Profit or Prevention: Which is more important?

[ProDigit]

The poll seems very obvious doesn't it?.. lol

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Or how about the computer program 'shareware' schemes of old, where the program has parts locked unless you send a cheque to Bill Smith at 3434 Jones Street in Chicago? Years later, someone might download this program (nothing dies on the internet) and Bill Smith may have moved on, so you have no way to unlock the program. Or how about the Google Movies system where it pings the server every time you watch---pre-supposing that years from now, this server will still be running so you can watch your bought and paid for merchandise?

I did think about the shareware schemes; I've always liked that idea. And I'm sure that the "who to ping" can be overcome, but the problem to me is do people feel they should pay for such material? Put another way. If, say, Stephen King, put out a novel with a "please send $2 to StephenKing at paypal dot com account", I wonder how many of those who read the book, would pay. Not because they are criminals or feel they are doing wrong, but because they don't feel they are defrauding anyone of anything by not paying. (Which, I suspect, is why shareware has nag-screens!)

Originally Posted by ficbot

It's absolutely ridiculous. I have only ever found two DRM schemes I can live with: the public library, where the book (which you have borrowed, not bought) is set to expire after the loan period is up, and the eReader one where there is no limit on download amounts or to how many devices, but your credit card number is imprinted into the file and is needed to unlock it the first time you read. That is fair to me. If I want to share the file, it doesn't stop me, but I wouldn't want to because then I would have to share my credit card number too Non-intrusive, no ads, does not affect the useability of the file at all, but it does deter sharing...

I agree that those two schemes would be excellent (okay, some minor problems about the credit card and it encouraging the identity card debates, but they could be solved). [I'm assuming that each "device" requires the content to be unlocked so that the device can read it.] I'd be interested to know if someone like fictionwise could implement this on their current website.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's only a problem when the public knuckles under and buys things against their better judgment. When they buy, the "big guns" have them right where they want them. It's the public's job to say "NO," and make businesses understand what they will and will not accept, and to back that up with purchases (and, in the political arena, with votes). Whining to businesses to "give you a break" is a waste of time, when there is a clear mechanism to getting what you want: ACT.

I agree with Steve that the power does lie with the wallet. But it requires an entity brave enough to challenge the received wisdom and go for an alternative model (okay, and make money out of it). Voting with your wallets and not opening is just used as evidence of piracy, unless accountable alternatives exist. Of course, this is seriously aggravated by those who do pirate the books, or provide tools to do this.

I'm not convinced DRM is necessarily bad, just that the way it is currently being used is taking too much from the readers.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's only a problem when the public knuckles under and buys things against their better judgment. When they buy, the "big guns" have them right where they want them. It's the public's job to say "NO," and make businesses understand what they will and will not accept, and to back that up with purchases (and, in the political arena, with votes). Whining to businesses to "give you a break" is a waste of time, when there is a clear mechanism to getting what you want: ACT.

So you should give 3 cheers to the p2p's and the people who refused to pay for music and downloaded it for free since they were the ones that finally determined the music industry to offer drm-free single mp3's and explore so many alternatives. That is people power

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I'm not convinced DRM is necessarily bad, just that the way it is currently being used is taking too much from the readers.

That's it in a nutshell: DRM is not, in itself, bad. It is many of its variants that are upsetting customers.

But customers have to accept some responsibility for the situation, too. We actually put up with equally restrictive rules tied to other purchases. But because the world continues to hang onto the Wild West mentality of the present web, many of us resist even the lightest security steps as "attacks to personal and global Freedom." Thus, DRM in all its forms is automatically labeled EVIL and hung without a trial, and the web townsfolk dutifully come out and throw rotten fruit at it.

It's because of this Wild West mentality that businesses have so little hard data to use when figuring web-based loss and developing security systems. Due to customers' adamant desire for privacy and unlimited access, there is often no way to collect useful data on transactions. So businesses, which base all of their operations on accurate sales, expenses and net profit data, only know that there are sales when they are looking, and losses when they turn their backs, and no way of knowing exactly who or how much of either.

