People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by LCF

Finally, DRM is a bomb with a timer. When years from now people start shifting (for whatever reason) from one DRM system to another and discover it impossible to read their books on the new device... I can only speculate what will happen, but it won't be beautiful.

Unfortunately, this is true. I'm not the biggest fan of DRM, but it IS somewhat necessary. There just needs to be some kind of happy medium for it that protects both the user and the creator. Of course, there's always going to be the people that obtain these things regardless of the DRM.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What will happen most likely is they will have to re-purchase them. Just like most people re-purchased music when it moved from LP to CD.

That may be so, but I still made cassette copies of my LP's and my CD's. Now I rip my CD's and store them on the home LAN as MP3's for use on my Ipod, my car and through the home theatre PC's.

This is precisely why I remove DRM, so I can format shift and copy to differing devices when and how I want.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Unfortunately, this is true. I'm not the biggest fan of DRM, but it IS somewhat necessary.

If DRM prevented piracy (it does not) and did not impede legitimate use (it does) you would be correct.

However, DRM does not prevent piracy. See Harry Potter. See every public domain book that is legitimately scanned and shared -- it's just as easy with a new release; the only differentiation is in the choices of the person with the scanner.

And DRM does impede legitimate use. All else aside, if you own a Kindle and you want to buy a Nook instead and keep reading your books, you can't. Not unless you want to buy your whole library all over again.

DRM hurts the good guys and doesn't even slow down the bad guys. That's exactly the opposite of what the publishers claim it does. In my more cynical moments, I wonder whether they're lying or just dumb.

[guyanonymous]

The difference here, though, from the LP->CD scenario, is that in the case of music, and arguably of DVD/HD movies - the benefit of buying in a newer format (e.g., ogg vs. mp3, some newer form of media than DVDs/Bluray) is not noticed by the poblic.

MP3s above 160kb/s are, for most people (I know not you eagle eared perfectionists) indistinguishable from 256/320kb/s mp3s or FLAC or OGG under normal listening circumstances using normal headphones...there isn't a lot of purpose to repurchasing as there was prior to CDs. The LP/Tape -> CD migration resulted in people getting something they could hear was better under normal conditions (car, living room, bar, headphones etc).

From VHS->(laser disc)->DVD also resulted in a visible improvement. HD again shows a visible improvement, but I doubt we'll see another hardware format take off like Blueray is trying to do - and by that I mean, people repurchasing their collections. I think that the visible improvements, for the average Joe, will (for movies filmed up to now, anyway), not be significant enough to warrant repurchasing in a 'new' format. Most people won't see the difference and/or be able to appreciate it enough to want/need to repurchase. Sure, 3d-scent-o-vision-based-holograms may necessitate the change, but those things won't really 'improve' normal 2d movies as we watch them now. When we all have 4096P wall-screens, maybe...but I think that's a little ways away.

Books? For the standard book that consists of simple text, there's not really a need to buy new formats once you have one. Unless DRM gets in the way. And as most acknowledge, the people that are inconvenienced by DRM aren't the pirates/copiers...it's the normal user who can't a)remove the DRM on their own b)doesn't know about it c)doesn't know where to get the same thing without DRM.

I maintain that the best DRM is social with the author developing a relationship with his reader ... and the reader who 'knows' the author, and feels invested in their work and success will be the ones who continue to financially support that author. The authors who remain aloof, don't communicate with their audience etc, won't find the same audience support AND will a higher piracyurchase ratio than the friendly author (book quality being equal).

[FF2]

Okay, even accepting for argument's sake that drm is needed, there also needs a way to share or resell these books. As has been discussed many times in other threads, most people who are now READERS (those who read books whatever kind), did not start off purchasing full priced hardback books. They borrowed from the library. Or a friend passed on a good read and they did the same in the other direction. READING ENJOYMENT is a virus - it spreads from happy reader to happy reader. It spreads through cheap or free reads. It spreads through lending and borrowing and from initial sale to resale. Locking ebooks to only one reading "owner" (licensee, temporary user - you define the contractual relationship) makes it very hard to spread the virus called READING. Making it impossible to pass it on, either permanently or temporarily keeps me/you from spreading the word - "This author needs to be read!"

I was in Yosemite last Fall. We got word that a certain laundry in the park was the place folks left their old books and anyone could borrow to take or leave a book - freely. The passion of reading needs an outlet that costs less than full price.

Someone will need to come up with a solution.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Unfortunately, this is true. I'm not the biggest fan of DRM, but it IS somewhat necessary. There just needs to be some kind of happy medium for it that protects both the user and the creator. Of course, there's always going to be the people that obtain these things regardless of the DRM.

DRM does not protect the user. No DRM can ever protect the user. There is someone on MR who has an iPad and bought 10 eBooks from Apple. He wants to sell his iPad and now his eBooks are useless. DRM made them useless. So instead of being able to use them on a non-Apple device, he has to eat the cost. He cannot convert t hem or use them as is. How is DRM good for the user in this case? How is any DRM going to protect the user in a case like this? I see nothing good from DRM for the user.

[svenlind]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

DRM that really worked would make sense --

What about "watermarking". I have bought a book from Adobe with a footer on each page that says "From the library of <my name>".
Here in Denmark you can buy books that contains your personal information in a more hidden manner. You can convert the books anyway you like, but you would probably not distribute the book knowing that the file can be tracked to you.

[stonetools]

If DRM prevented piracy (it does not) and did not impede legitimate use (it does) you would be correct.

