EU forcing DRM interoperability

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An eBook with DRM is better than no eBook at all.

That's a false choice.

The publisher can sell only paper books (so people will buy the paper book, while ripping and sharing the ebook.)

The publisher can sell DRMed eBooks, so people will buy. The DRMed books will not work later, so people will get angry, rip, and share. Think of the reaction someone has when a coke machine takes their money. They want to get even.

The publisher can sell non-DRMed eBooks, so people will buy and be happy.

The publisher can offer more stuff that costs themselves nothing extra. It's kinda like the outtakes on a DVD. Include a CD with the paper book that has an eBook and MP3s of the audio book. You will become known for offering more for a buck. People will seek out your books exclusively. Today's model of marketing seems to date back to the days of tapes for audio books, when copying an audio book cost $20, not $0.10.

It is up to the publisher.

Andy

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NatCh

as far as I'm concerned, if DRM stays out of my way so long as I'm not trying to do anything illegal, then I'm willing to live with it to a large extent. An inter-operable DRM could go a long way toward that end. It at least gets folks thinking in terms of cooperating, rather than competing to the point of ruining the market.

To my thinking, a common or inter-operable DRM that isn't an obstacle to most folks using e-books as they want to use them (in the sense that it doesn't control where and how they read their books, I mean) would result in more folks getting involved in e-books. The more folks who are involved with them, the more voices there are griping about the DRM (and the other e-book obstacles), and the more likely the issue is to be truly resolved instead of just band-aided.

You are reasoning from the point of view of the legitimate eBook buyer whose only concern is that a book bought when they have "device A" will be readable on a future "device B". From that perspective, "unified DRM" would indeed be both useful and workable.

What you're forgetting, however, is that the world is full of thieving bastards who want something for nothing. From their viewpoint, anything that prevents them from getting their hands on books without having to pay for them is a bad thing, therefore any form of DRM is BAD. Q.E.D.

[CommanderROR]

@SpiderMatt

Everything you say about the EU and their involvement is true..or rahter, it would be true in an ideal world.
We live in a real world however, and if you don't come donw heavy on the companies AND the people about just about everything, then what you get is madness and mayhem. If it were up tot eh companies, then we would have a few big Goliath companies that control the market. They would make the prices and they would decide what people want and what not. If it were up to the food companies, then we would all be eating stuff that causes cancer and whatnot until we die, even if they know what's in their products.
Have you ever seen a big boos of some cigarette company smoking? Well, they know (and have always known) that smoking kills you, but they still want us all to smoke. If Crack were legal, do you think anyone would hesitate? Do you think any businessman would think twice about selling Cocaine? They would probably even sell it to babies, advertising it as "Ideal method to make sure your kid never cries and is always happy" or something like that...

Of course, these are extreme examples, but I don't think they are untrue. The whole economy is a delicate balance between the companies wanting to make as much profit as they can and the governments making sure that nobody get's ripped off, addicted, poisoned or whatever...and that is the reason why we have too many laws...every loophole is immediately exploited, that means more laws to close the loopholes and so on...

Now let's look at your argument that consumers have a choice...

To have a choice, you need to HAVE choices available (how much choice do you have if there is just ONE company that you can buy your food from?) and of course you have to know a few things. Left to our own devices, we would probably always buy the product that looked like it gives the best value for our money. Now, without government control, you would not be able to read on the side of every food-product what it contains. Without government control, you would never know anything about the stuff you buy. How about poisonous children's toys from China? Do you think the companies would have changed anything if some EU import law did not prohibit certain substances, if there were no labs that check for dangerous chemicals in improted goods?

Now, let's go back to DRM. Paper-Books can't really be DRM protected, and this is something that bothers publishers no end. There were actually attempts at DRM in paper books long ago, where there was a little curse written in the book that was supposed to do terrible things to you if you handed the book on or something...I think I read that on mobileread some time ago...
Now, when left to their own devices, publishers would try their best to tie you to a certain format, a certain device and of course make sure that you never own anything you buy. What can a consumer do about that? He can stop buying ebooks...that's no problem for the publisher, because most publishers don't want ebooks to succeed anyway. Ebooks are convenient for consumers, because they do not take up physical space, a rare commodoty these days, and they don't eat resources, at least not that much...for publishers it's easy to provide ebooks, since the books usually exist in digital form anyway and are then printed to paper. And it's cheap too, but it more or leass makes publishers irrelevant...so they drag their feet every step of the way, claiming technical problems, security and piracy concerns and format indecision...

Now, if the EU encourages, and later perhaps forces a generic, interoperable DRM for music, vids and later also books, then that will be one step forward and it will be one that publisher are sure to fight till the end...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What you're forgetting, however, is that the world is full of thieving bastards who want something for nothing. From their viewpoint, anything that prevents them from getting their hands on books without having to pay for them is a bad thing, therefore any form of DRM is BAD. Q.E.D.

Now, you have once again forgotten that it is not theft (or if you do not accept that you pretend that everybody agree on that it is theft). Why can't you write "copyright infringing bastards" instead? It is so much less irritating of you to write it that way.

