Password-based DRM has a dim future

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

"...why do we allow second-hand bookstores? Why do we allow people to lend CDs to their friends"

It is a question of degree. An author or artist was paid once and lent a couple of times. Note the used bookstore made money on that example exchange as well.

You said that creators deserved compensation when their works were experienced. Now it's, "they deserve compensation for every several people who experience it."

How many people can share a work before there's a moral obligation to re-compensate the original creator? How many people at a doctor's office can read a magazine before it's wrong to keep sharing it?

Libraries are a better example and they do pay special rates for their content.

Government-funded libraries pay special rates; private libraries don't. I have several friends with lending libraries.

There has to be a middle ground between "read once and locked to a single device" (extreme interpretation of those who favor DRM) and Giggle's "all your book are belong to us" attitude.

I agree; I just don't think we'll find that ground by insisting that the author "deserves" to be compensated per reader, or per n readers. I also don't accept "it's too easy to copy, so we must prevent legitimate, non-infringing users from full use of their purchases." That argument didn't fly with music and it's not going to work for books.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

I'd rather read a though-provoking author, like Greg Egan, instead of a reactionary hell-bent on "protecting" ebooks that no one wants to read anyway.

On the contrary, it seems SLJ has provoked a great deal of thought. In this particular thread, you actually come off as more hell-bent than SLJ. I know you want to fight the idea of restrictions (as do I), but your past couple of posts have had increasingly anti-SLJ tones rather than anti-restriction tones. Are you so sure that simply because someone doesn't agree with the EFF that their fiction cannot be enjoyable in some way? Your last few comments almost make it sound like you wouldn't read an author with whom you disagree. If that is accurate, what is the point in provoking thoughts you have already had?

Originally Posted by SLJ

Agreed.

It doesn't seem like we agree. You seem to want to retain the right to put your own lock on my copy, and not give me the key to that lock. There has never been a DRM regime that does not infringe on a users' rights to use the software and/or hardware of their choice to read their copy where they please, and there never will be. No DRM scheme is going to be released to an open source software project, from which a lot of great software comes. Not every closed source, freeware project will be able to afford to integrate various DRM schemes. Some schemes will be left behind, locking users' content in a useless format forever. A file that phones home won't be available during power outages (my power just came back on after 16 hours post-storm, a not uncommon occurrence) and DRM server shut downs, and activation issues have already robbed me of too much content I paid for and time trying to make it activate, often with no recourse. Only an unlocked ebook file will grant me my full expected rights as a reader.

Unlike some others, it doesn't bother me that we disagree, I just wanted to point out, in light of your response above, that we do seem to disagree pretty fundamentally. If you contend that your lock won't interfere with the rights I demand as a reader, I believe you misunderstand what rights I demand.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How about building one of those electronic diabetes finger-pricker-thingies into every eReader? The eReader could then; 1) stab you 2) do a quick DNA analysis to make sure the proper owner was opening the ebook. DNA on file could even be used to enforce a family-only lending program... just gotta make sure the right alleles line up (other than spouses of course).

Bada-bing, bada-boom.

So someone buys a book and submits their DNA sample to the publisher. Their device stabs them, does a quick DNA analysis and verifies that they are the proper owner and grants them access to the content. Next, the proper owner takes that content and uploads it to a torrent site.

Bada-bing, bada-boom.

As has been stated before, pirates do not defeat DRM by breaking the security. The industry can come up with the worlds best security method, and it still won't matter. Someone buys the secured book, uses the key that the seller gave them to unlock it, and then puts the unlocked book on a torrent site. Stronger locks are irrelevant.

[Penforhire]

Well Elf, I admitted you brought up an issue that makes me change the details of my tune. We just need to agree on an acceptable middle ground. Publishers and distributors decide that for us today.

Shaggy, I fear an alternate form of enforcement. Government could come to agree with you, yet not give up the fight. If there is no value in DRM, and they agree, they could start sniffing our storage (already do at border crossings) and charging us if there is no on-line purchase record registered in our name. You know distributors would jump all over that one ("sure, we'll keep a registry of everyone's purchases if you send us their fines.").

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's what Kobo and Google's online-only books is. I think it's how Zinio works. It's how some university's digital textbooks work -- you must be online, logged into our servers, to read these books. Admittedly, you could share your password, but that's your *entire* account's password; you can't give a person access to one book.

Sure you can give them access. The account owner logs into the server using their secret password and is given legitimate access to the book. Then they save the book to a file and give it out to anyone they want, upload it to a torrent... etc. The trick is figuring out how to save it to a file instead of just display it on the screen. That's how DRM removal works though. It doesn't break the lock, it figures out ways of doing things with the content after the lock as already been opened.

