interesting take on DRM

[DaleDe]

Adobe DRM and Amazon topaz DRM and Sony DRM have not been broken. It is not a given that all DRM is broken.

Dale

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by GingerTez

I realise that my view may not be a popular one but I can't help it!!! I create and sell my own music so I can view this from the artist's side of the fence.
Terry.

I think many people here will agree with you. There seem to be quite a few authors, musicians and other creatives on this site. Having said that I am constantly annoyed by the number of photographers I know that pirate software. It does my head in.

DRM is an attempt to control piracy. No it does not work. We who will not pirate are collateral damage (to use a revolting perversion of the English language) in this battle

[Lemurion]

I don't like DRM at all. However I find Ereader's DRM to be the least objectionable because it is tied to me, not to any device I might own or use. Yes it's unfortunate that there are no eInk readers that support it (are you listening Sony?) but I know that I can freely transfer, use and copy the file as I need to.

I'm also concerned about draconian DRM because I believe it does make piracy more common. There's a clear pattern in human behavior that we don't have to follow the rules when dealing with our enemies. Overly strict DRM treats customers like enemies, and thus puts the rights-holder into that "enemies" group that doesn't need to be given the same respect that others do.

Hopefully we will see an end to the format wars that doesn't tie everyone to Amazon in the near future.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Adobe DRM and Amazon topaz DRM and Sony DRM have not been broken. It is not a given that all DRM is broken.

Dale

Dale, I don't think anyone ever said that all DRM schemes were broken (Though I pretty much can assure you that given enough resources pretty much any DRM scheme is breakable). I did, however, say that DRM would not stop a dedicated pirate. I do admit I pointed to all the references to removing DRM from applications as an example and if I implied that that was what I meant by stating that DRM cannot stop pirates, I apologize.

What I ultimately mean is that dedicated pirates, specifically those who are looking to somehow make an illegitimate profit off of a copyrighted work, will always find a way to break DRM and/or to get around it. Getting around it might be as simple as simply reading and typing the book into a new file.
There is no way to stop such pirates at the level of the actual ebook. The only way to stop such piracy is to actually find them and prosecute them.

Most other "pirates" are simply those who want to shift the format of the work (which is perfectly legal) or maybe share the work with some close friends or family, which might be technically illegal, but probably does no more harm (and might encourage future sales) to the authors or publishers than the current practice amongst paper book readers of trading books.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Steve,
I am just curious, since DRM will never stop dedicated pirates, what would the purpose of a properly designed and implemented DRM?

Think of DRM like a speed limit.

In order to keep drivers from killing pedestrians and other drivers, a speed limit is created to regulate traffic. Sure, there will always be people who will break the speed limit, and many will get away with it. But if the majority are stopped from speeding, and as a result, significant lives are saved, the speed limit is considered a successful tool, and endorsed by the public whose lives it preserves.

Example of a BAD speed limit that defeats its purpose: 20MPH on a 8-lane highway with minimal traffic. And if it cannot be enforced, the highway is closed.

Example of a GOOD speed limit that serves its purpose: 20MPH in a school zone, with a few posted officers for enforcement.

DRM, when approached as in the GOOD fashion (unlike today's DRM, which is mostly like the BAD example), is workable. The goal is to mitigate loss to an acceptable level, and to accept that you will never absolutely prevent it.

Originally Posted by Format C:

That's the point.
And there's where I agree with Steve Jordan too...

But, like I said before, it will cost some money to the publishers.
So it's better to lobby GW Bush to create a special presidential office to enforce today's laws. And make Steve Jordan pay for it.

Thanks... a lot...

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Think of DRM like a speed limit.

In order to keep drivers from killing pedestrians and other drivers, a speed limit is created to regulate traffic. Sure, there will always be people who will break the speed limit, and many will get away with it. But if the majority are stopped from speeding, and as a result, significant lives are saved, the speed limit is considered a successful tool, and endorsed by the public whose lives it preserves.

