DRM Good or Bad?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by no.guru

DRM apparently restricts changing the font, because that isn't possible with the library ebook although I can change the font on all other books on my T-1.

A much more likely explanation is that this particular book has the font "hard coded" in the ePub. That will prevent font changes by the user. I very much doubt that DRM has anything at all to do with it.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A much more likely explanation is that this particular book has the font "hard coded" in the ePub. That will prevent font changes by the user. I very much doubt that DRM has anything at all to do with it.

Understood. I have seen that before. Thank you.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which categories of publishing do you think DRM is necessary for? Which ones would disappear if DRM were outlawed--if it became illegal to hinder a buyer's ability to use their purchased (or licensed, whatever) ebooks?

Originally Posted by pshute

Expensive ones, for a start. They'd have to be cheaper to avoid the temptation to copy them for free. Books that require massive resources to produce, ie lots of time spent on research, and which have a small market, couldn't survive.

"Expensive" is not a category of publishing. Do you mean college textbooks?

That is, I grant, is a publishing niche with big problems--the market is tiny and mostly poor, and the quality needs are high. However, this is also a niche where creative gov't or nonprofit support could help--neither of which the BPHs want to deal with. Open-source or Creative Commons textbooks are very possible, even peer-reviewed ones; we've no shortage of experts willing to write for very little financial recompense for the opportunity to have their books used for specific courses or endorsed by the gov't or high-prestige schools.

Do you think there are open-general-market categories of publishing that will vanish if DRM support goes away? Genres that will no longer be published? Types of publications that will no longer be produced?

--Magazines are having problems. So are daily newspapers. Both of those fit an info/entertainment niche that the web just provides *better.* But I'm not seeing the great danger to any particular types of books, just a lot of doomsaying that "things will be different! That means some of the things you care about may go away!"

Yes, they might. That's kinda the definition of "things will be different." I don't think we should be locked in stasis to prevent that. DRM is an attempt to create a parallel--not a duplicate--to the physical limitations of books, in order to prop up a market plan. Remove it, and the market dynamic changes, which means what's sold and what fails to sell will be different.

I haven't seen any evidence that "changes to the marketplace" will mean "less quality books in the future." Less books in some specific niches, yes. But *every* market change involves less books in some specific niches.

[BillSmithBooks]

I would argue that watermarking is NOT DRM for one simple reason:

DRM is designed to prevent you from copying or using on different devices without the express permission of the book's (song, movie) creator. It is intended to prevent format shifting or making multiple backup copies.

Watermarking prevents none of those things. It does however provide an incentive not the share your book with everyone on the planet for fear of having your account deactivated (in the case of Pottermore).

DRM is an (ineffective) content lock...watermarking is simply a fingerprint. Very different IMHO.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by frahse

I speak for the authors whether they know and accept it or not.

I guess that makes me a heretic...which is fine by me.

I'll let you know when you're invited to speak on my behalf. But, in the interests of being polite, in this case you absolutely do not speak for me.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Quote:
Originally Posted by frahse
DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable.

No, it's not. J.K. Rowling proves otherwise.

I've still not read one argument proving that limiting readers to a certain device (or a range of devices, but not all) or locking them in with Amazon, iBooks, Adobe or B&N helps authors or publishers. I would not buy a 2nd version of the book I've already paid for if I wanted to, say, switch from a Kindle to a Sony. If you don't want me to read your book, fine with me. I will not buy more of your books then, because I'll never know if you are any good.

Watermarking is a okay, if I can read my book on any device, download it (once I've paid for it) in different versions, should I ever switch devices - or be able to convert the book myself.

Knowing that the book could be tracked back to the original buyer will much better protect from casual sharing than DRM ever will - unless it can be removed equally easy. Then it's as useless in that regard as DRM.

An even more restrictive form of DRM will surely result in less ebook sales (and not necessarily in more pbook sales, either, because those you can easily share or buy used).

I am kind of missing the point of J. K. Rowling proving otherwise.

I thought that she had only recently entered the ebook market and was a very successful author already.

I think people who are Harry Potter fans would have bought her books regardless of the method used.

The fact that she made a decision for Watermark does not, IMO, make it any better or worse than any other DRM for authors in general.

Helen

[BillSmithBooks]

JK Rowling just joins the chorus of folks who are proving that DRM does not matter -- Smashwords, Angry Robot, O'Reilly, Baen and on and on.

IMO, Rowling realized how much money she was losing out on by not having ebooks out (pirated ecopies of Deathly Hallows were on the torrents within what, 24 hours of the book coming out?).

She clearly realized that DRM is a speed bump to dedicated pirates and a huge annoyance and hassle to honest readers who just want to give her money and get their book.

I believe Charlie Stross is absolutely right on this -- the only hope for mainstream publishers is to abandon DRM. That's the only way they can dent Amazon's market control: "Buy from us and read on anything."

If they go DRM-free, the hardware the reader uses is irrelevant and you eliminate "platform lockin" where readers always buy from the vendor who sold them their reader. If they go DRM-free, the commodotize the ebook readers in the same way that a "PC is a PC," whether it's an HP, a Dell or generic white box. It's the content and software you use on the PC that matters.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

JK Rowling just joins the chorus of folks who are proving that DRM does not matter -- Smashwords, Angry Robot, O'Reilly, Baen and on and on.

IMO, Rowling realized how much money she was losing out on by not having ebooks out (pirated ecopies of Deathly Hallows were on the torrents within what, 24 hours of the book coming out?).

