People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[stonetools]

And I'm back. Guess you missed me
I've been busy splitting time between meetings with Apple and the Big Six publishers, of course. That takes up a lot of time. And oh yeah , also posting at "my" blog.....You guys should adjust your tin foil hats, they're getting a bit tight

OK, what we have learned ?
We've learned that publishers believe they need DRM not because piracy-a popular meme round these parts-but because they fear large scale "casual sharing." Elfmark- one of the few beacons of rationality around here- admits that this is a danger, although he believes it will not happen. His admission is telling as he is an anti DRM absolutist, refusing to buy any DRMED work.
Elfwreck does not really say why he thinks large scale casual sharing will not happen. As far as I can see, casual sharing of news articles is done on the Internet for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Sharing of a non DRMED book would be almost as easily done, and if the book was popular, I can't see why it WOULDN'T done. THe scenario I have in mind would be if the next installment of the Twilight Saga was sold non DRM . What is the likelihood that Twilight besotted teenage girls would buy the book and share it with their Facebook friends, who would share it with their Facebook friends, etc. IMO, the likelihood of that would approach 100 percent. Even Stevie Wonder would see the probability of that. (I'm emphasizing Facebook here, because while most folks don't know anything about Darknet and torrents, even Grandma knows about Facebook these days).
The refusal of the anti DRM folk to admit that possibility shows that they have idealogical blinders on. The Mobile Read idealogy is that publishers are evil, greedy, capitalist dinosaurs who eat puppies for breakfast, so they can't possibly be right about this issue, but IMO they seem right about the danger of large scale casual sharing. I'm willing to be hear argument on this, but what I've heard is "PUBLISHERS EVUUL!!! DRM EVUUL!!! YOU EVUUL BECAUSE YOU MUST WORK FOR PUBLISHERS!!!" I'm not impressed by such blathering.
Maybe someone here can do better.
I was kind of hoping that we could move beyond the Manichean dichotomy between DRM as it exists now and no DRM. I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example. Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well...

[queentess]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I'm willing to be hear argument on this, but what I've heard is "PUBLISHERS EVUUL!!! DRM EVUUL!!! YOU EVUUL BECAUSE YOU MUST WORK FOR PUBLISHERS!!!" I'm not impressed by such blathering.
Maybe someone here can do better.

If that's all you heard, you should really go listen again.

Originally Posted by stonetools

I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example.

What happens when the store shuts down? Am I still able to change devices or is my content forever dead to me? Can I lend a book to my father? Can I read the books on multiple devices (that is, I read interchangabley on a Sony and a Kindle)?

Originally Posted by stonetools

Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well...

I'm glad you think you're clever.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Stonetools

I was kind of hoping that we could move beyond the Manichean dichotomy between DRM as it exists now and no DRM. I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example. Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well...

Sorry, your decision to shoehorn the phrase "Manichean dichotomy" into the discussion unfortunately means that your entire argument has to be thrown out.

This forum adheres strictly to the "Frivolous Use of the Word 'Dichotomy' on an Internet Forum Act" of '98. Them's the rulz.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe scenario I have in mind would be if the next installment of the Twilight Saga was sold non DRM . What is the likelihood that Twilight besotted teenage girls would buy the book and share it with their Facebook friends, who would share it with their Facebook friends, etc. IMO, the likelihood of that would approach 100 percent. Even Stevie Wonder would see the probability of that. (I'm emphasizing Facebook here, because while most folks don't know anything about Darknet and torrents, even Grandma knows about Facebook these days).

This does not make sense.

Let's consider two scenarios.

(i) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has no DRM. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.
(ii) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has DRM. Only one of the 100 knows how to strip DRM, does so, and shares it on facebook with 100 other people. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.

If mass casual sharing is a problem, then it's a problem with or without DRM.

Or perhaps the publishers are scared of lots of people sharing with one or two people.

(i) 1,000 people buy a new book, with no DRM. They each share it with a couple of friends. Result: 1,000 sales and 3,000 copies
(ii) 1,000 people buy a new book, with no DRM. 100 know how to strip DRM, do so, and share it with a couple of friends. Result: 1,000 sales and 1,200 copies.

Or perhaps you think the couple of friends each of the 900 who couldn't remove the DRM will go out and buy their own copy? Wishful thinking. How many real-world friends do you have that share your taste in literature?

Mass casual sharing is a problem with or without DRM.
Small scale casual sharing is not a problem with or without DRM.

I'm sure you're going to argue that there's a third scenario for small scale sharing:
(iii) 333 people get together with 667 friends (about 2 each) and jointly buy 333 copies of a new book (without DRM) which they share with their friends. Result: 333 sales and 1000 copies.

This might happen. But if they are keen enough readers to actually organise this, it's likely that they buy as many books as they can afford. No net loss - the publishers and authors are already getting the maximum cash from these customers.