Example of a BAD speed limit that defeats its purpose: 20MPH on a 8-lane highway with minimal traffic. And if it cannot be enforced, the highway is closed.

Example of a GOOD speed limit that serves its purpose: 20MPH in a school zone, with a few posted officers for enforcement.

DRM, when approached as in the GOOD fashion (unlike today's DRM, which is mostly like the BAD example), is workable. The goal is to mitigate loss to an acceptable level, and to accept that you will never absolutely prevent it.



Thanks... a lot...

I think it differs in significant ways. On the road, you won't catch every speeder but the general effect of the speed limit and enforcement efforts can encourage many drivers to go a safe speed. With illegal file sharing, it just takes one person to put the file up on a torrent site and then many can download it. The rest of us are inconvenienced for no good reason.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Think of DRM like a speed limit.

In order to keep drivers from killing pedestrians and other drivers, a speed limit is created to regulate traffic. Sure, there will always be people who will break the speed limit, and many will get away with it. But if the majority are stopped from speeding, and as a result, significant lives are saved, the speed limit is considered a successful tool, and endorsed by the public whose lives it preserves.

Example of a BAD speed limit that defeats its purpose: 20MPH on a 8-lane highway with minimal traffic. And if it cannot be enforced, the highway is closed.

Example of a GOOD speed limit that serves its purpose: 20MPH in a school zone, with a few posted officers for enforcement.

DRM, when approached as in the GOOD fashion (unlike today's DRM, which is mostly like the BAD example), is workable. The goal is to mitigate loss to an acceptable level, and to accept that you will never absolutely prevent it.



Thanks... a lot...

Ok, I am not sure I buy the argument... There are some issues at stake here.

1. Driving a motorvehicle on public highways is not a right; we are allowed to drive on highways assuming we have met all the requirements that the state sets (i.e licensed, obey laws, etc.). Fair Use of copyrighted material is a right and DRM stomps on that right.

2. Speed Limits are laws. As of yet, no government or auto manufacturer has decided to implement technology that would prevent one from speeding (Though such technology is certainly possible). We already have laws governing the use of copyrighted material.

3. Even if we accept that there might, theoretically, be a legitimate need for DRM (which surprisingly enough does not also apply to the music industry since most digital music can be purchased without DRM), we are now left with the mythical "Good DRM".

4. I think it is clear that those who pose the most significant threat to the interests of authors and publishers are those who copy a book and then sell copies for their own benefit. Unfortunately, DRM of any sort does little to stop criminals like this; they can always just type the book into their computer.. or maybe even scan the book from a book reader. Pirates did not need an e Copy to start making copies of and distributing copies of the Harry Potter books did they?

So ultimately Steve, I think I am going to need to see a proposal for this "Good DRM" that you posit. In other words, spec out a system of DRM that will serve the needs of publishers but at the same time will not restrict fair use of said work. Even if such a good system can be devised, I seriously doubt that it will actually aid the Publishing industry in any significant way.

Ultimately the only real solution is a real attempt by the publishers, like the Music Industry did, to shut down people who illegally post or sell books on the internet.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I think it differs in significant ways. On the road, you won't catch every speeder but the general effect of the speed limit and enforcement efforts can encourage many drivers to go a safe speed. With illegal file sharing, it just takes one person to put the file up on a torrent site and then many can download it. The rest of us are inconvenienced for no good reason.

I note you mentioned that it forces them to travel at a safe speed, not under the speed limit . I think that is an important distinction. I think, from personal experience, that in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania at least, it is safe to assume that 90% of drivers speed at least some of the time and probably 60% speed routinely. Heck on the DC beltway, the only time people travel under the speed limit is when they are stuck in gridlock.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

So ultimately Steve, I think I am going to need to see a proposal for this "Good DRM" that you posit. In other words, spec out a system of DRM that will serve the needs of publishers but at the same time will not restrict fair use of said work. Even if such a good system can be devised, I seriously doubt that it will actually aid the Publishing industry in any significant way.

