Why are DRM ebooks evil and why should I avoid them like the plague?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

sales of digital goods are somehow unaffected even if the exact same product is widely available for free (at which point the logical response is "WHAAA")

And yet the bottled water industry makes billions. Even in books--Gutenberg editions sell on other sites.

"Free version available elsewhere in different packaging" doesn't prevent sales if the marketing is done right.

Another way of putting that is that the anti DRM folks have not really made an effective argument as to why they should give up an admittedly imperfect method of protecting their IP rights against large scale casual sharing. Once you do, and suggest an effective method of protecting said rights , then they will be happy to give up their "security blanket".

Do they have evidence that DRM is *increasing sales?* Nevermind whether it's "protecting their IP rights"--is it financially better for them?

I suppose, if protecting their IP rights is more important than sales, it could be argued that DRM is a good thing.

Originally Posted by stonetools

My last post (Gotta go). Casual sharing is among friends, families and associates (including online associates).
Piracy is sharing among strangers.
I admit, the line could get fuzzy: but there is a line. Again, casual sharing with your Facebook friends is in completely different thing than lending your p book to your brother. Anyone who doesn't admit that is in denial.

First you say casual sharing is online friends, then you say there's a difference between sharing with online friends & sharing with family members. Sounds like you're talking about three categories, not two: "piracy," which involves strangers, "casual sharing," which involves some level of connection between the people involved, and "intimate sharing" among people with strong connections.

DRM discourages (not prevents) the middle version; it doesn't prevent piracy, and it creates a lot of hassles among people with close connections--in order to share books, they have to share an account.

What evidence do you have that removing DRM would cause widespread casual sharing that would inhibit sales? The companies that have removed DRM or never had it, haven't seen a drop in sales afterward.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Here's fun fact for you. All audio recordings are still under copyright, and will be until 2067. So Edison's first phonograph patent, expired in 34 years (I believe, 17 + 17), but his recording of "Mary had a little lamb", is still under copyright...(Because, after all, we have to protect the economic interests of copyright holders...)

In the UK, the copyright on the recording currently expires 50 years after it's published (with some caveats), although there may still be copyright on the text or music being recorded.

http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/

[OtterBooks]

are there particulars about software based DRM that could be changed that would mitigate the concerns of those opposed to it in its current form, while satisfying those who feel that active management of IP is necessary and serves the greater good? Or is it an all-or-nothing issue?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In the UK, the copyright on the recording currently expires 50 years after it's published (with some caveats), although there may still be copyright on the text or music being recorded.

http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/

You're quite right, I should have limited myself to the US. I was just showing how insane the copyright law is in the US...

[kennyc]

It's kinda insane everywhere, but yeah more insane in the U.S.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

are there particulars about software based DRM that could be changed that would mitigate the concerns of those opposed to it in its current form, while satisfying those who feel that active management of IP is necessary and serves the greater good? Or is it an all-or-nothing issue?

I'll whack my dead horse some more and bring up the last Harry Potter book: it was on the torrents before it was in the bookstores, and it has never had an official electronic version. Not only does no existing DRM stop piracy, but not even having an ebook in the first place does not stop piracy.

It is always necessary to display a book in some form in order for it to be used at all -- what would be the point of buying a book you couldn't read? And when it is displayed, it can be copied -- if nothing else, someone with a camera can take pictures of the screen. Once it is copied, it can be OCR'd. So DRM cannot prevent piracy. It is not possible for any form of DRM, short of having a policeman stand by when you read to make sure you're not photographing the screen, to do so.

MobileRead's own library is proof of that: those are books which were published decades, in some cases centuries, before ebooks (DRM-locked or otherwise) ever existed. Not being an ebook would have to be the ultimate DRM. Yet they now exist as ebooks because someone scanned, OCR'd, and proofed them.

By increasing the extent to which DRM hampers legitimate use, you make using a book more and more inconvenient for the honest users, to the point that some percentage of them will say "the heck with this" and just download a DRM-free version of the book they bought but are unable to read. Then some of those users will skip the whole "buying" part, since they know they'll just be spending money on something that is useless in order to feel that they have paid a publisher to make their lives difficult, and just go download the thing. Formerly honest users are now pirates. That is not a win.

The bottom line is this: will more people give you money if you use DRM than if you don't use DRM?