In short: ebooks might cause publishers big problems in the transition from paper books to ebooks. But that's a separate issue from DRM, which can at best be neutral, and most likely will hurt publishers both directly (cost of DRM) and indirectly (loss of customer goodwill).

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This does not make sense.

Let's consider two scenarios.

(i) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has no DRM. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.
(ii) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has DRM. Only one of the 100 knows how to strip DRM, does so, and shares it on facebook with 100 other people. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.

If mass casual sharing is a problem, then it's a problem with or without DRM.

Or perhaps the publishers are scared of lots of people sharing with one or two people.

(i) 1,000 people buy a new book, with no DRM. They each share it with a couple of friends. Result: 1,000 sales and 3,000 copies
(ii) 1,000 people buy a new book, with no DRM. 100 know how to strip DRM, do so, and share it with a couple of friends. Result: 1,000 sales and 1,200 copies.

Or perhaps you think the couple of friends each of the 900 who couldn't remove the DRM will go out and buy their own copy? Wishful thinking. How many real-world friends do you have that share your taste in literature?

Mass casual sharing is a problem with or without DRM.
Small scale casual sharing is not a problem with or without DRM.

I'm sure you're going to argue that there's a third scenario for small scale sharing:
(iii) 333 people get together with 667 friends (about 2 each) and jointly buy 333 copies of a new book (without DRM) which they share with their friends. Result: 333 sales and 1000 copies.

This might happen. But if they are keen enough readers to actually organise this, it's likely that they buy as many books as they can afford. No net loss - the publishers and authors are already getting the maximum cash from these customers.


In short: ebooks might cause publishers big problems in the transition from paper books to ebooks. But that's a separate issue from DRM, which can at best be neutral, and most likely will hurt publishers both directly (cost of DRM) and indirectly (loss of customer goodwill).

I have to say that word of mouth is a powerful tool for promoting books. I have several family members and friends who are "book buddies" with me and we have turned each other on to various authors over the years and, yes, there have been book sales as a result. That is the only thing about eReading for me, I can't share with ease. Of course, I don't have to worry about people not returning my books, either. Anyway, I know one of my cousins, at least, would really like that Hounded book that is coming out, so I'm going to buy it in paperbook form so I can share it with her. I'd buy the eBook, too, but it is only on Amazon and B&N in eFormat and I have no intention of stripping DRM, so a lost sale there. Shame. It is a decent price, too, $7.99, same as the trade paper, just under $16 for both.

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Let's consider two scenarios.

(i) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has no DRM. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.
(ii) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has DRM. Only one of the 100 knows how to strip DRM, does so, and shares it on facebook with 100 other people. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.

If mass casual sharing is a problem, then it's a problem with or without DRM.

In that test, you forgot to mention (even though you do at the end of the post) the additional (ii) consequence : of the 100 people buying the ebook with DRM, 4 have problems with it.
- the first of them "returns" the ebook, and gets his money back.
- the second of them grumbles and swears never to buy DRMed ebooks again
- the third of them finds out how it's MUCH easier to strip the DRM out of it, and does so.
- the fourth finds out where to download the "illegal" version, and finds out how easier it is, and hence gets introduced-to/tempted-by the "dark side" of the Force.

Net result : on all 4 "problematic people" -> bad for the author/publisher.

[Lemurion]

If casual sharing is the big issue, then why is piracy the one that receives the most focus in the news? Also, even without the lending feature on Kindle and Nook, sharing's become relatively easy as most DRM schemes support multiple devices anyway. I have two portable devices attached to each of my Kindle, Nook, and Sony Accounts... it kind of makes sharing easy.

I think the real issue is less casual lending, than organized large-scale group lending; and it appears they're already taking action against that.

As for the non-DRM Twilight scare scenario, I don't think it's relevant because it's been here since before the first book came out. Non-DRM electronic copies of the entire series have been widely available for free since the launch day of each book - and Harry Potter was the same - and neither series has seen a massive fall-off in sales as you are suggesting.

I'm also getting the feeling you consider DRM a good thing in and of itself, regardless of whether it performs as advertised or not. When it comes down to it, the publishers aren't so much in favor of DRM as they are opposed to losing revenue due to the availability of electronic versions of their books. Baen opposes DRM because they believe they make more money without it - other publishers would too if they believed the same thing. Even the ones that most rabidly support it now would drop it in a heartbeat if they could guarantee it's costing them money.

Only people who work for DRM providers really want DRM - all the others just want the results they think it produces - it's a tool - a means not an end.

[stonetools]

(i) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has no DRM. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.