(Boy, why oh why do I do this?...)

As I suggested in my post, the fact that we don't presently have a GOOD DRM system for e-books is not an indicator that such a thing is mythical or impossible (as many others posters on this site would, in fact, suggest). The various DRM schemes being used by iTunes, for example, or by other content-rich websites, demonstrate that it is indeed possible to sell content and mitigate loss (again, the point is not to eradicate loss, which is impossible, but to keep it to acceptable levels).

The success of the system also requires buy-in, i.e., the paying public must agree that the system works for them, and therefore they do not go out of their way to circumvent it (example: Paid cable TV). Or you allow them a way to circumvent DRM--on iTunes, for example, by CD burning--that is acceptable to your public and your publishers.

This requires trust on both ends: Both sides must trust that the other is not trying to rip them off, and that the arrangement is mutually beneficial. If either side does not have this trust, the system will break down--and right now, I think it's fair to say that in most cases there is virtually zero trust between book buyers and sellers in e-book publishing, making any DRM system between them virtually impossible.

Finally, DRM does not automatically mean "encryption," as so many assume. It is problems with encryption (tied to old PCs or OSs, mainly) that result in most of the reasons people do not like DRM. DRM systems tied to personal identification have historically worked much better, and allowed document transfer to new devices/readers with fewer problems.

As far as I am concerned, DRM that simply ties the document transaction to the purchaser is the best system yet. The system ties the link for the e-book to the transaction, to prevent others from downloading the same book... and once the authorized purchaser has the document, the need for DRM is considered over. I get paid. Customers can move or share the files as they wish, or do anything else covered under Fair Use. (This logic also depends on customer buy-in, and a measure of trust on the seller's part, to keep loss through sharing to a minimum.) That's the method I use on my site, it works for me (as an author/self-publisher), and I've heard few complaints.

So, if you like, there is your proposed "Good DRM" system, being used today and (so far) achieving relative success. (In fact, on my site I actually refer to it as "No DRM," because my system is so unobtrusive to the user, and have never been challenged about it.) If you have any comments regarding my system, I'm always open to discussion.

(Note: The operative word there is discussion... not flaming, name-calling, insulting or attacking. When it devolves to that, I'm officially done.)

[GingerTez]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The various DRM schemes being used by iTunes, for example, or by other content-rich websites, demonstrate that it is indeed possible to sell content and mitigate loss (again, the point is not to eradicate loss, which is impossible, but to keep it to acceptable levels).

Personally, I like the iTunes system since they introduce iTunes Plus. I can download the files, convert them to MP3, and then use them on any of my other devices freely. Even the small hassle of burning the "standard" iTunes files to CD to allow me to then "rip" to MP3 isn't a problem because I like to have a backup of the files anyway.

Similarly with eBooks - once Adobe sort out their 6 device limit problem (the problem being that you can't deauthorise devices at the moment) i'll be happy with that too. At the moment I can download Adobe EPUB files that I've purchased from Waterstones (and Secure PDF files from Fictionwise) and put them on my PC, my wife's PC, my PRS-505 and on my wife's PRS-505. No problems with that at all.

I don't really have anything to add except that for my personal circumstances I have no problems with DRM so it's all (as always) a matter of perspective.

Cheers,
Terry.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(Boy, why oh why do I do this?...)

As I suggested in my post, the fact that we don't presently have a GOOD DRM system for e-books is not an indicator that such a thing is mythical or impossible (as many others posters on this site would, in fact, suggest). The various DRM schemes being used by iTunes, for example, or by other content-rich websites, demonstrate that it is indeed possible to sell content and mitigate loss (again, the point is not to eradicate loss, which is impossible, but to keep it to acceptable levels).

