Best formats?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Is there any real difference to my buying an eBook, putting it on my Reader, reading it, loaning my wife my Reader so she can then read that book vs. my putting a copy of that eBook on my Wife's Reader so she can read it without having to wait until I am done reading it?

The only real difference is that she doesn't have to wait for me to finish. If I didn't strip DRM, I have enough slots in the DRM scheme that I could put it on her Reader with DRM anyway.

Does anyone have any objection to scenario #1 and/or #2? You know it happens and you know it will continue to happen. I cannot think of many household that would buy multiple copies of the same book (e or p) and not share it if others in the house also wanted to read it.

No, Jon:

I don't see any difference, and virtually (no pun intended) every retailer out there now has some type of eBook "lending" program, in which you could lend the book to your wife. That doesn't even faze me (DRM stripping or not). But you know full well that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when Fred Doe brings home his ebook/program and copies it for 10 friends, or 5, and they copy it for 5. Then those 25 copy it for 5. (Or, hey, let's just that ONLY 5 of the 25 copy it for 5 more...it still adds up). It's arithmetic. That's what happened with Lotus.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

No, Jon:

I don't see any difference, and virtually (no pun intended) every retailer out there now has some type of eBook "lending" program, in which you could lend the book to your wife. That doesn't even faze me (DRM stripping or not). But you know full well that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when Fred Doe brings home his ebook/program and copies it for 10 friends, or 5, and they copy it for 5. Then those 25 copy it for 5. (Or, hey, let's just that ONLY 5 of the 25 copy it for 5 more...it still adds up). It's arithmetic. That's what happened with Lotus.

Hitch

Speaking of Lotus 1-2-3, that was one of the worst DRM systems ever developed. Many people lost use of a program that paid good money for while those who pirated it had no problem as they didn't have to deal with the DRM. If your hard drive crapped out, you could not install 1-2-3 again as to do that you had to uninstall it so the DRM could write back to the floppy disk that it was allowed to be installed again. So if the floppy disk or the hard drive developed a fault, goodbye 1-2-3.

When I give out eBooks to family, I know they do not then turn around and give out to others. So I'm good in that way.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by Hitch

We all saw this behavior, "back in the day," with Lotus 1-2-3, the epitome of illicit "file-sharing" if ever piece of software was the case study therefor. EVERYBODY (all those HONEST people) took Lotus, which was then ouchy-expensive, home from the office. All those honest people made illicit copies for their own computers. All those honest people gave disks--which they copied from one drive to the other--to their friends, family, etc. LOTUS is the reason we HAVE software licensing, for heaven's sake, and protections in place--because we learned, to our shock, that people are NOT intrinsically honest, particularly when it comes to the impalpable existence of the digital item--coupled with a COMPLETE lack of consequences and enforcement of any real nature.

Of course, studies have shown that because of network effects, piracy actually results in more sales, statistically. Want to know why it has been so hard to rid ourselves of Microsoft Word? It isn't because the app is great; it's because everybody has it, and therefore everybody needs it in order to work with files that anybody else sends them.

So if, as most studies suggest, very few of those people would have bought Lotus 1-2-3 if they could not have gotten a copy for free, then the company turns out to be much better off if those people pirate it! In much the same way, in study after study, music and movie piracy has been shown to increase total revenue, not decrease it.

But even if all of those studies are wrong, even if the answer is that those people would have bought a copy, and even if those are all lost sales, you still couldn't really make the same assumption about books. People don't install books and then use them to complete tasks on a daily basis (for most books, anyway). They read them, put them aside for several years, then read them again.

If I buy a physical book, during that interim period, I can loan it to someone, give it to a library, or tear it up and use it as kindling. Once it leaves the publisher's hands, it's my choice what I do with it, with the exception of outright copying. Thus, dozens of people could legally read that single copy of the book. In a library, it could be hundreds. Ostensibly, there's a very small chance that a person who borrows a book might love it so much that he or she buys a copy, but that chance is vanishingly small when expressed as a percentage of readers.

So in practice, the harm caused by people casually sharing books electronically with a few of their friends is not significantly greater than the harm caused by passing around a copy of a physical book or putting it in a library. And this isn't just my opinion. Study after study on music and movie sharing have all come to the same conclusion. Yes, it is wrong to do so, as a matter of principle, but when you take an honest look at the actual numbers involved, casual piracy isn't the bogeyman that folks make it out to be—not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, I already know the counter-argument: well, those people wouldn't pay for the book, anyway. Oh, yeah? Well, then, they shouldn't get to ENJOY it, either.