Er, a writer can't make a living under either scenario. That's the point. How many writer can make a living if only a tiny percentage of his books that are downloaded and read are actual sales? You are truly living in la-la land if you think that's a viable business model for writers and publishers

[stonetools]

What happens when the store shuts down? Am I still able to change devices or is my content forever dead to me? Can I lend a book to my father? Can I read the books on multiple devices (that is, I read interchangabley on a Sony and a Kindle)?

Well, these are good questions which could be accomodated under a better DRM scheme. But the default position on this forum is all or nothing.

[Penforhire]

Stone, it is seemingly impossible to move past the point of DRM being only an inconvenience for law-abiding customers. That is the root complaint. It does NOT stop and rarely even slows pirates.

In a perfect world, where my unique personal ID unlocks everything I own anywhere AND is impossible for pirates to break, I'd agree with you. DRM would be a handy useful control. I don't see that perfect world happening soon. So DRM remains, at a minimum, an inconvenience and, potentially, a takes-my-stuff-away problem (e.g. when a DRM server is taken off-line).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

And I'm back. Guess you missed me
I've been busy splitting time between meetings with Apple and the Big Six publishers, of course. That takes up a lot of time. And oh yeah , also posting at "my" blog.....You guys should adjust your tin foil hats, they're getting a bit tight

I figure any thread that's gone past 5 pages can have severe topic drift without penalty, and that anyone who leaves the discussion at that point isn't conceding anything; they just have a life outside of ebook arguing. There's a limit to how much wrong on the internet one is morally obligated to attempt to fix.

OK, what we have learned ?
We've learned that publishers believe they need DRM not because piracy-a popular meme round these parts-

That'd be because they often publicly claim that's why they need DRM.

but because they fear large scale "casual sharing." Elf[strike]mark[strike]wreck- one of the few beacons of rationality around here- admits that this is a danger, although he believes it will not happen. His admission is telling as he is an anti DRM absolutist, refusing to buy any DRMED work.

I not only don't buy, I don't deal with freebies. I move between three computers and two reading devices and am not interested in the hassle of keeping registrations between them all coordinated. Besides, my literary tastes run to extremely niche genres; if I never read a Big 6 book again, I won't feel I'm missing anything.

Elfwreck does not really say why he thinks large scale casual sharing will not happen.

Didn't say it won't happen, just that it won't kill the ability to sell books. (If the publishers have the sense to make buying easy, that is. If they insist on pricing ebooks at 10% less than the trade paperback, and require phone number & address to register to buy it, they'll be facing some problems.)

Sharing of a non DRMED book would be almost as easily done, and if the book was popular, I can't see why it WOULDN'T done.

For the same reason it's not done now with Baen books, Konrath's books, Hocking's books... because "you can give a copy to a friend" (specifically allowed in Baen's purchase) is not the same as "post this so anyone can download it." Some casual sharing exists, but the non-DRM publishers, both corporate and individual, haven't been put out of business by it.

Because MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT THIEVES. Most readers want authors to write more, so they want them to get paid. Saying "how can we prevent casual sharing without DRM" is like saying "how can we prevent shoplifting without searching people at the door?"

THe scenario I have in mind would be if the next installment of the Twilight Saga was sold non DRM . What is the likelihood that Twilight besotted teenage girls would buy the book and share it with their Facebook friends, who would share it with their Facebook friends, etc. IMO, the likelihood of that would approach 100 percent.

Public posts would be subject to DMCA takedowns. Sharing among friends by email wouldn't.

Um. How many teenagers do you think bought Twilight, rather than reading a friend's copy? Stross pointed out that only 25% of readers ever paid into an author's revenue stream--and therefore, a 75% "piracy" rate might be considered "business as usual."

The refusal of the anti DRM folk to admit that possibility shows that they have idealogical blinders on.

What we're saying, for the most part, is that DRM is an ineffective business model. It's not sustainable. It's especially not sustainable in the face of non-DRM'd competition; if *all* ebooks had DRM, people would cope with them; since many small publishers & self-pub authors aren't bothering, consumers have a choice.

And each consumer who gets burned by DRM--who buys a book, reads it, and goes back to read it again 3 years later and finds she can no longer register her new computer with that DRM, or who botches the registration because the instructions weren't clear, or who can't share an ebook with a spouse because (shock!) they have separate purchasing accounts--is one less future customer, one less recommender-to-friends.

Books can't survive on a "1 purchase = 1 reader" model. Not even a "1 purchase = 1 family" model, which works for games. Books have always been "share this with someone else who'll love it" entertainment; trying to change that for ebooks flies in the face of hundreds of years of literary culture.

The Mobile Read idealogy is that publishers are evil, greedy, capitalist dinosaurs who eat puppies for breakfast, so they can't possibly be right about this issue,

I mostly think they're terrified about the tech changes and can't figure out how to change their business model to deal with it, so they're trying to shove the toothpaste back in the tube and loudly screaming that there's no mess to see here. I think some of them are ridiculously greedy; they've been working with the Trust-Me Model for so long that they think it's natural law, instead of an economic method supported by a quickly-eroding monopoly.

