How do you feel about DRM?

[WT Sharpe]

You do present some strong arguments on behalf of the industry, which is a good thing. Folks need to hear both sides of the issue. I wasn't trying to be snide; I was honestly curious. I see no reason to change that bio bit unless you wanted to.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

There are many people for whom DRM removal is not easy or trivial, even after reading that famous blog.

The point is, people shouldn't have to whisper in hushed tones, to do a Google Search for Apprentice Alf, after they have bought a book, to be able to keep said bought book for themselves.

That is true. It is also true that the setup of stripping DRM is really what takes a little bit of googling and tech savvy. Once it is set up for you, well, if you have the skills to use iTunes, you can strip DRM. Teenagers are more adventurous and tech-savvy than older adults, and more likely to have friends to set them up if they aren't tech-savvy.

The people who are unlikely to strip DRM are the ones who don't want to do anything that DRM prevents. Which I was for nearly a year after I bought my nook--until I discovered that a bunch of books I wanted to read were only available for kindle. But I wanted to read them on my nook. I am moderately tech-savvy and it took me about a half hour to find out what to do and get set up. I paid for every one of those books and didn't want to read them on my phone or computer. Now I actually do have a kindle and it is kind of difficult getting everything assigned to the correct ereader again.

[pdurrant]

There's a saying about hard disks: The only certain thing about a hard disk is that it will fail. Perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps next year or next decade, but it will fail.

I feel similarly about DRM systems: The only certain thing about DRM systems is that they will cause the customer problems. Perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps next year or next decade, but they will cause the customer problems.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Correct . I would add that to "share" a digital file you MUST make a copy. When people talk about lending or giving away an ebook what they really mean is making a copy of the file and transferring it to someone else

Actually, it is not necessary to make a copy of a digital file to share it. I may be nitpicking here, but all the "sharer" needs to do is place the digital file at a location that both parties can access. Whether the file even needs to be copied by the other party depends on the software used to access the file.

DRM even allows for some of this kind of "sharing", i.e. I can allow trusted friends and family to access my Amazon or B&N account for up to 6 devices. I can also lend selected titles for 2 weeks to a person not on my account. In either case the file is copied but I do not make the copy.

But for other digital files, for example, on shared drives without DRM, they may be accessed by anyone who has permission to access the drive without copying.

I speak of course about *sharing* as opposed to giving, which I think was addressed above--the removal of the file from anything you can access is implicit in that process.

[Beryll Snyder]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't believe a good DRM system is possible. That is, one that does not cause the person who buys a copy of the ebook problems now or in the future.

Believe it or not: most people buy the book, read it, and forget about it.
So there is no problem at all for them.
More or less like going to a movie - only the pleasure lasts longer ...

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I understand that ebooks are licensed. Indeed one of my pet peeves is that thanks to " convenient " one click purchasing, people are misled into thinking that they are " buying" an ebook when what they are buying is access to a file . If it were up to me one click buying would be banned and you would have to read in banner headline font the following before you buy:

THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE OF TiTlLE. This is a purchase of a license to access a file. Do you understand this and do you accept it?

This would cut down a lot on the misunderstanding and the bull%%%.

I understand why the booksellers and the publishers opted for speed and ease over full disclosure. But land sakes a mercy, they have unleashed an unending tsunami of nonsense on these internets.

Stonetools:

Your statement that "this is not a purchase of title" is certainly what many in the publishing industry would like us to believe. However, it remains unclear whether that's actually correct as a matter of law (U.S. law, in this case). Remember that contract terms that are contrary to law are automatically null and void. And we don't really know what the law is in this particular area.

First sale doctrine is rather odd, from a layman's point of view. There's plenty of legal precedent suggesting that the presence of a EULA that states that a transaction is a purchase of a license is insufficient to transform a purchase of title into a purchase of license -- even though the EULA clearly states that it's a purchase of license.

Factors considered by the courts in previous cases include:

• Use of a "Buy now" or "Purchase now" button (rather than a "Buy license now" button, for example)
• Presence or absence of conditions under which the customer must return the licensed product.
• Presence or absence of a time limit for the license.
• Whether a "reasonable person" would be likely to consider the transaction a "sale" or a "license".
• And, for all I know, the phase of the moon or the flip of a coin...

In other words, the certainty you express in the above quote runs far, far in advance of the state of the law in the U.S. Various courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, so precedent varies. Eminent legal scholars argue both sides, so we can't just go with a scholarly consensus either. We won't really know for sure unless and until the Supremes hand down a ruling. Until then, it's all conjectural. Really.

Do please try to remember that the law in this area remains thoroughly unsettled.

Xenophon
...Who is not a lawyer, but did TA a graduate seminar on the subject a few years back and took copious notes while eminent legal scholars explained their viewpoints, complete with compelling arguments why the previous eminent legal scholar was full of %$#%$#.
As always, this is not legal advice on which you may place reliance. Should you need legal advice, go hire yourself a suitable expert; it'll be expensive!