However, DRM does not prevent piracy. See Harry Potter. See every public domain book that is legitimately scanned and shared -- it's just as easy with a new release; the only differentiation is in the choices of the person with the scanner

If that were the standard, then we should just give up on enforcing any laws against theft. After all, there have been laws against theft since time immemorial, and people still steal.The purpose of antitheft measures is to reduce it to a socially tolerable minimum, not eliminate it altogether. So too the purpose of anti-piracy laws. Anti-theft laws and practices, by the way, also inconvenience honest people , but we put up with the inconveniences precisely because they allow for functioning of modern society.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Park your vehicle in a very public parking lot with lots of people, leave a $10 bill on your car windshield so it is nice and visible, leave for an hour. Is the money there or gone?

No, it's really more like: should I lock the door on my house or not? (Here comes my paraphrase...) A lock will keep an honest person out, but a lock won't stop a dishonest person.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Quote: "Again, we look at our 10% who have an overbearing sense of entitlement."

As soon as someone makes a statement like this they prove that their opinion should be given virtually no weight at all. A sense of entitlement? Wow, just wow...

Agreed. Is it entitlement to expect to be able to read my ebook purchases on any device? To hand my ebooks down to my daughter? If it is, I guess I suffer from severe Entitlementitis.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What will happen most likely is they will have to re-purchase them. Just like most people re-purchased music when it moved from LP to CD.

Or they'll say, "To hell with it, I've already paid for it", and download from some other source for free.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

DRM does not protect the user. No DRM can ever protect the user. There is someone on MR who has an iPad and bought 10 eBooks from Apple. He wants to sell his iPad and now his eBooks are useless. DRM made them useless. So instead of being able to use them on a non-Apple device, he has to eat the cost. He cannot convert t hem or use them as is. How is DRM good for the user in this case? How is any DRM going to protect the user in a case like this? I see nothing good from DRM for the user.

I never said that DRM in its current state does anything to protect the user. What I said was there NEEDS to be a happy medium that does. I didn't think that it was TOO cryptic of a statement, anyways. I don't like that I'm unable to resell/loan/etc MY ebooks to someone else. *This needs to be addressed.

*Does not imply that this is the current case, rather a necessity for future revisions.

[stonetools]

There is really one crucial question that must be answered before we can give up on DRM. Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world? Here, I must say, that I find the arguments of the anti DRM folk rather weak.
1."Somehow, we will find a way to compensate writers and publishers". Somehow? Well, I'm sorry, that's not good enough . We are talking about the the livelihoods of millions of writers and people employed in the publishing industry. I think they deserve more than what may be charitably described as a pious wish and less chaaritably, as fatuous, self serving BS.
2."Look at the example of the music industry. " Yep, let's look at the music industry. Revenues have gone down every where, despite iTunes. And musicians have ways of making a living other than publishing content.
3. "Look at the people at Smashwords and BeoSWrite." With due respect, most of those folks are ASPIRING to make a living through writing and publishing. They don't actually make a living that way.
4."Look at Baen Publishing". This seems to be a good example. However, Baen's is a small scale publisher, serving a niche market. Can their approach scale up to a worldwide industry encompassing many genres? I do not know the answer to that question.
I would humbly suggest that the anti DRM folks direct their efforts to providing a detailed answer to that question, rather than sit around in a circle congratulating themselves on having the "right" answer to the question of DRM. It is only when that question is answered that there is any hope that publishers and authors will give up DRM

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

If that were the standard, then we hould just give up on enforcing any laws against theft. After all, there have been laws against theft since time immemorial, and people still steal.THe purpse of antitheft measures is to reduce it to a socially tolerable minimum, not eliminate it altogether. So too the purpose of anti-piracy laws. Anti-theft laws and practices, by the way, also inconvenience honest people , but we put up with the inconveniences precisely because they allow for functioning of modern society.

The problem with this argument is that you're conflating the imposition of DRM with the enforcement of anti-piracy laws.

Just because someone chooses not to use DRM doesn't mean they're abdicating their IP rights.

Baen does not use DRM, but this does not mean they don't take action to enforce their intellectual property rights. They send DMCA takedowns and take appropriate legal action against anyone hosting or reselling Baen eBooks without authorization; and they do all this without DRM.

The problem with your argument is that DRM neither deters piracy nor enables the enforcement of existing anti-piracy laws.

Let's take another example - bicycle theft. Honest people won't steal bicycles whether they're locked or not. That leaves dishonest people, the ones anti-theft devices are designed to deter. The problem here is that DRM is like putting a very complex lock around the front fork of your bicycle. The owner has to unlock the bike whenever they want to use it - but all a thief has to do is flip the lever on the front wheel, and they can slide the bike off the lock in a matter of seconds and be on their way.

That's DRM, it slows down honest people, and does nothing against pirates.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

I never said that DRM in its current state does anything to protect the user. What I said was there NEEDS to be a happy medium that does.

This implies that there is some form of DRM that can protect the user. Why does the user need DRM? It's not for us, it's only for publishers (and by extent, authors). So the publishers protect their own interests at the cost of customers, but they don't see what a pain it is and how it can (and does) drive away customers.

"Anytime that someone puts a lock on something that belongs to you but won't give you the key, that lock's not there for you."

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Can we assure that writers and publishers can make a good living in a post DRM world?

Here, I must say, that I find the arguments of the anti DRM folk rather weak.

What part of "pirates will always find a way, DRM is only inconveniencing honest folk" are you not getting?