A more secure web could get that data, and businesses could make more informed decisions. Without security, businesses are basically putting their wares out at night, turning the lights off and hoping there's money left on the counter when the products are gone in the morning. In that light, it's no wonder that businesses over-react by placing restrictive rules on purchases.

I don't know how businesses are supposed to make rational decisions about anything without data. They can guess, and they can blindly trust customers not to take advantage of them. But human nature has shown that people rarely pass up an easy chance to take something they don't have to pay for, so that trust only goes so far.

Businesses have to at least be prepared to take some preventive steps to make sure stealing isn't easier than buying. But they also have to know when the steps they are taking are too much... placing a bear-trap at the candy-counter to stop $20 worth of lost sales a month, which most people would consider a bit extreme...

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

So you should give 3 cheers to the p2p's and the people who refused to pay for music and downloaded it for free since they were the ones that finally determined the music industry to offer drm-free single mp3's and explore so many alternatives. That is people power

In my case, no, I don't give any cheers. I understand your argument, but I think it is wrong. I believe the p2p people played into the hands of the music executives who could go and say "look at all the music that has been stolen" and demand rights and implement excessive DRM, and put back the case for DRM-free or "DRM-reasonable" content. I don't believe it was the actions of the p2p networks that created DRM-free music, but it was the action of new businesses who saw a chance to use Steve's "wallet power" (the desire for fair-use) as a way to gain new business share.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A more secure web could get that data, and businesses could make more informed decisions. Without security, businesses are basically putting their wares out at night, turning the lights off and hoping there's money left on the counter when the products are gone in the morning. In that light, it's no wonder that businesses over-react by placing restrictive rules on purchases.

I do hope that's not a call for a Big Brother (in the Orwellian sense) world. I've read too many SciFi Novels (most recently Ken Macleod's Execution Channel) to be happy with that idea.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

So you should give 3 cheers to the p2p's and the people who refused to pay for music and downloaded it for free since they were the ones that finally determined the music industry to offer drm-free single mp3's and explore so many alternatives. That is people power

And has that reduced the amount of music which is downloaded illegally?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I do hope that's not a call for a Big Brother (in the Orwellian sense) world. I've read too many SciFi Novels (most recently Ken Macleod's Execution Channel) to be happy with that idea.

This is exactly what I was referring to: Without even a vague description of what or how much security, you're assuming Doom and Gloom right out of the box. That, I reiterate, is an over-reaction to security and DRM.

The American west was once essentially lawless and chaotic. Now that there are laws, those who insisted on the ability to let their cattle graze on other people's land have had to learn to deal with the law of property, and the security measure of fences, but the American west is hardly an Orwellian nightmare, right?

Without law and security, you end up with "vigilante" organizations like the RIAA, trying to establish order, doing a bad job of it, undermining the trust between businesses and consumers, and ultimately hurting commerce. Properly organized and publicly-accepted law and security could accomplish anti-piracy results (not 100%, or course, but measurable improvements), but in a more fair and acceptable manner.

So there's no reason to assume that beefing up law and security on the web will automatically result in the End of the World As We Know It. That fear is only holding back the development of the web and web businesses.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That's it in a nutshell: DRM is not, in itself, bad. It is many of its variants that are upsetting customers.

But customers have to accept some responsibility for the situation, too. We actually put up with equally restrictive rules tied to other purchases. But because the world continues to hang onto the Wild West mentality of the present web, many of us resist even the lightest security steps as "attacks to personal and global Freedom." Thus, DRM in all its forms is automatically labeled EVIL and hung without a trial, and the web townsfolk dutifully come out and throw rotten fruit at it.

With respect Steve, your definition of DRM seems to be at odds with the definition that everyone else uses. As far as I am concerned, the best DRM I have seen (ereader's), and the best that I can conceive of that still meets the definition of DRM, is still restrictive of basic fair use rights. I know you disagree with this, but as far as I am concerned, anything that can be done with a physical book should be possible with an electronic book and that includes either the resale and/or giving the book away (and it should be doable in a way where the transaction is not tracked by a third party).