Stonetools has called MR members names. He has insulted us in numerous ways (enough so that I'm starting to question whether he is an industry shill ... you'd think a publisher would hire someone who didn't diss the customers). He has said we want writers to dig ditches. He has insulted our honesty, our integrity, our intelligence, and our common sense. He has thrown so much dust in the air that I'm still choking. The one thing he has not done is provide proof, or even any sound evidence, that authors will make more money on DRM-locked books than they will on DRM-free books.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In the UK, the copyright on the recording currently expires 50 years after it's published (with some caveats), although there may still be copyright on the text or music being recorded.

http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/

I still think that the UK ought to have the audio equivalent of Project Gutenberg for old recording that have gone into the public domain completely. (Performance and music and lyrics.)

There was a lot of classical work done in the late 50's and early 60's in the classical realm, with the advent of tape and vinyl LP's.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM isn't copyright, but it is a way of defending copyright. If there is a better way, then I 'm all for it. But neither I, nor you, nor anyone on this forum, can think of a better way, so here we are. Apparently you are OK with paying lip service with the idea of defending copyright. You just don't like anyone coming up with any effective way of doing it.
[...]

We've given a better way*, but all we get is crickets from you, and continued denials and accusations like this.

Just as I suspected we would, because, while it would stop the "large scale casual sharing" you say is all you care about, it wouldn't force us to buy another copy for anyone who doesn't share our account or format.

IOW, publishers want a scheme that forces us to pay what you actually defend as a "stupid tax."

*Some of us have repeatedly proposed that the purchaser's receipt information be added to the ebook's metadata/jacket.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

are there particulars about software based DRM that could be changed that would mitigate the concerns of those opposed to it in its current form, while satisfying those who feel that active management of IP is necessary and serves the greater good? Or is it an all-or-nothing issue?

I will admit that some DRM schemes are less bad than others. DRM schemes that don't require central authorisation to enable access on a new licensed device are not as bad as ones that do.

But really, it is black and white. There's nothing you can do to encrypting DRM schemes to make them acceptable.

DRM doesn't prevent large scale piracy
DRM does cause inconvenience (at least) to customers
DRM does cost publishers real money.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

are there particulars about software based DRM that could be changed that would mitigate the concerns of those opposed to it in its current form, while satisfying those who feel that active management of IP is necessary and serves the greater good? Or is it an all-or-nothing issue?

There is no form of DRM that will prevent unauthorized copies, because as mentioned, allowing someone to read a book allows them to make copies if they want to put enough work into it. (If they can't photograph or screencap, they can always just write a copy longhand.) However, not releasing a legit ebook version would cut down on this practice for all but the most popular books.

There are ways to discourage widespread sharing, which may-or-may-not be considered DRM. Placing the buyer's name & account number in the ebook might be considered DRM, but these days, we mostly think DRM means "software that prevents an unauthorized person from opening it," not "any measure designed to protect IP rights."

Anything that doesn't prevent opening or editing the file could be changed. Name, email & account # can be stripped out of ebooks for widespread sharing--however, since most people aren't interested in uploading their purchases to the torrents, most people wouldn't bother stripping out that info before giving a copy to a relative. Casual sharing would almost certainly increase if the current DRM schemes were dropped for something less invasive. (Stonetools thinks this would expand to "send a copy to my 500 facebook friends;" the rest of us think that the lack of this practice for Baen and similar ebooks means it's not likely.

The real issue is whether authors & publishers gain more money by preventing that sharing (by forcing the distant relative to buy their own copy instead of "borrowing" one), or lose more money from would-be purchasers who won't deal with DRM, or people who won't take a chance on a new author because they've never read anything by that author and nothing's available for less than full price.

There are less-invasive methods; all of them are also less secure. There are no not-invasive-at-all methods; the closest is "the cloud," where one needs to be connected online with a compatible device... which is great for people with those devices & a high-speed connection. Doesn't work for, for example, people stuck in hospitals with no wifi, who want a few books to read while they're recovering.

The crucial issue: what does DRM do more: prevent unauthorized copies, or lose potential customers? This is very difficult to measure--how many of those prevented-copies will become customers because they couldn't get it for free? And how do you measure the potential sales to someone who currently won't buy because of DRM? (I buy non-DRM'd ebooks. However, even if Patterson's books were sold without DRM, I wouldn't be buying them.)

TL;DR?

