My perspective on buying books with DRM

[eschwartz]

It is of course your choice to believe financial information is not stored on your computer.
Can I take it that you have never accessed financial information via your computer?

Most stuff you buy on the internet cannot be redistributed en mass, however, you are certainly treated like a potential thief, e.g. they ask for money before giving you stuff, where's their sense of trust?

Any area where there is a general possibility for a customer to screw over a seller, it is downright naïve to expect said seller to not protect their business interests, by whatever means are applicable.
It is of course, the customer's right to determine if those means are oppressive.

When you buy online, they have your identity data, regardless of whether they use watermarking or not -- all the watermarking does is point at your account credentials, and then the vendor looks at the account to find out what name is on record, which credit card you have on record, accompanying billing address, what shipping address you listed, and on and on and on.

[Barcey]

I believe the point that was being made is that the watermark does not pass the test for non-repudiation. Just because an ebook shows up on a file sharing site with a watermark that traces back to my purchase does not mean that I put it there. Someone could have logged on my computer and uploaded it. My computer could have been stolen. I might have sold my computer and not performed a full data wipe and someone ran an un-erase. Any number of other conditions.

[eschwartz]

Yes, and it also provides an evidence trail. If the purchaser didn't do it, then forensic analysis of their computer might be in order, or tracing the computer down to wherever it ended up, depending on how committed the company is to catching the perpetrator.

I have absolutely no problem with a seller of goods desiring to have a means to trace their products being use in an illegal fashion that causes them harm!

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It says "we don't trust all our readers" in large red letters, and I consider that to be very reasonable grounds... for them to use security measures that don't negatively affect me.

Seeing my name (or whatever else), added on the book affect me.
It changes the product I bought.

[eschwartz]

What an absolutely lousy, transparent excuse.

I would really much rather listen to protestations that actually have logic behind them --- even if I disagree, at least I know where the other person is coming from.

Being ridiculous helps no one.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Being ridiculous helps no one.

This is so wrong, it's ridiculous!

I love people being ridiculous! It makes things interesting on MobileReads, other forums, and frankly, in real life too!

If people stopped being ridiculous, then the world would basically consist of interaction with the same consistency of conversations between you and, well, let's see, HarryT. And that brings up images of THX 1138 and other drab bits of media.

We have a God given right to be ridiculous! In the US, it's in the Constitution, in other countries, well, it may not be enshrined in the constitution (or the local reasonable facsimile), but the politicians practice it constantly.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It really makes very little difference whether pirates are more likely to digitally break in or gain physical access -- the idea is still ludicrous. The pirates already have everything they need to upload all the books they want, and they don't need your files.

So, according to your own reasoning, what do we need watermarks for? Why do we need to be suspected, registered, controlled, if no actual purpose is achieved by these measures?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

So, according to your own reasoning, what do we need watermarks for? Why do we need to be suspected, registered, controlled, if no actual purpose is achieved by these measures?

Well, G-d knows it isn't stopping the serious pirates...

But there are always the casual hobbyist pirates.

Besides, sellers are allowed to use whatever security blankets they want -- no one said they have to be effective.
Considering that one of my main points has been and continues to be, that they have all the registration info they need (we gave it to them when we created an account and then added payment info), I don't really consider myself corralled, and why should I give a flaming pile of horse poo if they suspect me?

[hannah]

What I abhor most in the whole ebook discussion is not the drm as it but the fact that we pay for having a right to use a file that we don't "own". I even read on a website that if that vendor stopped existing you had to delete all the files you bought there The actual drm is a good way to ensure this for average users.

Do you think this will stay the same if watermarking is used as a general rule ?

I hope I'm clear, sometimes I really struggle to explain myself in English.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hannah

What I abhor most in the whole ebook discussion is not the drm as it but the fact that we pay for having a right to use a file that we don't "own".

It's the same for all digital goods. That's really the way it has to be - there's nothing physical to "own". Even when you buy a paper book, all that you own is the paper, glue, and ink; you don't own the contents of the book. You can't, for example, read it out loud in public.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by murg

This is so wrong, it's ridiculous!
.

It don't disturb you.- >Good for you. But don't insult people who have a different opinion.

Seeing my name is my books do bother me. In quite the same way bad formatting or typo do. The first thing i did with the harry potter book was removing the watermark.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by barryem

They don't do it by embedding metadata. They do it by embedding sound, carefully selected so it won't be noticed by the listener but will be picked up by any conversion process.

Interesting, thanks for posting it. I'm sure you could do something similar with text, maybe change a set pattern of words sprinkled through the book that wouldn't affect reading. Maybe it would even explain all the typos in corporation published ebooks

[hannah]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the same for all digital goods. That's really the way it has to be - there's nothing physical to "own". Even when you buy a paper book, all that you own is the paper, glue, and ink; you don't own the contents of the book. You can't, for example, read it out loud in public.

It's true Harry, but I can give it, sell it, lend it to friends without being accused of being a thief or without having to circumvent the law. At least I own the paper, glue and ink. I don't have to give all my personal data to be able to buy it and eventually have it watermarked to my name not even to be able to say it's a book I own.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hannah

It's true Harry, but I can give it, sell it, lend it to friends without being accused of being a thief or without having to circumvent the law.

The problem is, though, that with an ebook, you're not lending it to your friends; you're making an additional copy of it, and giving that copy to your friends. In paper book terms, it would be the equivalent of making a photocopy of a book, and giving your friends that photocopy.

I agree that the ability to resell digital content would be desirable, but the practicalities of the situation make it difficult to do.

[hannah]

Sometimes I wonder if it would change much if they would leave drm altogether. Most people want to be honest and will pay for what they want. It wouldn't surprise me if in the end the drm schemes costs more than to trust the majority and accept some will not be honest.

It really bothers me that I have to be dishonest when buying books with a certain license because I don't feel I have a choice if I want to be sure the file is readable in the future but being able to covert them.