Regarding the "Wild West" mentality; I would submit that the evidence I have seen over the last few years is that the Web has been exploited by governments and companies to get far more information on us than they have ever had before. Now granted, some of that is due to people posting on forums like this one and as such, one should not really have much of an expectation of privacy. However, others are far more subtle. As the consumer economy has transitioned from a Brick and Mortar/Cash based economy to a web/electronic payment economy, corporations now have an unprecedented level of information regarding our activities. Companies will even embed, into software they sell us, monitoring software that reports on some of our activities.

Now of course we have DRM which in all of its guises fundamentally undermines the concept of fair use.

My impression is that you consider it paranoid to worry about loss of freedom on the internet. My belief is that way too many take these concerns way too lightly.

It's because of this Wild West mentality that businesses have so little hard data to use when figuring web-based loss and developing security systems. Due to customers' adamant desire for privacy and unlimited access, there is often no way to collect useful data on transactions. So businesses, which base all of their operations on accurate sales, expenses and net profit data, only know that there are sales when they are looking, and losses when they turn their backs, and no way of knowing exactly who or how much of either.

With respect Steve, businesses know exactly how many sales they have made and these days almost certainly who they have sold to. Any ebook websites that permit customers to download books multiple times proves that. I can assure you, Amazon has a record of every book, dvd, CD, etc. that I have purchased from them in the last dozen years.

I agree, the basic problem with electronic media is that it is usually impossible to know how much loss you have; but not because thieves are stealing it from your servers; rather it is because people are taking legitimately bought copies and converting them into DRM free works which are then uploaded to servers for others to download. No reasonable or even unreasonable system of DRM is going to stop that.

A more secure web could get that data, and businesses could make more informed decisions. Without security, businesses are basically putting their wares out at night, turning the lights off and hoping there's money left on the counter when the products are gone in the morning. In that light, it's no wonder that businesses over-react by placing restrictive rules on purchases.

I don't know how businesses are supposed to make rational decisions about anything without data. They can guess, and they can blindly trust customers not to take advantage of them. But human nature has shown that people rarely pass up an easy chance to take something they don't have to pay for, so that trust only goes so far.

And yet, the most successful example of ePublishing has been Baen; and they sell their works without DRM. I even have heard it claimed that fewer people pirate their works. I am not sure whether that is true or not. But I know they have more sales.

Its also interesting that Amazon's DRM free MP3 business is one of the faster growing commercial MP3 download sites on the web.

Now maybe there is more piracy of these DRM free works, or maybe there isn't, but in the end, they are making more money than their DRM'd competitors (iTunes excepted.. but even it is trying to move to a more DRM free business model).

Businesses have to at least be prepared to take some preventive steps to make sure stealing isn't easier than buying. But they also have to know when the steps they are taking are too much... placing a bear-trap at the candy-counter to stop $20 worth of lost sales a month, which most people would consider a bit extreme...

Ultimately, the problem is that their losses are not coming at the Storefront. Very few pirated works come from works that have not been sold (i.e. hacking into their systems). DRM is essentially like having a person from the candy-counter follow you home to make sure eat the candy the way they want you to.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This is exactly what I was referring to: Without even a vague description of what or how much security, you're assuming Doom and Gloom right out of the box. That, I reiterate, is an over-reaction to security and DRM.

We have already seen what the Corporations want; the DMCA was the first pass at that, as is many of the DRM schemes we see implemented out there. What is there already is too much Steve.

The American west was once essentially lawless and chaotic. Now that there are laws, those who insisted on the ability to let their cattle graze on other people's land have had to learn to deal with the law of property, and the security measure of fences, but the American west is hardly an Orwellian nightmare, right?

Keep in mind there is two sides to every story Steve. A lot of those cattle grazers had been grazing on the land for longer than the the land was considered anyone's property. The U.S. Government essentially gave it to others out from under them.

Besides, we are not talking about restricting someone trespass on another person's property, we are talking about giving corporations unprecedented levels of access to people's privacy and about major restrictions in what has been historically considered fair use of copyrighted works.

Without law and security, you end up with "vigilante" organizations like the RIAA, trying to establish order, doing a bad job of it, undermining the trust between businesses and consumers, and ultimately hurting commerce. Properly organized and publicly-accepted law and security could accomplish anti-piracy results (not 100%, or course, but measurable improvements), but in a more fair and acceptable manner.

