Will more publishers drop DRM?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

I have to agree that DRM is just a PITA for the average person.

I recall having an argument with a co-worker about downloading songs . . .

If I purchase music, I am going to listen to it many times, over a number of years, and will use more than one playback device. In this I think I am like the average person. For this reason, music DRM would indeed be a PITA.

If I read a book, I am unlikely to re-read ever, and if I do re-read, it is something I last read maybe thirty years earlier. In this I think I am like the average person. As for switching between devices while reading a book, I don't do it. Again, in this I think I am like the average person.

Is eBook DRM a PITA for me? Yes, but not for the reasons you imply. It is a PITA for the same reason that it is a PITA when I can't renew a paper library book, because someone else wants it. But on the rare occasion I buy an eBook, DRM is transparent to me.

Maybe you are mistaking the average person for a minority of readers who are also large-scale book collectors. For most readers, DRM is less of a PITA than the mechanisms it is replacing -- those being the checkout lines in libraries and book stores.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If I read a book, I am unlikely to re-read ever, and if I do re-read, it is something I last read maybe thirty years earlier. In this I think I am like the average person. As for switching between devices while reading a book, I don't do it. Again, in this I think I am like the average person.

With the number of threads I've seen regarding this issue you are probably more computer literate than the norm and able to work around the issue.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

DRM is transparent to me.

Same here. but probably not for the same reasons.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

With the number of threads I've seen regarding this issue you are probably more computer literate than the norm and able to work around the issue.



Same here. but probably not for the same reasons.

I think, although I could be wrong, that the point SteveEisenberg was making is that without DRM there would be no library non public domain ebooks. And that library ebooks are no more a PITA than library paper books and offer a significant advantage to many over paper.

I am not pro DRM except in the sense that it has had the effect of giving the publishers enough of a feeling of security that they are publishing ebooks and allowing library access.

Helen

[eschwartz]

That is why DRM should apply only for library loans. As an added bonus, the tools would no longer be needed for ethical purposes and be abandoned by mainstream ebook nerds. The next DRM update would properly block library loan piracy and nothing else, and everyone would be happy.

[Mivo]

The availability of the tools are a main reason why I purchase e-books. When a vendor (Apple) made it impossible for me to use them, and I could no longer read my purchases on my various devices, I stopped being their customer (and it irritated me enough to switch from iOS to Android).

So, yes, I would certainly welcome if more publishers and vendors abandoned DRM. Making DRM more inconvenient (say, online authorization), it would backfire. There is no shortage of alternatives, such as copyright-free books, and there are sellers like Baen who don't use DRM at all.

I generally have no lack of ways to spend my money.

[howyoudoin]

If a publisher comes up with an unbreakable DRM, I will not purchase my books from them. Sorry, but my insistence on liberating my books in order to use them on any device (future proofing reasons) and the need to be able to pass them on to my heirs trumps the "need" of publishers and vendors to have absolute control over the files. I refuse to submit to ecosystem lock-ins. I am locked in to the Apple ecosystem with their apps due to tecnical limitations on my part, but my ebooks will not suffer that fate. On a related tangent, I consider it double dipping on the part of the developers that I will be forced to re-purchase the same apps if I choose to move from Apple to Android (as an example). There should be a common marketplace for apps allowing for seamless transition between ecosystems. The developers are fine with multiple purchases because they get paid again when one transitions, and the platforms (Apple, Android etc) are fine with it because it erects a barrier for a heavily invested user to move to another platform.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

If a publisher comes up with an unbreakable DRM, I will not purchase my books from them. Sorry, but my insistence on liberating my books in order to use them on any device (future proofing reasons) and the need to be able to pass them on to my heirs trumps the "need" of publishers and vendors to have absolute control over the files. I refuse to submit to ecosystem lock-ins. I am locked in to the Apple ecosystem with their apps due to tecnical limitations on my part, but my ebooks will not suffer that fate. On a related tangent, I consider it double dipping on the part of the developers that I will be forced to re-purchase the same apps if I choose to move from Apple to Android (as an example). There should be a common marketplace for apps allowing for seamless transition between ecosystems. The developers are fine with multiple purchases because they get paid again when one transitions, and the platforms (Apple, Android etc) are fine with it because it erects a barrier for a heavily invested user to move to another platform.

Such a thing would require Apple and Google working together. Not going to happen.
And as iOS forbids sideloading, no dice in selling on own website.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

On a related tangent, I consider it double dipping on the part of the developers that I will be forced to re-purchase the same apps if I choose to move from Apple to Android (as an example). There should be a common marketplace for apps allowing for seamless transition between ecosystems.

Surely that's no different to having to buy an application twice if you switch OS/computer? As far as I'm aware, if you bought Office on Windows (for instance), and then switch to Mac, you'd have to buy a new licence for the Mac.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Such a thing would require Apple and Google working together. Not going to happen.
And as iOS forbids sideloading, no dice in selling on own website.

Originally Posted by avantman42

Surely that's no different to having to buy an application twice if you switch OS/computer? As far as I'm aware, if you bought Office on Windows (for instance), and then switch to Mac, you'd have to buy a new licence for the Mac.

Yeah, those are good points.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Yeah, those are good points.

Also, take into consideration that (especially on mobile platforms) supporting multiple platforms is almost as much work as writing the entire application N times.

In the desktop realm there are many libraries that you can use to abstract away the differences between Linux/MacOS/Windows, but the application still has to be tested on each and deal with the minor quirks of each that still raise their head and demand attention.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Surely that's no different to having to buy an application twice if you switch OS/computer? As far as I'm aware, if you bought Office on Windows (for instance), and then switch to Mac, you'd have to buy a new licence for the Mac.

Yes, but we've accepted the notion of software licenses because that's the way it's "always" been. With books, I think most people have the mindset that ownership of the digital version is equivalent to ownership of a physical version, rather than to a software license.

[speakingtohe]

Software, books and music are alike in that they can be copied digitally. What society and individuals regard as our fundamental rights has changed over the years.

One fundamental right that may have changed with eBooks is the right to pass them along to your heirs.

I say may, because I am not sure that you cannot pass them on to one of your heirs when you die as there is no possibility of your retaining a copy you can use when you are dead at least as I see it.

The big issue is multiple copies going to multiple people, in an unending chain of events. Bob gives to Harry and Jane, they give to Sue and Tom and George and Amanda and in a matter of days there are a lot of unpaid for copies floating around.

Sure Sue and Tom and George and Amanda could all pirate, but chances are that 3 out of 4 of them won't.

Still many people see no difference between 'lending' a book to one person or two+ at the same time which is not something that we could always do and this is what the publishers fear I think.

Most people are pretty honest, but if they do not know it is wrong what is to stop them. How many actually read the copyright page?

And while I would never break into anyone's home or business to steal something, I do not leave my door unlocked in the belief that no-one would ever dream of breaking into mine or expect it from anyone else.

Helen

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yes, but we've accepted the notion of software licenses because that's the way it's "always" been. With books, I think most people have the mindset that ownership of the digital version is equivalent to ownership of a physical version, rather than to a software license.

I was addressing the part that I quoted, where the poster complained about having to pay for for the same app twice when moving when moving from iOS to Android or vice-versa.