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by stonetools

It's also easy to shoplift from Walmart, and shoplifting tutorials are also just a Google search away
LINK

Yet we don't excoriate Walmart for utilizing anti-theft measures and don't insist that they give up on the idea of law enforcement, stop "victimizing" paying customers with their security cameras and their hard to open packages, and focus purely on better service.
I imagine , if you suggested such a strategy to a Walmart executive, they would explain to you that :

1. Their anti-theft measures pay for themselves in saved sales.
2.Their myriad paying customers show that they already do a great job of customer service.

Publishers would make the same arguments to the anti DRM crowd.

Publishers do need to address the issue of why people who would never, ever, shoplift or steal anything feel perfectly ethically justified in stripping DRM. Because until they do that, the majority of tech-savvy users who would never even pirate anything will continue to do it either as a backup or to switch formats. It's something the music industry--what is left of it--has learned a thing or two about.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Beryll Snyder

Believe it or not: most people buy the book, read it, and forget about it.

That's how I feel about a magazine, but not a book. A book either is worth the "keep it" price, or it should be priced at the "forget it" price.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Beryll Snyder

Believe it or not: most people buy the book, read it, and forget about it.
So there is no problem at all for them.
More or less like going to a movie - only the pleasure lasts longer ...

That is true; no one will strip DRM unless they have a reason for it (backup, switching formats, sharing, etc.). Some people never encounter a reason at all.

[Katsunami]

With regard to the masses not caring: the only thing that their ignorance will get them is a bunch of problems, somewhere down the line, as pdurrant already says.

As for me: I don't care about buying or licensing. After I pay for something, it's mine. In case of a book, or ebook, then I own the paper or the file. In case of software, I own the CD or downloaded file. I know I don't own the content or the source code, but I own the right to use the product. And use it I will, as long as I see fit; 2 days, 5 years or 20 years. If I can't make sure of that with a product, for example with some Ubisoft games that need permanent online authentication (server gone == game unplayable), then I will never buy it.

The only exception would be software I intend to replace in 5-6 years anyway (or even sooner), after it's official support ends and it becomes too old to be useful, such as an operating system.

Edit: I know I can't ever be 100% sure, because old software may not run on new operating systems... Luckily I have a permanently activated (legal) Windows XP that runs all my 1995-2001 games perfectly in a virtual machine, should I ever want to play them on an OS that doesn't support them

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

With regard to the masses not caring: the only thing that their ignorance will get them is a bunch of problems, somewhere down the line, as pdurrant already says.

As for me: I don't care about buying or licensing. After I pay for something, it's mine. In case of a book, or ebook, then I own the paper or the file. In case of software, I own the CD or downloaded file. I know I don't own the content or the source code, but I own the right to use the product. And use it I will, as long as I see fit; 2 days, 5 years or 20 years. If I can't make sure of that with a product, for example with some Ubisoft games that need permanent online authentication (server gone == game unplayable), then I will never buy it.

I agree on all counts! Well said.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

So in the end, a few parties make big bucks with drm, some other parties are losing the same bucks because drm does not work and adds nothing, while the end result is a bunch of very annoyed customers.

Well done, industries

I agree. The adding of DRM for personal purchase of books is pointless. If DRM is so "easy to strip" anyway, why put it there? Several people responded, "DRM doesn't bother me because I have the tools to remove it."

I dunno, I think shelling out the bucks for a printed book or e-book, when the book is so easy (and sometimes shockingly easier) to find on a torrent site should be evidence enough that the customer is to be trusted. Smashwords gets this, at the very least, and it keeps me a happy customer.

The DRM free books I have bought sit nicely on my e-reader and backed up on calibre. I also have a few books that I bought in their infected state (before I knew better) that I was able to get removed by someone, and are now backed up on calibre. The removal was not trivial. And I don't like bothering people enough to ask someone to keep doing it for me.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I agree. The adding of DRM for personal purchase of books is pointless. If DRM is so "easy to strip" anyway, why put it there?

The same reason that 'Keep off the Grass' signs generally work.
People are normally law abiding.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The same reason that 'Keep off the Grass' signs generally work.
People are normally law abiding.

There are people on this board who think that is too naive of an attitude.
I generally like to think that way about people.

But most people don't.

[Ninjalawyer]

There's an interesting article here on how publisher insistence on DRM resulted in Amazon's market dominance; mirroring the previous experience of the record industry and Apple. So not only has DRM been ineffective at stopping piracy, but it's actually wreaked real harm on the publishers by giving Amazon real power over them. What's that old saying about those who ignore history?

I'll also echo Xenophon's point, that the treatment of ebooks in U.S. law is at best unsettled; screaming that it's a license is useful if you're a publisher, but may not actually be correct. Amazon (and their lawyers) know exactly what they're doing when they allow the purchase of an ebook via a "buy now" button rather than a "license now" button.