They may be heavy handed, but RIAA is actually operating legally and are not like vigilantes. Copyright law depends on the holders of the copyright, not the state, to enforce the law. The solution of course is even worse which is letting the government do it.

So there's no reason to assume that beefing up law and security on the web will automatically result in the End of the World As We Know It. That fear is only holding back the development of the web and web businesses.

The Web has already been the End of the World as we Knew It.. and it will be again and again in the coming decades. That being said, that fear is only holding back traditional media. The rest of the web is developing at a break neck speed. Traditional News Papers and TV news for example are loosing customers very rapidly because younger people are getting their news online. The same will happen for books and TV if they don't stop worry about the potential for the pirates and start worrying about how to develop new profitable models of business in a world where ownership of information is tentative at best.

You know one this is interesting... I rarely see videos stolen from YouTube. YouTube has developed a model where it is far easier to simply link to YouTube than it is to steal the videos from them. This is a lesson the Publishing Industry needs to learn.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

We have already seen what the Corporations want; the DMCA was the first pass at that, as is many of the DRM schemes we see implemented out there. What is there already is too much Steve.

As I said... this was because there was no concrete data for them to work with, so naturally they over-reacted. There is no reason overly-restrictive DRM can't be scaled back to more reasonable levels.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Keep in mind there is two sides to every story Steve. A lot of those cattle grazers had been grazing on the land for longer than the the land was considered anyone's property. The U.S. Government essentially gave it to others out from under them.

The technical term is "squatting." The land was never "owned" by the cattle grazers to begin with, so the only thing they were losing was a free lunch.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Besides, we are not talking about restricting someone trespass on another person's property, we are talking about giving corporations unprecedented levels of access to people's privacy and about major restrictions in what has been historically considered fair use of copyrighted works.

The terms "unprecedented" and "major restrictions" are further examples of assuming the worst without concrete reason... see where this is going? Don't panic... it doesn't have to be that bad. A fire can burn down a forest... or it can provide warmth and comfort, when properly used.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

The Web has already been the End of the World as we Knew It.. and it will be again and again in the coming decades.

Sorry... I wasn't aware that we had descended into complete chaos, anarchy, and the destruction of civilization, thanks to the web.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You know one this is interesting... I rarely see videos stolen from YouTube. YouTube has developed a model where it is far easier to simply link to YouTube than it is to steal the videos from them. This is a lesson the Publishing Industry needs to learn.

No one profits from YouTube videos, either... other than YouTube itself, and those who advertise on the site. Advertising is the real source of revenue... the videos are essentially free giveaways. But convincing the publishing industry that all their literature is worth nothing but carrots drawing people to their paid advertising might be... difficult...

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And has that reduced the amount of music which is downloaded illegally?

Well it definitely increased the amount of music bought legally. So again, what is more important?

My take is that first and foremost you should focus on listening to your customers and providing what they want

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Simple, circumventing DRM is a crime in and of itself. If all new media is DRM'd. then even though it legally enters the public domain, no clear text copies of the media might exist. Since any sort of conversion of the product to a clear text (even via typing it manually) is circumventing DRM, then, if everyone obeys the laws, the work though legally in the public domain can never actually be released.

--
Bill

Ummm.... no, actually. Circumventing DRM is not a crime in and of itself, when done for personal use (in the US, under the DMCA, that is -- I'm not sure about newer laws).

What is a crime is any of the following:

• Creating tools to remove DRM (although there is an exemption for academic research)
• Providing DRM-removal tools to others
• Telling someone else where to get (or how to use) a DRM-removing tool (by implication from the previous item).

The tools themselves are legal, although creating them is not. Using the tools is legal, although supplying them or spreading information about them is not. The DMCA is a really really odd piece of legislation.

My source for this understanding is a graduate seminar on IP issues in computing that I took a few years ago at Carnegie Mellon. It was taught by Dr. Dave Farber, with guest lectures by a who's who of legal and technical experts.

Xenophon
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Consult a real lawyer if you need legal advice; don't trust this message. Your mileage may vary. Buy low, sell high...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Ummm.... no, actually. Circumventing DRM is not a crime in and of itself, when done for personal use (in the US, under the DMCA, that is -- I'm not sure about newer laws).