DRM has to grant access to the legitimate owner (otherwise the book is useless), but once it does it cannot control what the legitimate owner does with the book.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The trick is figuring out how to save it to a file instead of just display it on the screen. That's how DRM removal works though. It doesn't break the lock, it figures out ways of doing things with the content after the lock as already been opened.

DRM has to grant access to the legitimate owner (otherwise the book is useless), but once it does it cannot control what the legitimate owner does with the book.

Oh, next you'll be saying that people could memorize poetry or type up books while they're looking at the screen. We all know that DRM will prevent unauthorized copies as long as it takes more than 30 seconds to make a copy after the original is open. That's why there were no digital copies of books floating around the internet before Peanut Press. The alt.binaries newsgroups never had books.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You said that creators deserved compensation when their works were experienced. Now it's, "they deserve compensation for every several people who experience it."

How many people can share a work before there's a moral obligation to re-compensate the original creator? How many people at a doctor's office can read a magazine before it's wrong to keep sharing it?



Government-funded libraries pay special rates; private libraries don't. I have several friends with lending libraries.



I agree; I just don't think we'll find that ground by insisting that the author "deserves" to be compensated per reader, or per n readers. I also don't accept "it's too easy to copy, so we must prevent legitimate, non-infringing users from full use of their purchases." That argument didn't fly with music and it's not going to work for books.

Agreed, sort of.

The REASON we have copyright protection was to promote the progress of science and the arts for the good of everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause


"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I hate to sound like Giggleton, but we don't have it so that an author gets paid every time someone lays eyes on his product, but for the good of the people as a whole.

We DO need to make sure that copyright stays as an incentive to create works...so there are problems in the digital era. But assuming the customer is a criminal and thus locking down products with DRM isn't right either.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Oh, next you'll be saying that people could memorize poetry or type up books while they're looking at the screen. We all know that DRM will prevent unauthorized copies as long as it takes more than 30 seconds to make a copy after the original is open.

Most of the time, it is relatively trivial to save copies once the original is open. Remember, you only need one person to do this, then the book is "in the wild" and everyone else can get the stripped version. Most pirates don't even remove the DRM themselves. One person does that (the uploader), everyone else downloads it with the DRM already removed.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

On the contrary, it seems SLJ has provoked a great deal of thought.

He did nothing of the sort. He's just parroting the publishers' arguments.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

In this particular thread, you actually come off as more hell-bent than SLJ. I know you want to fight the idea of restrictions (as do I), but your past couple of posts have had increasingly anti-SLJ tones rather than anti-restriction tones.

I'm just having fun, since SJL is such an easy target. Come on, the guy created a thread to say he has stopped writing because some of his books were being illegally downloaded. If that isn't hysterical, I don't know what it is. Being anti-SJL is just irresistible for me.

I wonder what Neil Gaiman would say if people pirated his books

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Are you so sure that simply because someone doesn't agree with the EFF that their fiction cannot be enjoyable in some way? Your last few comments almost make it sound like you wouldn't read an author with whom you disagree. If that is accurate, what is the point in provoking thoughts you have already had?

If that were true, I wouldn't enjoy Harlan Ellison's books (who writes marvelous fiction, despite being an a**).

But I don't want to read scifi by a whiny guy who can only spew forth the conventional wisdom. Scifi authors are supposed to be forward-thinking (well, at least that's how I view the issue - YMMV).

Anyway, I'm rather optimistic about the DRM issue. After a few years and a lot waste (of time and money), I think publishers will realize their anti-piracy efforts are harming their bottom-line, and we'll see a change.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's why there were no digital copies of books floating around the internet before Peanut Press. The alt.binaries newsgroups never had books.

I'll do a Sheldon here, but am I detecting sarcasm?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

The REASON we have copyright protection was to promote the progress of science and the arts for the good of everyone.

Do you still believe that?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I hate to sound like Giggleton, but we don't have it so that an author gets paid every time someone lays eyes on his product, but for the good of the people as a whole.

That's the theory. But in reality, copyright is being used for control and an attempt to guarantee revenue. Even then, securing an author's rights via DRM is nothing more than an illusion (but it makes a great red herring). However, it does a nice job of restricting law abiding consumer's rights (which is the real purpose).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So someone buys a book and submits their DNA sample to the publisher. Their device stabs them, does a quick DNA analysis and verifies that they are the proper owner and grants them access to the content. Next, the proper owner takes that content and uploads it to a torrent site.

Bada-bing, bada-boom.

