from using what they legally purchased.

Was this good? NO! Was DRM helpful? NO! Did people lose money? YES!

So when has DRM ever been helpful to the customer?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a freelance writer and editor who does mostly work-for-hire. I've also managed a chain bookstore and worked for a "publishing service." (Their own term for vanity press - one of those places where the author pays for the "privilege" of publication.)

As someone who's studied the industry for years, I think DRM is stupid, far too many eBooks are over-priced, and that commercial publishers aren't actually trying to screw us - either as writers or as readers.

I'm not as fond of the indie scene as many around here because while some indie books are as good as anything out there, others are truly terrible and I don't have the time to sort through the chaff.

I'm also a Vancouver Canucks fan - and think Hockey is the only major sport that matters.

Thanks for that. It clears up a lot. Particularly about sports!

[DiapDealer]

I'm an individual reader who'd like to be able to say he hated DRM, but it really doesn't affect me. Removing DRM has become second nature. In principle, I wish it didn't exist, but the fact of the matter is... I buy what I want from who I want (iBooks doesn't count), when I want, and read it on what I want, without breaking a sweat and without an ounce of guilt. I pay for everything I read which makes me too stingy to share. I have no problem with prices at all. Life is good. Yee haw!