What is a crime is any of the following:

• Creating tools to remove DRM (although there is an exemption for academic research)
• Providing DRM-removal tools to others
• Telling someone else where to get (or how to use) a DRM-removing tool (by implication from the previous item).

The tools themselves are legal, although creating them is not. Using the tools is legal, although supplying them or spreading information about them is not. The DMCA is a really really odd piece of legislation.

My source for this understanding is a graduate seminar on IP issues in computing that I took a few years ago at Carnegie Mellon. It was taught by Dr. Dave Farber, with guest lectures by a who's who of legal and technical experts.

Xenophon
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Consult a real lawyer if you need legal advice; don't trust this message. Your mileage may vary. Buy low, sell high...

Ah my misunderstanding. Still, in theory breaking the law ends up coming into the chain at some point. And of course, I am sure that at some point, they would like to do more if they could.

--
Bill

[ebookpirate]

You know, I have been reading these threads and over and over again, there is this "war" about allowing users to share their books and the only thing that results is animosity on both sides. As pbooks, sharing is ok but as ebooks, users who share are called thieves. And yes, I understand pbooks are fundamentally different from digital copies such as distribution, but there are parts of the world such as the third world that can't easily get a copy because of the weakness of their currency/economy. And also, I'd like to share my ebooks with close friends/family. True, I'm a socialist but I can allow capitalism in as long as it works FOR the people instead of AGAINST the people.

The publishing industry could easily take care of this as well as make users buy more books. how? they could allow a "sharing" mechanism in their format. People naturally share so the publishers/retailers could allow LEGAL sharing of a limited number of copies as long as the user paid for the sharing options and a printing option if user wanted any of the ebook copies printed. (As everyone says, you can just go buy a used copy at 1 cent or go borrow a library copy and OCR it, so this is nothing more than profiting off of people's laziness for convenience's sake which would profit the publishers/authors/etailers as well as make the users happy.) If user pays $20 for an ecopy, they could share a max of 3 copies or "xy" copies at $10 each extra or whatever price the publisher requires that is below the price the first copy was paid for. This way, NO ONE loses. Those copies paid for sharing with others can not continue to be shared with others (who obviously haven't been covered in the payment system) and I'm sure the software developers could take care of that.

True, publishers/authors could instead just simply force us all to pay $20 per copy but really, I'm not going to pay $40 more for 2 more copies for my friends. And my friends won't pay one cent for ANY copy because they could care less about books, esp when they can just go to the library for it (or have me read or "paraphrase" the important sections to them), although MY friends would be too lazy to get off their duffs even for the library. I'm sure they'd rather just type in the URL to the nearest torrent site.

This doesn't stop the pirate who's going to share it with a million people in the world on a torrent but what it DOES do is make it LEGAL and AUTHORIZED for all average users who just want to share with 3 or so people OR who want to share with a PARTY full room of people but who has LEGALLY paid for the right to do that. The user then is not afraid to share, not afraid to be dragged into court, can share with whomever they want as long as they've paid ""xx" amount for the right to do so.

In the method I detail, the publishers/authors would get more readers and they would at least get partial payment for each shared copy as well as other revenue options like the printing options.

In fact, I foresee the day when this will actually happen when ebooks become mainstream. For publishers, it would be considered another revenue stream as well as expanding the reader base. And for users, it would further their use of ebooks.

Wow!! Something soooooooo SIMPLE like the above hasn't been discussed yet? I guess it's easier and more entertaining for us to "debate" and throw tomatoes at each other (even in a polite way) and call each other names like "thieves" rather than just find a simple solution which benefits everyone.

[Let me off at Sanity Street.]

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Circumventing DRM is not a crime in and of itself, when done for personal use (in the US, under the DMCA, that is -- I'm not sure about newer laws).

Interesting that those experts would say that. But, from the way I read the DMCA it is illegal to remove copyright.

Wikipedias take... although they aren't always 100% accurate or corrrect:

It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works and it also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

Sorry, I don't have time to read the DMCA right now again.. however, I have read most of it... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281:

BOb