Short version: This has been argued for the last decade, and nobody's yet found a simple, conclusive answer. Nor even a complex, conclusive answer. In the meantime ... Baen continues to thrive, and HarperCollins & Macmillan continue to screech about how "piracy" is killing their profits.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Piper_

We've given a better way*, but all we get is crickets from you, and continued denials and accusations like this.

Originally Posted by Piper_

*Some of us have repeatedly proposed that the purchaser's receipt information be added to the ebook's metadata/jacket.

I have some PDFs that do something similar. Some of the PDFs I've bought from Drive Thru RPG have my name and order number on the bottom of every page.

I've seen it referred to as "social DRM", and it's the one form of DRM (if it can be called a form of DRM) that I've ever seen that I have absolutely no objection to whatsoever. It has no impact on my ability to use the file that I have bought, but it does make it easier for the publisher to find out where illegal copies originated from, allowing them to take whatever action they feel appropriate.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I will admit that some DRM schemes are less bad than others. DRM schemes that don't require central authorisation to enable access on a new licensed device are not as bad as ones that do.

But really, it is black and white. There's nothing you can do to encrypting DRM schemes to make them acceptable.

I see. Well that certainly presents an irreconcilable difference.

Originally Posted by Piper_

*Some of us have repeatedly proposed that the purchaser's receipt information be added to the ebook's metadata/jacket.

That's actually rather clever (though I imagine some people would be opposed to it as well). With regard to casual sharing, which some have suggested is the primary target of DRM, I suppose it could make people apprehensive about giving copies away.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I have some PDFs that do something similar. Some of the PDFs I've bought from Drive Thru RPG have my name and order number on the bottom of every page.

I've seen it referred to as "social DRM"....

I've gotten those from DTRPG (and the related sites), and sometimes I leave them like that, and sometimes I unlock them & strip out those parts, in order to crop the pages down to better read in my PRS-505.

I'd love for more publishing companies to look at the DriveThru business model. Even though they're all PDFs (ugh), they seem to be doing well. And it's possible they're not freaking out about having the DRM that prevents casual sharing because games & comic books were often prone to "one person in a group buys; everyone else borrows that copy." Their sales plans always included a lot of sharing and encouragement to buy the next issue/module/supplement, rather than strictly controlling the use of the already-bought copies.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

are there particulars about software based DRM that could be changed that would mitigate the concerns of those opposed to it in its current form, while satisfying those who feel that active management of IP is necessary and serves the greater good? Or is it an all-or-nothing issue?

Not really: it adds to the cost, and does nothing but inconvenience users. Even if you accept the case that active management of IP serves the greater good (whether necessary or not) the simple fact that DRM does not and cannot work makes any changes moot.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

...games & comic books were often prone to "one person in a group buys; everyone else borrows that copy." Their sales plans always included a lot of sharing and encouragement to buy the next issue/module/supplement, rather than strictly controlling the use of the already-bought copies.

Not always.

I remember when TSR, via their aptly-named rep Rob Repp, insisted that not only did every player have to buy their own copy of everything, but TSR's stats format was theirs and theirs alone, so that it was illegal to write up your own NPC for an adventure -- you couldn't give values for strength, intelligence, etc., because TSR owned them. Yes, Rob said that, in writing, in so many words. You could only use TSR-provided adventures, characters, etc., with AD&D, and really, if you used any other RPG system, you were infringing on TSR's rights, too, because they owned the very concept of an RPG.

That insistence didn't last long. Rob Repp insisted that the resulting boycott had no measurable effect on sales. Numbers I got through other (insider) sources said a 10% sales drop within a month, and still going down when they abruptly changed their stated policy. And not long afterwards, poor Rob was unceremoniously sacked.

TSR never did get it. Things like that, and even more so "read the boxed text to your players", and everything else that numbed, discouraged, or killed creativity on their customers' part, turned RPGs from the dominant games into also-rans, mostly forgotten behind the great wave of card games. TSR was bought by WotC, who was bought by Hasbro, who has seemingly nearly forgotten them behind their kiddie toys. It didn't use to be that way. Not when the industry was constantly being revitalized by the players and their ideas -- when the players were co-creators, not merely consumers. In the end, TSR didn't so much cut their own throats as quietly die of starvation in a corner.

(yes, I know it was a lot more complicated than that; this is "RPG history lite"; and yes, I'm that Worldwalker)