I was kind of hoping that we could move beyond the Manichean dichotomy between DRM as it exists now and no DRM. I would say that could be a third way-toward a "better DRM" -a DRM scheme, that while taking the publisher's concerns into consideration, would allow a migration path for those who want to switch devices, for example. Unfortunately, the discussion here hasn't reached that stage yet. Oh well...

The concept of "better DRM" has come up before, many times. There's no such thing, without massive invasion of privacy and lack of end-user control of their digital lives.

"The cloud" won't work for anyone who lives out of range of wifi. Biodata DRM has been suggested... no, I'm not putting up with fingerprint or retina scanning to read my books. (Even if I trusted the tech to do so accurately, which I don't. ID-based tech has always been willing to err on the side of exclusion.)

Okay, imagine for a moment that someone develops PERFECT DRM. A method that guarantees that only the purchaser can read a book, on any device, and nobody else can open it. Telepathic DRM. Whatever. And it can't be cracked, and you can't copy & paste from the ebook (not even for reviews, which rather sucks) and you can't print it.

... what prevents that person from opening up MS Word and typing the contents into a new document?

That's how ebooks got shared online in 1998. Quite a lot of them, actually, mostly in the science fiction genre.

The problem with DRM isn't that it's too restrictive (although it is) or that it's not accurate enough (although it's not), but that it's working directly against the purpose of computers, which is to copy & modify data. Computers get consistently better at both these things; no restriction technology can keep up.

DRM may have its uses as part of the transition to a more digital age, but it's not sustainable without Orwellian restrictions on human activity.

[stonetools]

I'm also getting the feeling you consider DRM a good thing in and of itself, regardless of whether it performs as advertised or not.

Er, no I don't. I think its at best a necessary evil. Its you lot who are convinced that it is the spawn of Satan and can't possibly be justified, no matter what. I note that neither you or anyone else has proposed a solution, except by saying "It won't be that bad." This is unconvincing . A look at falling music industry revenues shows it can be that bad.
I do think that the publishers shot themselves in the foot by banging on about piracy, when large scale casual sharing is the real danger. Maybe there is no diplomatic way to talk about large scale casual sharing is the real danger, but they lost credibility among the digerati by not being upfront about it.

As for the non-DRM Twilight scare scenario, I don't think it's relevant because it's been here since before the first book came out. Non-DRM electronic copies of the entire series have been widely available for free since the launch day of each book - and Harry Potter was the same - and neither series has seen a massive fall-off in sales as you are suggesting.

It's one thing if its available on Darknet, where only the congnoscenti can get at it. Its a whole order of magnitude different when you can have it emailed it to you by your Facebook BFF.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This does not make sense.

Let's consider two scenarios.

(i) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has no DRM. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.
(ii) 100 people buy a new book when it comes out. It has DRM. Only one of the 100 knows how to strip DRM, does so, and shares it on facebook with 100 other people. They share it on facebook with 100 other people each, and those people also share it with 100 other people. Result: You get 100 sales but over a million copies out there.

And then, since the book is a viral hit on the internet and the most widely read piece of teen fiction in the history of the planet, the author sells the movie rights for $10,000,000!

What a disaster!!!!!

[stonetools]

Stone, it is seemingly impossible to move past the point of DRM being only an inconvenience for law-abiding customers. That is the root complaint. It does NOT stop and rarely even slows pirates.

In this world, there are a lot of things that inconvenience law abiding citizens, from having to lock our doors when we go out to having to remove our shoes and submit to other indignities when we take an airplane flight We put up with it because we have to. DRM is simply another minor inconvenience, in the big scheme of things.Its important to keep that in perspective.
Once again, its pretty clear to me that only the digerati are really up in arms about DRM. Most of the masses of people who bought reading devices over the past year don't care and don't even know about DRM.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er, no I don't. I think its at best a necessary evil. Its you lot who are convinced that it is the spawn of Satan and can't possibly be justified, no matter what. I note that neither you or anyone else has propsed a solution, except by saying "It won't be that bad." This is unconvincing . A look at falling music industry revenues shows it can be that bad.

You keep using this argument, when it's been proven that the music industry is having problems converting to digital... which is not at all the same as DRM.

Originally Posted by stonetools

I do think that the publishers shot themselves in the foot by banging on about piracy, when large scale casual sharing is the real danger. Maybe there is no diplomatic way to talk about large scale casual sharing is the real danger, but they lost credibility among the digerati by not being upfront about it.

Because lord knows that casual sharing is a completely new scenario. I'm shocked to learn this never happened with pbooks. I'm also surprised the used bookstore didn't kill publishing...

Of course, when you say "large scale", you're really talking about pirating at that point, not "casual sharing".