DRM: What did you buy? (An Essay.)

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by gmw

Leaving aside my cynicism about commercial sites for a moment: What about this site? Does the agreement you made to join these forums actually mean anything to you? Or is an adherence to the rules purely coincidental? If you don't believe you have agreed to anything in order to access these forums then does that mean you see those users that break the rules here are not actually doing anything wrong?

That's a tricky question. I think forum behavior is probably governed by the same social conventions as face-to-face conversation (although people tend to speak more *ahem* freely than they might in actual personal interaction).

I can say I don't really think about having "promised" to behave when I clicked on the "I agree" link in order to be able to post. What restrains me from being a total biyatch is simple manners (just as those same manners keep me from being biyatch-ey in public).

For people who do cross the line and break the rules...well...I don't see them as dishonorable for breaking their word. If pressed to define it I might say they were dishonorable for being obnoxious . Honor (or classiness or good breeding) isn't just about keeping your word. It's an entire collection of desirable behavior.

I do understand the original point you were making about breaking a promise and if I had promised something I would have to weigh my sense of personal "want" against the shame of breaking my word before stripping DRM. My response was that I _didn't_ make that promise. I gave Amazon money and they gave me the text to assorted ebooks with miserably small covers and (occasional) nice formatting.

Amazon claims I did make that promise, but only by burying it in legalese in a corner of their web site. It would be like if my teen son wrote "My mom will buy me a car for Christmas 2010. If she doesn't find and throw this letter out before that date, she agrees to the terms and conditions within" and then shoved it into a corner of his room. Even if he walked up to me and _told_ me he was doing this, it's not my job to rummage for the letter and tear it up before Christmas. I didn't make that deal (and I didn't make any silly "Only paying for a license" deal with Amazon) and I wouldn't dignify it with a response.

Heck, I'm not going to validate the original intent by putting effort into refuting the "only a license" statement (just like I wouldn't validate my son's fiendish plan to get a car). I will *here* . It's fun here on Mobileread! It's part of each of us sharing our opinions. But, I wouldn't dignify Amazon's efforts by responding to their "only a license" claim.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

That's a tricky question. I think forum behavior is probably governed by the same social conventions as face-to-face conversation (although people tend to speak more *ahem* freely than they might in actual personal interaction). ...

Some years ago I found a really good article about this trait (of speaking more freely), but like much on the Internet it seems to have disappeared. In particular it considered what it might do, over time, to affect the way that people began to behave in face-to-face conversation.

Thanks for your response. I believe that you are probably quite correct, that the smooth running of forums like these depends more on the courtesy of the participants than it does on rules "agreed" to at registration. And, having recently gone through the sign-up on Amazon just to see it, I think your analogy works all too well. At least most computer software vendors are direct enough to present the conditions at installation, much as this forum does (even if most people ignore them), they are not hidden as they seem to be at book sellers.

Of course that still leaves the question of what happens after you discover the hidden rules. You say you won't dignify them with a response. I suspect that that is what Amazon presumes will happen, that people that find and dislike the "rules" will continue to purchase from them regardless. That way their rules continue to exist in case they are ever needed but they still get the income stream, even from those that don't really approve/agree with their behaviour. There is probably sufficient momentum in all this now that the current situation will continue. It's not as if a handful of people abstaining from buying from Amazon are likely to have much effect on them any more. To that extent I can see that people will consider themselves forced to continue in this way if they ever want to buy new release ebooks.

[Kitabi]

I just managed to grab the gist of the OP and could not read any further so that's what I am responding to. Apologies if I end up repeating things others have already said.

I think the essay is stating the obvious and neglecting what's relevant.

Case in point - "innocent DRM". If there is anything that Amazon and B&N have proved, it is that they are willing to use technology (specifically, file formats and DRM algorithms) for customer lock-in. So, in the real world, DRM is not so innocent at all. To worsen matters, publishers have been acting paranoid to the extent they are alienating customers. There was a recent thread about Harper Collins asking people to download the DRM'd files as they were closing down the distribution. What option do Amazon's or Harper Collins' customers have? They paid money for these books in good faith. Now they find themselves locked in (Amazon) or locked out (Harper Collins).