Well, I would begin by saying that the DRM scheme used by iTunes is not even close to what I would consider to be a good DRM system. Certainly iTunes is popular, but since it ties me to the iPod, its not one I would particularly like to lock myself into. Yes, I use iTunes and an iPod Touch, but I don't buy my content from iTunes. I either buy CDs which then are ripped into iTunes or I buy non DRM'd mp3 from Amazon.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a demonstration that any serious piracy has been even mitigated by DRM.

With music, I think it was law suits against Napstar and other file sharers coupled with the relatively low cost of tunes on iTunes that allowed the music industry to mitigate its losses. In fact, even Apple is working to try and get the Music Industry to abandon DRM.

In any case, the DRM'd files that people have bought with Apple will be ok as long as Apple chooses to support them. If they ever stop supporting them, they could run into the same problem that people who purchased DRM'd music from Walmart discoverd; they could continue to play on their existing machines, but not on new ones. Currently the drm'd mp4s cannot be converted to mp3s without possibly loosing some of the sound quality.

The success of the system also requires buy-in, i.e., the paying public must agree that the system works for them, and therefore they do not go out of their way to circumvent it (example: Paid cable TV). Or you allow them a way to circumvent DRM--on iTunes, for example, by CD burning--that is acceptable to your public and your publishers.

Ultimately, I think iTunes works not because of the method of circumventing DRM, but because most people don't fully realize the potential limitations that could occur if they ever try to move their music to a different system (i.e. burn the mp4 to a CD, then rip the cd to mp3s, and you have doubled your compression artifacts, reducing the quality of the music).

With eBooks, in any case, such an option to circumvent DRM, ultimately limits the effectiveness of DRM. If you can make a DRM free copy of a book, then how is the book DRM'd in the first place? Remember, DRM is suppose to make it difficult to duplicate the work.

This requires trust on both ends: Both sides must trust that the other is not trying to rip them off, and that the arrangement is mutually beneficial. If either side does not have this trust, the system will break down--and right now, I think it's fair to say that in most cases there is virtually zero trust between book buyers and sellers in e-book publishing, making any DRM system between them virtually impossible.

Well end users, I think, are rightfully skeptical or any DRM scheme since it has been the source of problems in other types of media. Several DRM based music services have folded leaving former customers with music that could not be easily transfered to new computers or players in the future.

As for the trust of the publishers.. I think they just need to accept the fact that trust is not a method of enforcing copyright protection... nor for that matter is DRM. DRM is far too easy to break. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of the ebook sellers knew how easy it was to break the DRM on their books, but went along with it for the simple reason that the Publishers demand that the books be DRM'd before they are sold.

Finally, DRM does not automatically mean "encryption," as so many assume. It is problems with encryption (tied to old PCs or OSs, mainly) that result in most of the reasons people do not like DRM. DRM systems tied to personal identification have historically worked much better, and allowed document transfer to new devices/readers with fewer problems.

I assume when you placed encryption in quotes, you were referring to the specific type of encryption that ties a book to a device? Without some sort of encryption, there is no DRM by definition.

As far as I am concerned, DRM that simply ties the document transaction to the purchaser is the best system yet. The system ties the link for the e-book to the transaction, to prevent others from downloading the same book... and once the authorized purchaser has the document, the need for DRM is considered over. I get paid. Customers can move or share the files as they wish, or do anything else covered under Fair Use. (This logic also depends on customer buy-in, and a measure of trust on the seller's part, to keep loss through sharing to a minimum.) That's the method I use on my site, it works for me (as an author/self-publisher), and I've heard few complaints.

Steve, I am a little confused here? It seems like what you are suggesting for DRM is simply making sure that books that are downloaded from your website are paid for? No offense intended, but I can't see how that meets any reasonable definition of DRM? That is more like your local bookstore keeping an eye out for shop lifters.