Yeah... I wasn't really trying to suggest a foolproof DRM system. I was trying to dream up the most invasive, ridiculous, extreme scenario that I could.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

As has been stated before, pirates do not defeat DRM by breaking the security. The industry can come up with the worlds best security method, and it still won't matter. Someone buys the secured book, uses the key that the seller gave them to unlock it, and then puts the unlocked book on a torrent site. Stronger locks are irrelevant.

I'm actually fairly well versed in how DRM works (or doesn't), but thanks.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Anyway, I'm rather optimistic about the DRM issue. After a few years and a lot waste (of time and money), I think publishers will realize their anti-piracy efforts are harming their bottom-line, and we'll see a change.

I felt more optimistic before the ibooks stab in the back. Once Apple aligned itself with publishers against Amazon, they set back drm free days by quite a lot. When Apple ended music DRM, they did so from a position of near retail monopoly. Now B&N is doing fairly well, Amazon is still doing fantastic, I don't know where sony is and Apple appears to have a very healthy ebook business. Without one rising well above the others, no one really has the incentive to end ebook DRM and risk the unified wrath of the publishers who would then side with the other retailers.

I have no doubt, as I mentioned a few posts ago, that it is just a matter of time until ebooks go the way of music -- DRM free. I just can't see what the catalyst would be, and I don't think publishers as a group have recognized their waste. If one or two majors do come to that conclusion, it would of course change everything. The rest would follow eventually. But I don't think baen is going to get big enough to buy Random House anytime soon, so...

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Do you still believe that [copyright promotes science and art progress]?

I do. I love vanilla copyright, wouldn't want to be a reader in world without it. Just wanted to weigh in as a DRM-hater who loves copyright. Lots of IP isn't perfectly calibrated. The patent system strikes me as completely broken right now, but I wouldn't want to get rid of patents, just re-calibrate.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

I'll do a Sheldon here, but am I detecting sarcasm?

Perhaps I need to be less subtle?

My digital copy (a txt file) of The Hobbit is dated 1999. Somehow, I suspect that "stronger encryption on the DRM" is not going to prevent unauthorized digital copies from existing. Arguing for better and stronger DRM forgets that early "pirate" ebooks weren't Adept-stripped epubs or unlocked .lit files.

Stronger DRM combined with viewing methods that are harder to extract content from will indeed cut down on the number of mid-list relatively unknown authors' works being thrown around the web. I don't see any indication that this will increase their sales, rather than just making them even more obscure than they are now.

My current big push about ebook piracy: Nobody gets paid for stopping pirates. The NY Times doesn't have a "Most Pirates Stopped" list. Authors get paid for selling books; if stopping pirates helps do that, great; otherwise, they need to figure out who the customer base is & convince them to buy.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I felt more optimistic before the ibooks stab in the back. Once Apple aligned itself with publishers against Amazon, they set back drm free days by quite a lot. When Apple ended music DRM, they did so from a position of near retail monopoly. (...)

Yeah, these events have been a major setback. But there are always plenty of bumps on the road.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I do. I love vanilla copyright, wouldn't want to be a reader in world without it. Just wanted to weigh in as a DRM-hater who loves copyright. Lots of IP isn't perfectly calibrated. The patent system strikes me as completely broken right now, but I wouldn't want to get rid of patents, just re-calibrate.

I don't love copyright, but I do think its necessary (even today). I know there are radicals around here who think that all books should be free, but I'm not one of them.

However, current copyright law is too restrictive: death + 70 is not optimal as far as incentives to create content go. Even death + 50 is way too much, IMHO.

Anyway, copyrights are most effective in preventing the illegal commercial distribution of protected works. This is a despicable act, and should be subject to harsh punishment. (But even here, the digital world makes enforcement nigh impossible: ebook content farms are a nasty scam, and also a thriving business model).

As for patents, I do want to get rid of software patents. They stand in the way of a lot of innovations, and most are maddeningly vague.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Stronger DRM combined with viewing methods that are harder to extract content from will indeed cut down on the number of mid-list relatively unknown authors' works being thrown around the web. I don't see any indication that this will increase their sales, rather than just making them even more obscure than they are now.

+1.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Do you still believe that?




That's the theory. But in reality, copyright is being used for control and an attempt to guarantee revenue. Even then, securing an author's rights via DRM is nothing more than an illusion (but it makes a great red herring). However, it does a nice job of restricting law abiding consumer's rights (which is the real purpose).

Yeah...I know. Endless extensions on the law, DMCA, and other ridiculous tweaks to the original concept have messed it up a lot. Thanks to corporate lobbyists. I just like to remind people of the original purpose. Comes from having a history degree I guess