DRMs versus Watermarks

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But the casual sharers wouldn't be stopped at all by watermarking, so, again, what's the point?

I think (but it may be wishful thinking) that among those casual sharers, the majority of them do share casually because of miscomprehension, and that the visible part of the watermark would give them pause enough to think it over and maybe get informed on the subject... and if that fails, I think fear of an hypothetical (but I grant you highly unlikely) tracing through the invisible watermark will.

If indeed that IS wishful thinking and watermarking proves as ineffective against "piracy" as crypto-DRMs, it still can be pushed as a better alternative to publishers, notably for its better Customers Acceptance Factor, with the net positive result of increasing the reader's freedom to store, convert, reuse... and society long term benefit of cultural conservation.

I mention a better Customers Acceptance Factor for Publisher, but an other point is also a lessened e-retailers dependency, as it would allow "Kindle" buyers to go and buy elsewhere without losing their purchased content.
For Publishers who claim that Amazon is the GREAT EVIL, I think it can work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TheSFReader

For Publishers who claim that Amazon is the GREAT EVIL, I think it can work.

Which publishers have made that claim?

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which publishers have made that claim?

I will try and find some references later today.

[pdurrant]

Wow! We have one vote for DRM systems being good. Fascinating!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Wow! We have one vote for DRM systems being good. Fascinating!

They are good - for things like library books and textbook rentals. In fact more than good; they're essential for such things. A watermarked library book is about as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot in terms of preventing theft of books from the library.

(and no, it wasn't me who voted for it )

[Freeshadow]

Whoever was that, I don't think it was a re-reading person.
I agree with Harry, but libraries is a different aspect of it. Were that singled out I'd support it.

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Whoever was that, I don't think it was a re-reading person.
I agree with Harry, but libraries is a different aspect of it. Were that singled out I'd support it.

Yep, me too. Libraries is the only place where I feel Encryption-DRM at least partly justified, but with a restriction : only if the Library gets to keep at least one un-drmized "master" version of the book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

I agree with Harry, but libraries is a different aspect of it. Were that singled out I'd support it.

That's my point: it's too simplistic to say "watermarks are a better form of DRM than encryption"; the discussion has to be more nuanced. There are situations in which encryption-based DRM is entirely appropriate, and I gave two examples in my previous post: library books and textbook rentals.

[Billi]

I'm not the other single vote - that voted in favor of drm over watermark - but against the general trend here that's my opinion too. If you think you should protect your files then do it "as properly" as possible and not some half-hearted way. Maybe I have come to this opinion because I've made better experiences with drm than with watermarks. At the moment, we can manage drm, but the word of "watermark" brings back worst memories of pdf files similar to these lines:

Originally Posted by rkomar

I assume it wouldn't produce a faint image over the text on every page, would it?

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It would be very hit-or-miss; it would require the authors to be downloading suspected files themselves--which could also be considered copyright infringement on their part--it would require initiating time-consuming and costly legal action. Would it really be cost effective?

Seems like the dedicated pirates would find some way to eliminate/alter the watermarking anyway.

Since it would not affect me, I don't much care if it's instituted, except that implementing it presumably would be added cost that is passed on to the consumer.

Not that I'm a lawyer in any way, but I would imagine you're perfectly within your rights to download a file that claims to be something you own the copyright to. However, if it turns out the file isn't actually your book, movie etc you'd likely have to report it and/or delete it and not hang onto it depending on what it was.

Dedicated pirates will as you say, always find a way. Watermarks are no different, they just need a few copies of the book in order to identify what it is that is changing and then they can create strippers to remove it. Or, the other common option is to use stolen CC numbers to purchase items (that's common with software, pirates are cheap) then you don't need to care that it has a watermark.

However, watermarks and really DRM isn't aimed at dedicated pirates, it's aimed at the average joe who might make a copy for a close friend, but may think twice about lending/copying it too widely when they know their name is in the cover and the text tells them identifying information is also hidden throughout the book.

Not a perfect solution, but it can imho have the desired effect on non-dedicated pirates. As for the people who are honest and never pirate books, they get the freedom back to format shift and have perpetual access to their purchases. The only loss they take is that they have to be more trusting if they do decide to loan a copy to a friend, an issue you don't have with paper books

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Billi

I'm not the other single vote - that voted in favor of drm over watermark - but against the general trend here that's my opinion too. If you think you should protect your files then do it "as properly" as possible and not some half-hearted way. Maybe I have come to this opinion because I've made better experiences with drm than with watermarks. At the moment, we can manage drm, but the word of "watermark" brings back worst memories of pdf files similar to these lines:

If the watermark is in anyway visible beyond one of the first pages after the cover, then I certainly wouldn't purchase them

I used to buy some training videos a while back until one day the set I ordered arrived with a watermark all the way throughout the video with my full name and address. Never bought another item from them since.

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which publishers have made that claim?

I'm not sure this qualifies, but perhaps ...
http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/17/con...ng-to-kill-us/

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-04-09...nal-publishers

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JoeD

If the watermark is in anyway visible beyond one of the first pages after the cover, then I certainly wouldn't purchase them

A "watermark", in eBook terms, is generally not visible at all. It's simply data, embedded within the file, which allows it to traced back to its purchaser.

[Penforhire]

I consider watermarking to be "social DRM" and in that view I don't mind it at all. It feels no different than the "belongs to the library of" adhesive labels I've seen in many peoples' books.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I consider watermarking to be "social DRM" and in that view I don't mind it at all. It feels no different than the "belongs to the library of" adhesive labels I've seen in many peoples' books.

What information would be included in watermarking, though? What would be the potential privacy concerns, say if my e-reader were lost or stolen.

And thinking of an e-reader being lost or stolen--wouldn't the person who ended up with it be able to upload all the books with the purchaser's watermark, if so inclined, making the legitimate purchaser look like a pirate?