DRM Good or Bad?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by no.guru

I'm reading my first DRM'ed book on my T-1 currently. It's a library book, and the T-1 displays it in the list of books on the device along with the number of days left in the loan period.

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.

Why would any author or publisher care what font I read the book in? It's an Adobe epub of Raisin In The Sun, so the font is irrelevant to the work.

If the eBook in question is already using an embedded font, then you won't be able to change the font. The way publishers access embedded fonts is to use specific names and that doesn't work with the T1.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by no.guru

".. 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.

Hey, I gave him some karma. It might help out.

[pshute]

Originally Posted by Justin Nemo

I'm not sure the medium will make any difference to the length of popularity of a book.

True, but there's little cost to the distributors to make it available forever, so they aren't forced to stop making it available like they are with printed versions.

Not sure what happens when an ebook gets so old that copyright doesn't apply. Will we be allowed to remove the DRM then?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

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?).

Ecopies of DH were around before the book came out. The "carpet version" was photographed, not scanned, so it was clear it wasn't a forgery. Rumour had it some store employee had grabbed a copy before the release date, took pictures of it, and sent it out to the torrents.

It was fairly unreadable, though. OCR'd versions took a few hours after the release date.

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by pshute

True, but there's little cost to the distributors to make it available forever, so they aren't forced to stop making it available like they are with printed versions.

Not sure what happens when an ebook gets so old that copyright doesn't apply. Will we be allowed to remove the DRM then?

IMHO the only thing that lasts forever is Herpes.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

I do not see how watermarking is Digital Rights Management. It's purely a tracking device. Perhaps you could explain further.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I do not see how watermarking is Digital Rights Management. It's purely a tracking device. Perhaps you could explain further.

This is just one of those things that get Harry all worked up, like "1984"... Let him have his fun.

We all know what we are talking about here when we use the term DRM.

[frahse]

DRM is simply what it purports to be.

Watermarking is like the harness in Falling Skies "a process."

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I do not see how watermarking is Digital Rights Management. It's purely a tracking device. Perhaps you could explain further.

DRM as a generic term is about how to protect the owner's rights over a piece of intellectual property. The only limiting aspect of the term is the fact that we are talking about "digital" rights - as opposed to all the other rights that exist. DRM, like most security systems, can exist in many forms. There are preventative measures - for example making background checks before permitting access. There are active measures - for example monitoring, and perhaps actively limiting, a persons use of the property. And there are retrospective measures, common examples are audit-trails and security logs of various forms.

The still most common form of DRM over ebooks attempts active management. Watermarking is a passive form of rights management, I assume it is intended to be used in retrospective analysis. ... But who knows? maybe they'll use the information gained from watermarking to implement preventative DRM, refusing sales to those whose previous purchases have been found where they shouldn't. If watermarking takes off it could even be combined with new forms of active DRM that check for the watermark, and perhaps even check online whether you have rights to the copy (note that these days so many readers are effectively always on with no way for the owner to know what the device is telling the other end).

Compare watermarking to those invisible marking pens that people can use to mark goods for identification AFTER they've been stolen. Like a burglar alarm those pens are about managing what happens with regard to theft, alarms can be both preventive and active, the invisible pens are very much retrospective. Both relate to managing your rights over the goods you own.

[HarryT]

Thank you, gmw; a very nice explanation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

This is just one of those things that get Harry all worked up, like "1984"... Let him have his fun.

We all know what we are talking about here when we use the term DRM.

With the greatest respect, Hans, holding an opinion that differs from your own does not constitute "getting all worked up". I believe that you are wrong, but that's as far as it goes.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, Hans, holding an opinion that differs from your own does not constitute "getting all worked up". I believe that you are wrong, but that's as far as it goes.

No disrespect from my side, Harry. I forgot the when I wrote that. Turned out to be a misguided attempt at humor. As I have mentioned, you are right. But is it worth arguing about? Just distracts from the subject at hand.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by frahse

Hey, I gave him some karma. It might help out.

That's nice of you. Being an author, maybe you could also reexamine your original statement. Doesn't sound like you see anything wrong with it, other than that someone might object.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But is it worth arguing about? Just distracts from the subject at hand.

I thinks it's reasonable to want to understand clearly what the subject is. If we don't agree on what DRM is, how can we discuss if it's good or bad?

For my part, I see watermarking as a form of DRM. I see it as a reasonable and inoffensive passive form, as opposed to the more intrusiveness and restrictive active forms. I also like the terms "hard" and "soft" that some folks used above. I assume that in most cases, when people say DRM unqualified, they are referring the the hard stuff.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

I thinks it's reasonable to want to understand clearly what the subject is. If we don't agree on what DRM is, how can we discuss if it's good or bad?

For my part, I see watermarking as a form of DRM. I see it as a reasonable and inoffensive passive form, as opposed to the more intrusiveness and restrictive active forms. I also like the terms "hard" and "soft" that some folks used above. I assume that in most cases, when people say DRM unqualified, they are referring the the hard stuff.

People often use the expression "social DRM" to refer to watermarking.