People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

you can have no DRM with little increase in casual sharing and piracy and point to the music industry as an examnple of a successful No DRM regime. You cite a few indie writers and and some minor publishing houses offering no DRM content and say, " See? That can work for everyone". Well, the publishing industry is not convinced and I can't say as I blame 'em. I know that if I was betting my company on such evidence, I'd want more-a lot more.

We have cited several publishing house that release books without DRM and said, "It's working for them. As far as we can figure out, switching from DRM to no-DRM hasn't hurt anyone's sales." One of the "Minor publishing houses" has watched its profits increase over the last decade, while most of the industry is shrinking. The other has noted that its print sales have declined, like most publishers--but that its ebook sales have more than made up the difference.

Do you have any evidence that DRM has improved business--has removing DRM hurt sales, or has adding DRM increased sales?

Ignore the "casual sharing/piracy" junk. Those numbers don't matter. What matters is how many people are buying. Is there any evidence that DRM'd products sell better than non-DRM'd ones? Because we've got a whole swarm of evidence that says no, non-DRM'd stuff sells faster and more than DRM'd stuff.

The claim that DRM protects authors' rights and incomes is bogus. There's no evidence to support it. There's wild speculation about how removing DRM *could* result in mass file-sharing that kills incomes--but that's not how DRM removal has worked in any other part of the industry, or other industries, that have tried it.

Why should we believe that Agency 6 ebooks are different from every other digital industry?

[Freeshadow]

@JSwolf, elfwreck, kenny, Catlady...
C'mon ppl lets forget it

stoney repeats it over and over again: it's just a minor inconvenience when we loose stuff we paid for. - maybe we should be happy at all that we are allowed to take a glimpse at it, from time to time, of course not too often -we shouldn't get TOO spoiled.

all of us tried to explain to him that we are not willing to acceppt that leasing and chaining idea - that we do not want having OUR PAID books on rubberbands fixed to the shops back wall. Everyone of of us tried it differently and the answer, if any, was alwas the same tune - Do not dare to expect possesion of an ebook.

I'm outta here, this stonewall of ignorance makes me sick *this said he left humming Supertramps - "Dreamer"*

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, the publishing industry is not convinced and I can't say as I blame 'em. I know that if I was betting my company on such evidence, I'd want more-a lot more.

I'd also like to mention again that keeping DRM isn't a cost-free option. On a $12 Agency rate ebook, the DRM cost is over 2.5% of the income from the ebook. On a $8 Agency rate ebook, the DRM cost is just under 4% of the income from the book. And on a $4 Agency ebook, the DRM cost is over 7.8% of the income.

It seems pretty silly to be paying over that kind of money for something that does you no good.

One last thing: If ebooks are licensed, not sold, then publishers owe most authors 50% of the net income from the ebooks licensed, since standard book contracts give authors 50% of any licensing fees.

[stonetools]

You have acknowledged my point at last. The present of DRM or not on the digital files that are sold does not affect the amount of unauthorised copying to any significant extent.

Well I acknowledge that you CLAIMED that. The evidence of the music industry is quite the contrary. Hell, the strudy that YOU cite says grudgingly admits that piracy is responsible for 20 % of the decline. The music industry claims an even larger percentage.
Let's see you answer a question. How do you know that sales of nonDRM books wouldn't have been even greater than they were had they had DRM?

[toddos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not so. Losing a warranty on a physical product is only a problem if the item breaks inside the warranty period. If your supplier a DRMed product ceases to support that DRM, you will lose access to that product when your currently authorised devices either break or need to be reinstalled. This is insurmountable. Well, unless you have sensibly removed the DRM first, of course. But that's a different discussion.

Let's not forget that removing DRM is currently illegal in the US (thank you, DMCA). So it's worse than what you stated. This scenario is only surmountable if you're willing to become a felon by removing DRM.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well I acknowledge that you CLAIMED that. The evidence of the music industry is quite the contrary. Hell, the strudy that YOU cite says grudgingly admits that piracy is responsible for 20 % of the decline.

Is there any indication that DRM'd music had less filesharing than non-DRM'd music?