If one were to concoct a paper book equivalent of this, it is as if you could read pbooks sold by Amazon or Harper Collins (and many others) only by putting on special glasses they sold. Nobody else made these glasses so if they went out of business or started charging a bundle for the glasses, you'd be shit out of luck reading even your not-chewed-by-your-dog pbooks.

Solution: Everyone adheres to industry standards in a way that content a customer buys is accessible from any device or software. Customers must be shielded from technological obsolescence - possibly for a price.

The second issue pertains to ownership and usage rights. Pbooks could be borrowed and lent. They could be bought and sold used. DRM is enabling publishers to curtail these rights. So, for prices in the same range as pbooks, a customer is not allowed to spread his costs (borrowing and lending) or recoup them (by reselling). One cannot give away an awful book or lend a particularly good one any longer (the 14 day lending is a joke).

Solution: Have a netflix-like renting service for books. I know I'd be happy to pay ten bucks a month to have 1-2 books out at a time. Libraries are often restricted by the number of copies they can lend. If I know I would only read a new book once and don't want to wait for it to become available at the library, this would be a good option.

The third issue pertains to pricing. Publishers are using DRM as a stick to execute an unwise pricing strategy. With the pricing of eBooks out of whack, people are encouraged to either not buy, wait or grab a copy from the darknet.

Pricing of a book depends on the following factors - how early is one buying it (initial runs are hardcovers priced high), how long is the copy going to last (theoretically, a HC lasts longer than a PB), what is the demand for the book (higher demand - more valuable IP, higher price), how long has the book been on the market (the longer it has, the greater the availability of used copies and borrowable copies - from libraries or friends). These rules are not being suitably translated into the eBook world in a uniform fashion.

There are cases where eBooks are priced higher than paperbacks and at times, ridiculously enough, higher than hardcovers. IP price being the same in all media, an eBook is not guaranteed to be available longer than a pbook (technological obsolescence), it is not resellable or lendable or accessible on industry standard readers. The only value proposition is portability and space saving for which one pays in the form of buying an eReader/other mobile device - repeatedly, I might remark. So, what exactly is one paying for when one pays an eBook price equal to or higher than a pbook price?

Solution: Selling differently licensed eBooks. So, let's say, a book with a user restricted license costs $5 but a book with lending rights (say, lendable for a 100 day maximum) costs $10 or a family license (3 readers) goes for $12. Sellers may charge a bit extra for obsolescence protection. So, $15 says, you would have the content available to you for 20 years irrespective of technological change.

The publishing and seller industry is showing a remarkable lack of foresight in dealing with customers right now. A large number of sensible readers would be happy to pay for eBooks. They want to encourage authors, they know the industry has to make profits. The question is if the authors and industry want to maintain good relations with them or loot them with impunity. Unfortunately, the current situation is closer to the latter. I hope it changes for the sake of everyone involved.

[speedlever]

The flaw I see in your proposal is this: how do I know it's worth lending until I've read it? It might be great; it might be a stinker.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If I throw in a buck, can I consider you on retainer for the next three posts?

special deal - one buck gets you FIVE opinions, and one traffic violation plea bargain.

[Kitabi]

Book samples are not going anywhere and this is more of a see what sticks exercise. Who knows - the publishers might settle on no user only licenses but a cheap lend for 45 days license.

The point is that, at this time, they are not making any efforts to offer suitable substitutes for the pbook experience. That needs to change.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Kitabi

... The publishing and seller industry is showing a remarkable lack of foresight in dealing with customers right now. ...

Oh, I don't know. As much as people here are complaining about DRM, many still seem more inclined to support it by paying for it, even if they intend to remove it later. I'd really like to work out a trick like that, to have people give me money for something they don't like and don't want. I'm sure I could find suitable product.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by gmw

Oh, I don't know. As much as people here are complaining about DRM, many still seem more inclined to support it by paying for it, even if they intend to remove it later. I'd really like to work out a trick like that, to have people give me money for something they don't like and don't want. I'm sure I could find suitable product.