She clearly realized that DRM is a speed bump to dedicated pirates and a huge annoyance and hassle to honest readers who just want to give her money and get their book.

I believe Charlie Stross is absolutely right on this -- the only hope for mainstream publishers is to abandon DRM. That's the only way they can dent Amazon's market control: "Buy from us and read on anything."

If they go DRM-free, the hardware the reader uses is irrelevant and you eliminate "platform lockin" where readers always buy from the vendor who sold them their reader. If they go DRM-free, the commodotize the ebook readers in the same way that a "PC is a PC," whether it's an HP, a Dell or generic white box. It's the content and software you use on the PC that matters.

Perhaps true. Did she make a statement somewhere in that direction?

My point was that her decision does not necessarily make it right for all authors and/or venders.

Again she could sell her books any way she wants to and just perhaps stayed away from ebooks, DRM or not, until she was assured that she could still sell a few books.

I just do not think she has been in the ebook market long enough to say her decison is correct or that she will stick to it long term. I especially don't think that the 2012 marketing decisions made her a success or will make anyone else a success because she did it. No-one says "ahh gee a watermark. I will buy this book because J. K Rowling has watermarks". Oops wrong again, there will be someone, perhaps even yourself, who will

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

I would argue that watermarking is NOT DRM for one simple reason:

DRM is designed to prevent you from copying or using on different devices without the express permission of the book's (song, movie) creator. It is intended to prevent format shifting or making multiple backup copies.

Watermarking prevents none of those things. It does however provide an incentive not the share your book with everyone on the planet for fear of having your account deactivated (in the case of Pottermore).

You are conflating digital rights management with "copy protection". They are not precisely the same thing. Copy protection is a "technical" measure to prevent you from making unauthorised copies of a book; DRM is any method the rights holder may choose to use to manage their rights. Copy protection is one form of DRM, but there are many others, of which watermarking is absolutely unquestionably one.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by aardbewoner

yes the books you can buy drm free work fine ,but all shops sell almost only drm books specialy the reader shops.

That's why I don't buy from them. I buy from all the other ones.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know what you should call it, but to refer to Ms Rowling's books as "DRM free" is just plain wrong.

I thought that it was quite common to say DRM for "DRM that limits the use of my purchased product" and "watermarking" for, "making my product trackable should I do something illegal with it" - or something along the way.

Anyway by DRM free I meant free of limiting hard DRM in case of the HP books.
And I thought it was common knowledge that the HP books came with watermarking (and mentioned here before?), that's why I didn't mention it again but just shared my view on watermarking vs. "hard" DRM.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am kind of missing the point of J. K. Rowling proving otherwise.

I thought that she had only recently entered the ebook market and was a very successful author already.

I think people who are Harry Potter fans would have bought her books regardless of the method used.

The fact that she made a decision for Watermark does not, IMO, make it any better or worse than any other DRM for authors in general.

Helen

Well, I didn't think we were talking about "published as ebooks only" or "authors who are only successful because of ebooks".

And from what I've read she sold HP ebooks worth 1 million pounds in just 3 days, which I would read as very successful. Even more so since the books have been pirated for years - and still sold so well (if you can believe the claim, that is).

Not saying that these books wouldn't have been successful with hard DRM - but it proves that books can be succesful without hard DRM and that hard DRM is therefore not necessarily required to sell your books successfully.

To me, watermarking is far better than hard DRM, because it does not limit me to reading it on a Kindle only if I've bought it for that one should I later decide to switch to a Sony, for example. But that's just me, of course.

Of course I would prefer no DRM at all and no watermarking also - nothing says so much "I don't trust you" as DRM or watermarking, it's true. But to me it currently seems that watermarking is the lesser evil (providing no one gets prosecuted for illegal sharing because someone stole their file and shared it or faked their watermark, if that is possible...).

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I thought that it was quite common to say DRM for "DRM that limits the use of my purchased product" and "watermarking" for, "making my product trackable should I do something illegal with it" - or something along the way.

.

That was always my understanding of the use of these terms as well, as noted by how advocates for watermarking describe it as "form of social DRM," indicating that it is distinctly different from normal DRM (encryption) as most people understand it.

IMHO, to say that watermarking is just a different form of DRM (compared to the DRM forms that act as software locks to prevent people duplicating, format shifting and backing up) severely muddies the waters as far as I am concerned.

Not trying to picking a fight and not saying that the definition of DRM is not valid...actually I think it's an interesting point.

But the interpretation of "watermarking is DRM" has the potential to cause a lot of confusion when the issue is being discussed...and I think most customers are a LOT more concerned about digital locks/encryption and control of using the files they "bought" compared to watermarking.

To me, it's kind of like the whole GNU vs. Linux debate -- GNU/Linux is technically correct but only Richard Stallman cares.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

IMHO, to say that watermarking is just a different form of DRM (compared to the DRM forms that act as software locks to prevent people duplicating, format shifting and backing up) severely muddies the waters as far as I am concerned.

Watermarking is not DRM. DRM is called DRM because it manages the buyers' rights to their digital content. All a watermark does is mark the file. So to use them interchangeably, or to assume they're the same, only confuses the issue further.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

I guess that makes me a heretic...which is fine by me.

I'll let you know when you're invited to speak on my behalf. But, in the interests of being polite, in this case you absolutely do not speak for me.

".. whether they know and accept it or not."

He claims to speak for you regardless of what you say. Your consent is irrelevant, according to him.