We're not claiming piracy never cuts into sales; we're saying that lack of DRM doesn't cause that piracy. If DRM'd and non-DRM'd titles are pirated at the same rates, the DRM isn't saving any money.

Let's see you answer a question. How do you know that sales of nonDRM books wouldn't have been even greater than they were had they had DRM?

Because O'Reilly used to sell DRM'd ebooks; they removed the DRM, and sales more than doubled.

Because some of Konrath's books are available with DRM, and some without, and the ones without sell a lot more. (Of course, they're cheaper, too. Apparently, higher prices+DRM is not a winning sales combination.)

We admit there's not a lot of hard evidence; not many companies have done both DRM and non-DRM offerings, and books aren't quite fungible: you can't compare sales of 2 random different books, one with DRM, one without, and use that to prove anything. But among the few bits of data we have, removing DRM has never made sales worse.

[stonetools]

Do you have any evidence that DRM has improved business--has removing DRM hurt sales, or has adding DRM increased sales?

Do you have any evidence that non DRM books would not have sold more if they had DRM?
I can ask questions too.

There's wild speculation about how removing DRM *could* result in mass file-sharing that kills incomes--but that's not how DRM removal has worked in any other part of the industry, or other industries, that have tried it.

Funny I remember a lot of piracy/casual sharing of non DRM music files after 1997. THat was the very reason music companies instituted DRM- to try to stop that. Now it didn't work because the horse was out of the barn by the time it was tried- but casual sharing/piracy most definitely hurt the industry as even an anti DRM study had to admit. That's evidence.
NOw you pretty much admitted above that you expect large scale casual sharing to follow the abandonment of DRM. You also argue that casual sharing is fine for obscure auithors and pass over in silence its likely effects on best selling authors. Finally, you admit that only significant success of non DRM publishing has been a single publisher offering fiction in one genre, a speciality non fiction house plus a few indie authors. If you think that's evidence enough to risk the future of publishing industry, fine. I don't-and the folks with actual skin in the game don't either. It's easy for some guy on the Innternetto commit the livelihoods of millions in the publishing industry to gamble. Not so easy for the people in the industry .

[kennyc]

Let's see. Washington DC ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=publi...ient=firefox-a

Yep....

[cfrizz]

While removing DRM may be illegal, (By USA law) it is NOT a felony offense which is punishable by over a year in prison. A year or more incarceration is what makes a felony a felony.

Stripping drm is considered a misdemeanor which is punishable by less than a year in prison and or a fine. But since there was no violence involved, more than likely you will be hit with a fine.

Naturally, there are exceptions to this as in the cases of Enron & Martha Stewart.

From Wiki: "While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offenses" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offenses against the public or the state, as distinguished from torts (offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action)".

Lets try to use the right terminology since these words are not interchangeable and mean totally different things under the law.

Originally Posted by toddos

Let's not forget that removing DRM is currently illegal in the US (thank you, DMCA). So it's worse than what you stated. This scenario is only surmountable if you're willing to become a felon by removing DRM.

[stonetools]

It seems pretty silly to be paying over that kind of money for something that does you no good.

THe publishers who read the balance sheets and have the inside info about the industry and who are directly responsible of financial success of their companies think that DRM is necessary at this time and is well worth the investment. You -who have no access to the financial records of the companies and have no responsibility to the authors and employees of the publishing houses-want them to abandon DRM.
At this point I'm going to have to go with guys with the inside info and the responsibility. They may be dead wrong, but that's the way to bet.

I notice that no one even WANTS to consider a middle way-a better DRM. But then, ideological purists do tend to scorn the middle way. Oh well.
OK, I think we're done here. Good discussion guys.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe publishers who ...

The publishers are idiots. They can't even look around them and see what is happening and what has happened to similar businesses. They will die like dinosaurs wallowing in their own paper pulp.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe publishers who read the balance sheets and have the inside info about the industry and who are directly responsible of financial success of their companies think that DRM is necessary at this time and is well worth the investment.

Yes, because the publishers are the ones who really know what they are doing.

Witness the multiple rejections JK Rowling endured before Harry Potter was finally purchased. Or the hundreds of other books that were rejected by publisher after publisher before somebody finally took a gamble on them and the books went on to become best-sellers.