[HarryT]

Certainly: "copyright infringing bastards" if you prefer.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are reasoning from the point of view of the legitimate eBook buyer whose only concern is that a book bought when they have "device A" will be readable on a future "device B".

Well, you've got me on that one.

Originally Posted by HarryT

What you're forgetting, however, is that the world is full of thieving bastards who want something for nothing. From their viewpoint, anything that prevents them from getting their hands on books without having to pay for them is a bad thing, therefore any form of DRM is BAD. Q.E.D.

I'm afraid I do tend to ignore those who won't pay no matter what, not because I think they're not there, nor because I think their numbers are inconsequential, but rather because there's no getting any money out of them in the first place.

I don't think (nor to I think you meant to imply such ) that just because someone's opposed to DRM they intend on taking without paying. I just wanted to clarify that fine point.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly: "copyright infringing bastards" if you prefer.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

Consumers choose a product for a reason. Price and convenience seem to be fairly popular reasons. Whether for these reasons or any other, the chosen product offers something another does not. Consumers can let companies know they want what isn't being offered by not purchasing what they have to offer. The idea that a person has to buy the product just because he wanted something similar is ludicrous. If anyone is so desparate for an ebook that he is willing to buy one with DRM, then that person is proving the company right. He is, in effect, saying, "This product isn't quite what I wanted, but it sure beats having to buy a paper book."

So what should I do then? I certainly won't buy anything DRMed (for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that I don't want to send publishers any signal that DRM would be acceptable). I won't buy p-books because they are way too big to carry around all the time, too hard to use with one hand, way too uncomfortable to read in bed, etc. Whenever I ask an author, whose books I'd like to buy, where I can get his/her books in some unencumbered electronic format I never get any reply. So, exactly how can I get working books legally without any outside authority intervening?

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

The music market is rapidly moving away from DRM. Not because of the EU, but because people want it.

That's because people have experienced the downsides of DRM in music. What I don't get is that since people will never want DRM, and it's certainly never good for them, then why would EU not ban it? I see no reason why something purely harmful should be allowed.

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

if you're caught with a digital library [...] you can't be arrested on charges of theft. You clearly haven't stolen anything.

This out-of-context-quote is certainly true.

[Xenophon]

I'm about to go...

That said, here goes. I take some issue with CommanderROR's statement that:

Originally Posted by CommanderROR

Everything you say about the EU and their involvement is true..or rahter, it would be true in an ideal world.
We live in a real world however, and if you don't come donw heavy on the companies AND the people about just about everything, then what you get is madness and mayhem. If it were up tot eh companies, then we would have a few big Goliath companies that control the market. They would make the prices and they would decide what people want and what not. If it were up to the food companies, then we would all be eating stuff that causes cancer and whatnot until we die, even if they know what's in their products.
Have you ever seen a big boos of some cigarette company smoking? Well, they know (and have always known) that smoking kills you, but they still want us all to smoke. If Crack were legal, do you think anyone would hesitate? Do you think any businessman would think twice about selling Cocaine? They would probably even sell it to babies, advertising it as "Ideal method to make sure your kid never cries and is always happy" or something like that...

Of course, these are extreme examples, but I don't think they are untrue. The whole economy is a delicate balance between the companies wanting to make as much profit as they can and the governments making sure that nobody get's ripped off, addicted, poisoned or whatever...and that is the reason why we have too many laws...every loophole is immediately exploited, that means more laws to close the loopholes and so on...

SNIP

I shan't argue the need for anti-trust action when those "few big Goliath companies that control the market" actually start trying to "make the prices" and otherwise engage in anti-competitive behavior. (Note: It's not illegal to be a monopoly in the US, only to use monopoly power for anti-competitive purposes.)

As for food safety and other scandals of the past, note that there was a strong movement towards accurate labeling and safe ingredients around the time that books like "Cannery Row" were published... and long before the government got into the act. Folks were doing things like (successfully) suing meat-packers for fraud (e.g. false advertising) when the contents of the package weren't what they claimed. Things were being cleaned up. Slowly and painfully, but being cleaned up. It's not at all clear that government action was either necessary or more effective than what was already happening. Nor is it at all clear whether the clean-up would have succeeded without government action. And, of course, we can't exactly run the experiment again.

As for tobacco company bosses and smoking, note that strong evidence that smoking kills only became available in the 1950s. (There was plenty of anecdote and personal-experience to suggest it long before that. I'm using evidence in the "peer-reviewed science" and "stand up in court" sense.) Tobacco company bosses smoked plenty back then. So did 'most everyone else, too! Please note: I don't intend to claim that Big Tobacco hasn't pulled just about every sleazy maneuver in the book since that evidence arrived -- and before it arrived they tried to bury it in fake 'research' making opposite claims, for just one example. Big Tobacco is just about the poster child for underhanded obstructionism. But they definitely haven't "always known" that smoking kills you. Your argument would be much stronger if you got the details right.