The problem is that there's no way for you to actually prevent it. It only takes one person in that bad category who breaks the DRM "for the lulz" and posts it to a torrent site, and after that, anybody in your middle category who wants a copy can trivially and effortlessly download it illegally, just by going to one of those sites you mentioned. So the net effect on casual theft is zero.

Unfortunately, depending on the DRM scheme, the net effect on your actual paying customers can be considerable. With DRM, your customers have to break the law if they want to read your books with a reader that uses an incompatible DRM scheme. And when the company that runs your DRM scheme goes out of business or abandons it, your paying customers get ripped off. If you want to hear swearing, go talk to anyone who bought music under Microsoft PlaysForSure™ scheme:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...34401923.shtml

Or talk to the folks who got harmed by Sony's DRM rootkit. Or the folks who dealt with Ubisoft's "always-on" DRM. Or any number of other atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of (unsuccessfully) protecting content from piracy.

That's why I don't believe in DRM. You can feel free to disagree with me, but that's how I feel about it, and that's why.

[Hitch]

dgatwood:

I understand your argument. The argument is, "well, as you can't stop thieves anyway, give in and don't harm your paying customers."

I get it. I understand the thought process--that only the "good people" are being affected in any negative way by the DRM.

I simply believe that deciding that I can't stop thieves, at my shop, is no reason for me to leave the store open, put up a sign saying "pay if you want" and walking away (this is, after all, the B&M equivalent of removing DRM), makes any sense. Even honest people would be tempted in ways that they normally wouldn't consider, in that scenario, just like they are with non-DRM'ed books.

I don't know of any legitimately-collected, compiled, independently done studies that indicate that the "3/5ths," as I call them, are not sharing overmuch, or are "only" sharing with their mates, etc. I don't now recall if the reports at DWA (Digital Watermarking Alliance, IIRC, and yes, obviously: they are not unbiased, either) have been recently updated, but they are NOT encouraging. Vis: http://www.digitalwatermarkingallian...Deterrence.pdf and this quote alone:

Digital piracy is commonplace. More than four in five consumers who download content do so illegally at least some of the time. While almost half of those consumers also download content legally, that leaves less than one in five consumers who download content strictly legally. These numbers do not indicate how many actual downloads are illegal overall, but they strongly suggest that legal downloads make up the smaller portion by far.

{shrug} Sorry, but to me, those numbers just speaks for themselves.
Hitch

[mrmikel]

I think the quote is likely misleading. There is the occasional slipper and then there is the mass thief and there are no figures to document how many there are of what type.

The ridiculous increase in prices since the big publishers went to big stars with big paydays may have something to do with it, along with some titles not being available so they don't cannibalize paper book sales and trying to squeeze more money by forbidding loans or resales as can do with physical books all tend to generate the feeling in some that if you are going to rip me off, I will rip you off.

This is still no justification, but customers are just people with strengths and weaknesses. I agree with Hitch you do not have to make it easy for people to steal when they might not otherwise. Just because there is not an absolute answer doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrmikel

I think the quote is likely misleading. There is the occasional slipper and then there is the mass thief and there are no figures to document how many there are of what type.

The ridiculous increase in prices since the big publishers went to big stars with big paydays may have something to do with it, along with some titles not being available so they don't cannibalize paper book sales and trying to squeeze more money by forbidding loans or resales as can do with physical books all tend to generate the feeling in some that if you are going to rip me off, I will rip you off.

What "ridiculous increase in prices" are you referring to? I've seen a very significant reduction in the prices I'm paying for books over the last ten years, not an increase. 10 years ago I was buying all my books in B&M stores and paying on average £6-7 for a paperback. Now I'm typically paying £3-4 for an ebook.

[mrmikel]

I don't think there has been that kind of decrease here where I live, but I admit I don't shop much for books, just see them in store. Paperbacks at Target run $6.50-$8.00.

[HarryT]

OK, but you didn't answer my question . What is the "ridiculous increase in prices" that you're referring to?

[mrmikel]

Maybe it is just me getting old, Harry. Hardbacks are well over $20, to where buying them is something you really have to stop and think about. A $7 paperback is not an impulse buy either and it used to be. Been looking at too many old books with ads for the Detective Book Club where they send you hardbacks for 49 cents......sigh.