Or, playing the ebook bingo card, Joe Konrath. Maybe he is an outlier...but remember, his publisher thought his book were not even WORTH making available as ebooks. So Joe goes and does it himself is now making a six-figure salary.

Or multi-million dollar advances for celebrity authors whose books are total duds in the marketplace.

There is ample evidence that the publishing companies are seldom in touch with the marketplace as you give them credit for.

Authority does not necessarily equate to competence, talent or wisdom.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

While removing DRM may be illegal, (By USA law) it is NOT a felony offense which is punishable by over a year in prison. A year or more incarceration is what makes a felony a felony.

Stripping drm is considered a misdemeanor which is punishable by less than a year in prison and or a fine. But since there was no violence involved, more than likely you will be hit with a fine.

Naturally, there are exceptions to this as in the cases of Enron & Martha Stewart.

From Wiki: "While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offenses" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offenses against the public or the state, as distinguished from torts (offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action)".

Lets try to use the right terminology since these words are not interchangeable and mean totally different things under the law.

My bad. I didn't bother to look up the status of DMCA violation beyond being criminal rather than civil. While it may not make you a felon, a misdemeanor still gives you a criminal record (you don't have to check the "Are you a felon?" checkbox while applying for a job or a loan or whatever, but it can still be a negative strike if a background check is done). You're unlikely to be prosecuted for liberating your personal ebook library, but let's not forget the key point here -- circumventing copy protection is breaking the law.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you remember Lotus 1-2-3 when it was sold on floppy disk with DRM? I do. And it was a hellish nightmare. If the hard drive died, you could not them reinstall it on another computer as you had to uninstall it so it could write back to the floppy disk. If there was a problem when the uninstaller wrote on the floppy disk, you had a problem. And in some cases, the DRM caused a problem with doing hard drive backups. So really, it was just a nightmare. And considering how much it cast, it wasn't worth the hassle.

Yes, I remember Lotus 1-2-3. Anyone with a binary editor (MS-Dos came with debug.com) and a little knowledge could edit the machine code and flip one bit and Walla! DRM disabled!

That being said, the federal government put a moratorium on the purchase of any copy protected software, and SuperCalc became an instant success. Lotus soon changed their tune and published a non copy protected version, but was never able to recover. They were eventually bought by IBM.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

NOw you pretty much admitted above that you expect large scale casual sharing to follow the abandonment of DRM.

No, I'm saying there's rather large filesharing going on now, on both DRM'd and non-DRM'd content. I'm saying removing DRM will have no notable impact on filesharing, which is already widespread, nor on sales, except to make them increase in most cases.

You also argue that casual sharing is fine for obscure auithors and pass over in silence its likely effects on best selling authors.

Dan Brown, Stephen King, Stephanie Meyers and JK Rowling are already massively available through download sites. I firmly believe they won't be *more* shared if they remove DRM (or, in Rowling's case, release a legit ebook version.)

You can't get much more shared than "a complete digital version is available days before the book is released."

If you think that's evidence enough to risk the future of publishing industry, fine. I don't-and the folks with actual skin in the game don't either. It's easy for some guy on the Innternet to commit the livelihoods of millions in the publishing industry to gamble. Not so easy for the people in the industry .

I'm their potential future customer. I'm raising more of their potential future customers, and teaching their friends how ebooks work. I spend money on ebooks, and I don't spend money on DRM.

Publishers are, of course, free to ignore me because I was never part of the hardcover buying crowd. I'm not going to run out of stuff to read.

As Worldwalker said, the anti-DRM crowd has no personal gain tied up in our opinions. We have access to the content we want. It's not going to be more available if DRM is removed--although it might be more available in locations we're willing to pay for. Nothing but our own ethics keeps us from accessing anything currently digitally available, and a great deal not currently being sold.

We're mostly sorry for those authors who are stuck in publishing contracts that prevent them from getting Konrath's level of success, and saddened and annoyed at publishers who think their current model is sustainable. And some of us are rather amused at the idea that we'll instantly become less ethical if there are less techno-nuisances involved in our purchases.