We're talking about defects, here: people don't want DRM, they're sometimes prepared to put up with it. It's like buying clothes that are torn at the seams: if there is no other clothing available, or you want that particular piece, you might be prepared to quickly stitch it up before you wear it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

We're talking about defects, here: people don't want, they're sometimes prepared to put up with it. It's like buying clothes that are torn at the seams: if there is no other clothing available, or you want that particular piece, you might be prepared to quickly stitch it up before you wear it.

Actually we're talking about what the market will bear. At the moment the market apparently shows that people want these books enough that they will purchase them even with DRM applied. If less people purchased these products then perhaps they would be forced to alter ... then again, there is this post:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It wouldn't really matter what a small minority of people do, it is what the majority do that counts. And for the majority, DRM restrictions are not a problem. But even if they were, how would the suppliers know you didn't buy from them because of the restrictions they put on their products and not some random other reason?

Which I missed earlier but I think makes two very good points. It is quite possible (likely?) that all our discussion of DRM here is indeed moot. If sales are such that the few who understand and dislike DRM are a small enough group then they can safely ignore such dissenters. And the next point, about how the sellers would know that a missed sale was due to DRM, rather deflates my suggestion that not purchasing DRM'd ebooks is making a statement. Still, I think they may try to investigate dropping sales if we could convince enough people to not buy DRM.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by gmw

Actually we're talking about what the market will bear.

As I've said, consumers are willing to put up with it under certain circumstances, but the fact remains that it takes away from the product, makes it less usable than it would otherwise be. It's "defective by design", as it has been so eloquently put, and it never ever benefits the consumer.

At the moment the market apparently shows that people want these books enough that they will purchase them even with DRM applied.

Isn't that what I said? "Will put up with it". That's certainly not a vote in favor of it (or "inclined to support it", as you put it).

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Isn't that what I said? "Will put up with it". That's certainly not a vote in favor of it (or "inclined to support it", as you put it).

Would you accept that we are both right?

Sure some people feel that they "put up with it", but by giving in and purchasing anyway they do "support" the business decision to sell with DRM. (They support it in the only way that means anything to a commercial entity: with their decision to buy - that is their vote.)

The business will never know how reluctant the purchase was (nor care much I should think, as long as they get their money). Where is their incentive to do anything about it if people will buy regardless? At the moment they win both ways. They get whatever advantage DRM offers them from those that buy through ignorance AND they still get the sales from those that know better but can't help themselves.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Kitabi

Book samples are not going anywhere and this is more of a see what sticks exercise. Who knows - the publishers might settle on no user only licenses but a cheap lend for 45 days license.

The point is that, at this time, they are not making any efforts to offer suitable substitutes for the pbook experience. That needs to change.

The University of Chicago Press will sell you a 30 day license for their ebooks. The first volume of A Dance to the Music of Time is listed at $40 to own, $7 to rent. (It should be noted, however, that they offer this volume as a free ADE book - you do have to pay for the subsequent volumes, though. Also, this first volume is on Kindle for free.)

[speedlever]

If stripping DRM is illegal, how is it that CNET sells such a tool?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by speedlever

If stripping DRM is illegal, how is it that CNET sells such a tool?

CNET aren't selling the tool, but they are providing a link to it. I'm pretty sure they're only doing it because they haven't yet realised what they're doing.

The people selling the tool have registered their domain with godaddy.com (just over a year ago). Their email goes to a gmail address. Their website & files for download seem to be hosted on a server in Absecom, New Jersey, USA.

Oddly, following the payment link leads to a page showing the price in Canadian Dollars, so it's possible they're Canadians. I don't think that de-drm software distribution is illegal in Canada. But given Dimitri Skylarov's experience, I think that if they are Canadians they'll need to be very cautious about visiting the US...

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Oddly, following the payment link leads to a page showing the price in Canadian Dollars, so it's possible they're Canadians. I don't think that de-drm software distribution is illegal in Canada. But given Dimitri Skylarov's experience, I think that if they are Canadians they'll need to be very cautious about visiting the US...

It appears you are correct. The site's registrant is from Canada. A whois lookup says:




Registrant:
Kevin Pan
2250 Kennedy RD apt 1503
Scarborough, Ontario M1T3G7
Canada

And a ping (if I did this correctly) does go to Absecon, NJ which is just outside Atlantic City. An area where Canadians do visit during the summer.