As for selling cocaine to babies, well... On the one hand, go look up laudanum. On the other hand, go find some facts (as compared to hype) about how much of a problem it really was. Certainly there were real issues with people getting hooked on it, or getting their kids hooked on it. It was also of real benefit to zillions of people. The best research I've seen suggests that it was far, far less of a problem than alcohol. And remember, outlawing opiates for non-prescription use in the US was a combination of anti-competitive work by the AMA and hype over the "yellow peril" (for those not familiar with US history, this was turn-of-the-20th-c hype about how those "chinamen" would get hopped up on opium and do bad things to our helpless white women. 'scuse me a moment... using mental floss...). There were no actual facts or public health data driving the issue.

I think this is another example of "most of the history you learned in school looks waaay more complicated when examined more carefully."

End of

Xenophon

[CommanderROR]

@Xenophon

you are right of course, I did not go into details and I provided sloppy facts...however, that was exactly what I wanted to do...

My examples are extreme and overdone, what I wnated to do was set up a counterpoint to SpiderMatt's ravings about how everything would be so much better if there were no governement guys around to cut down our freedom...
Thank's for putting in those details my statement lacked by the way, nice researching...^^

One other thing:
You say that people were already suing companies over false advertising and stuff like that long before the government stepped in, and I'll just assume that's true...but even if the people started it on their own, somebody has to enforce it and make sure the comanies stick to the rulings of the court, not just the one comapany that was sued, but all companies...

[SpiderMatt]

Well, CommanderROR, I can respect a counterargument. I have more counterarguments for your counterargument, but I think we can both agree that we shouldn't stray too far from the topical issue of DRM (as I've likely done already). I mostly just wanted to make the point that DRM has most likely allowed publishers to dare to edge their way into the market of electronic books. It was the market that came up with the DRM approach and I think that the government mandating these sorts of decisions and telling companies how to do business in the electronic realm, will hamper the sort of innovativeness that it takes to push electronic mediums forward. For me, even from its inception, DRM was never the kind of idea I expected to last. Its designers may have intended it to last, but from the perspective of a consumer, the idea is just laughable. Now here we are, years later, and companies involved with DRM are starting to realize more and more why the technology is hurting their products more than helping. I'm not worried about DRM. The people on this board are passionate about e-reading. We know how to get the most out of our products through third party programs and firmware hacks. We have higher expectations than the average consumer in this market and we should probably take that into account. A much larger portion of the population has to get used to the idea of ebooks before a larger outcry against DRM will be heard. In fact, most of the target audience is likely not to really notice DRM. Most people just want to download a book, load it onto their reader, and start reading. Give it some time like the music market and I'm sure we'll see big changes.

msundman: If you're really wondering what to do, I recommend buying the physical book and then finding some place to download it. I've already explained why I think this is ethical and legal. I actually hope to have my own library in the future in which there is a computer with the digitized versions of all the books I own. Then I could search through them with ease to find quotes and subject material. It's my beautiful vision for the future. It brings tears to my eyes, haha. I really hope Google puts their scanning project to good use and gets into the ebook game soon.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

I recommend buying the physical book and then finding some place to download it.

But then I'd be sending publishers signals that I want p-books, which I don't.
I think the best thing to do would be to find good books that are available electronically without DRM and then buy those. That's easier said than done, though.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by msundman

But then I'd be sending publishers signals that I want p-books, which I don't.

But in this scenario (where there is no e-book) you can't send them a signal that you want an e-book version. Unless you were to contact them and tell them so, which is a good idea.

The thing you do accomplish by buying the paper book is you let the Publisher know that you want books by that author, which is good for you, and you make sure that the author gets at least some compensation for his work, so he's more likely to actually write more books.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by NatCh

But in this scenario (where there is no [DRM-less] e-book) you can't send them a signal that you want an e-book version.

That's my point. My preferred solution would be to have some outside authority speeding up the DRM-discarding process (which probably would happen anyway, just very slowly and causing a lot of needless grief) so that the authors/publishers who want to sell e-books would have to do it without DRM and then I could buy from them and then the other authors/publishers, who hasn't yet dared going e, notice how much people like it.

Originally Posted by NatCh

Unless you were to contact them and tell them so, which is a good idea.

Indeed, I must do more of that. So far I've only contacted authors directly.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by msundman

That's because people have experienced the downsides of DRM in music.

And they have experienced how easy and non-intervening DRM can be and are using iTunes.

What I don't get is that since people will never want DRM

YOU don't want DRM, so does others. But please do not even try to speak for all people.

and it's certainly never good for them

You know what is great? I can decide for myself, what is good for me and what is not. But dictatorships tend to decide this on behalf of their people. Maybe this is why you mentioned the EU.

then why would EU not ban it?

I think any dictator of this world would be very proud of you.

If you don't like DRM, don't buy it. But please try not to force your personal opinion upon others.

Alan

[astra]

Originally Posted by Alan

YOU don't want DRM, so does others. But please do not even try to speak for all people.

I think any dictator of this world would be very proud of you.

If you don't like DRM, don't buy it. But please try not to force your personal opinion upon others.

Alan

Do you liked DRMed books? Are you happy to buy them?