The whole point of DRM, as it is generally understood, is to limit how a user uses the book (or other intellectual property) after it is purchased. Now I am not saying I object to your system described above, in fact, that sounds pretty much what fictionwise has in place for multiformat books. I just don't consider it DRM.

So, if you like, there is your proposed "Good DRM" system, being used today and (so far) achieving relative success. (In fact, on my site I actually refer to it as "No DRM," because my system is so unobtrusive to the user, and have never been challenged about it.) If you have any comments regarding my system, I'm always open to discussion.

As above, my only comment is that I don't see how it is DRM. I only consider it DRM if it actually constrains what the user does after the work is in their possession. What you have described sounds more like a system for running an online store.

(Note: The operative word there is discussion... not flaming, name-calling, insulting or attacking. When it devolves to that, I'm officially done.)

Steve, I have no problems with those terms. I love a good debate . But I think usually when the flames begin, the debate is over anyway.

--
Bill

[DaleDe]

Most people agree with your assessment and the eReader DRM is considered one of the best. It is tied only to a user and his/her credit card number. Not to a computer and not limited as to the number of machines.

A good use of DRM is the lending library system that is driven by Overdrive for the most part. They use mobi, adobe, and microsoft (music) which is free to checkout but time limited. The publishers have bought into it and it moves the library system into the 21st century.

Dale

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I assume when you placed encryption in quotes, you were referring to the specific type of encryption that ties a book to a device? Without some sort of encryption, there is no DRM by definition.

And herein lies the crux of the matter: Publishers have consistently used continuing encryption of one kind or another as DRM, which has led to the widespread assumption that encryption is the only form of DRM.

This is simply not so.

DRM does not mean by definition, the control of the buyer's rights after he buys a product... that is simply one definition, the one pushed by most publishers as a means to secure the least amount of loss, but which clearly they have little or no success with.

Controlling the sale--i.e., you have the right to download the book once you've paid for it--is also a legitimate form of DRM. In fact, as you indicated, it is a system so accepted by buyers that most, like you, do not even consider it DRM. As a system, it does nothing to control loss after the sale... it works to control loss during the purchase only. But that still meets the definition of one type of Digital Rights Management.

Most importantly, if it is accepted by your customers, they have little desire to rip you off, and loss is thereby mitigated.

If you want to oppose continuing encryption, given the inherent flaws around that system, that is completely understandable. But condemning DRM for the flaws of continuing encryption is truly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

BTW: Regarding iTunes, since in fact it is relatively easy for most people to burn a CD, or (like I do) use the software on my PC to simply play the song after purchase, and line-record into a new MP3 file, I consider iTunes' encryption system to be fairly easy to circumvent. I've never owned an iPod, but I easily transfer my iTunes music to my Cowon iAudio player using the free software that came with it. I'm sure most users younger than I have figured out the same thing... so they are not concerned about losing their collections, as long as they burn/re-record them.

[bill_mchale]

Well, Steve, I am still not sure I agree with what you call DRM is DRM; I am pretty sure that is not the legal definition of DRM that was used for the DMCA. I also think that most of us who object to DRM wouldn't have any particular objections to what you described. For example, even the GPL does not prohibit someone from charging for items under GPL.. only on preventing people from then using said product as they see fit.

As for iTunes, I agree it is relatively easy to circumvent, but as I pointed out earlier, it is at the cost of quality. Since both the mp4 and mp3 codexs are lossy compression formats, you are going loose something the second time around. You may not notice, but I know people who will.

--
Bill

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Personally, I can barely tell the difference between an MP3 recorded at or above 128Kbps and an LP. For those who not only can tell the difference, but are bothered by it, my only suggestion is to avoid MP3s altogether... they will never equal the quality of an LP or CD, by design. MP3 and quality should not even be in the same room together.

Re the DCMA, remember that its definition of DRM is dictated by the recording industry and their rather limited definition of DRM. Just because they say monkeys are the only primates around, doesn't make it so.