More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Some publishers want STRICTER DRM: Kindle effect?
December 6, 2007 | 9:42 am
|
By David Rothman
Aren’t e-book publishers supposed to learn from the music business and understand that DRM is a sales toxin, especially when consumers want to enjoy recordings or books on a bunch of gizmos?
Well, maybe not. Tyler Ruse, who has worked at NetLibrary and codeMantra, notes that despite the unhappiness of many consumers with the Kindle’s DRM, some people in publishing would like copy-protection to be stricter.
In The Dichotomy of DRM, Tyler’s aptly titled entry in his Structured Publishing blog, he writes of “a variety of business development conversations” where publishers say they are “becoming more and more concerned about the lack of ultra-strict DRM in some e-book distribution channels. This includes the ability (when consuming digital content in a computing environment) to copy/paste, save, print, etc. Publishers are asking these channels to build more limitations so that they feel comfortable that their content is not being compromised.
The dichotomy
“It is obvious that there is a level of DRM that a publisher would need and expect so that there is limited fear of piracy. On the other side, it is apparent that DRM can not only serve as a deterrent to copyright violation, but it can also serve as a deterrent to the adoption of digital content at a mainstream level.”
Exactly, Tyler. The question is, how much of a deterrent to copyright violators? The only way to pirate-proof books is to stop producing the paper kind, so no one can type or scan from them. As for e-books, maybe publishers can prevent their wares from being displayed on a VDT or LCD so no one can scan or type in the merchandise that way. Of course such precautions would render e-books totally unusable, but perhaps end the piracy problem.
Heftier sales make up for piracy losses
Point is, there’ll always be losses to piracy, especially in the case of best-sellers, where the rewards are higher; but unprotected books are far, far more popular with consumers and therefore make up for this in increased sales due to greater convenience and usefulness. I’d encourage the more gungho defenders of DRM to check with Fictionwise about consumer interest in DRM vs. nonDRMed books.
I know that the more gungho of the pro-DRM partisans would still say that they merely want to keep honest people honest. But actually DRM has the reverse effect, by making it more difficult to own books legally—and thus encouraging surfers to obtain the nonprotected variety instead. Even the Kindle (inspiring DRM envy elsewhere?) can be used to display text from P2P sites. I’ll also call publishers’ attention to a comparison that Rob Preece of BooksForABook, as I recall, has made despite his own concerns about piracy. How many people rip off old-fashioned newspaper vending machines—even though there’s no limit on the number of copies they can grab? For most people, piracy just isn’t worth the trouble.
Not beating up on Tyler
Meanwhile I hope it’s clear I’m not beating up on Tyler, who’s simply passing on the message from certain publishers. I suspect he very much agrees with me on the need for the IDPF to come up with interoperable DRM if publishers insist on it. That said, I continue to believe that the best DRM is no DRM or social DRM. “Protection” adds to the costs of e-books and limits legitimate activities such as copying within fair use; and even with DRM standards, protected books will not be as trustworthy and durable a medium as those without protection.
Related: Tyler’s bio from a past run of his for the IDPF board (he is not currently a candidate).
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
Those publishers should check with Baen Books and ask them what there losses are to piracy…. I don’t know, but I’m guessing zero. They don’t have any DRM on any of their eBooks, and they even give a bunch of books away for free… and somehow they’re still making money.
Great suggestion, Yoda. One distinction of Baen is that it develops communities among readers–who are EAGER to support the writers they like. Would that big publishers could learn and be as successful at this! Happy holidays. David
The publishers are so misguided on this! They should be attempting to replicate the print experience, and in my view, that includes fair use copying—my mother, for example, who clips recipes from the weekend paper. Or the people who go to the library, borrow a cookbook and copy the recipe they like.
I think a library borrowing system would be the only use of DRM that I would support. My library lets you sign out audio books (sadly, not ipod-compatible, but it’s a start) and use them for three weeks. That’s fine. I am not buying it, I have no anticipation or permanency. So, that kind of DRM is fine.
The publishers are right, but they have to add more value to the purchase so that people accept the technical deficiencies of DRM.
DRM is effectively a sales toxin because it limits a user’s ownership of this own purchase which is a step back quality wise and implies that the user would potentially start to distribute (illegal) copies. The user knows that. Actually the only reason I would buy into DRM is when I could use it on an unlimited amount of potential devices and the content provider would enable me to redownload it at any time in my whole life (like a backup). So even though I get a technically more deficient format, I get some other value back.
Because in fact once you do start to pay for the stuff you download, you will no longer share it (or at least ordinary people won’t). You immediately start to value it differently. It’s yours. You paid for it. That’s human psychology. You are not willing to give away what you own, its about the definition of ownership. DRM failed to define its whole concept about the definition of ownership but is much rather known as a definition of a technically deficient or limited solution that implies that the purchaser would start to do piracy immediately if left unattended.
Anyway just random thoughts. Ebooks still suck because they are vastly inferior in comparison to pdfs and as a dev I need pdfs. I would much rather pay to download copyrighted pdfs than ebooks at any time. I would always buy a pdf rather than a physical book. But, and that’s the crucial thing – I want my copies which I purchased myself to be uniquely associated with my account only and only accessible for me. I want to own them.
David Rothman says “For most people, piracy just isn’t worth the trouble.” This comment is made in the context of a discussion about e-books. Now consider Michael Wolff’s powerful alternative claim about digital music that appeared in Vanity Fair:
Wolff is claiming that only two or three percent of the tunes on an iPod are “legally” acquired through the iTunes store. This suggests that piracy is “worth the trouble” on a massive scale for an enormous number of people. Wolff’s assertions are based on “music-industry estimates”, but my anecdotal knowledge of the behavior of iPod owners reinforces the notion that iPod owners share music on an immense scale without the “official license” of iTunes.
This comment is not intended to provide a rationale for DRM or for stricter DRM. I think that most DRM is pernicious and ineffective. A productive discussion of digital music and e-books must acknowledge the current primacy of massive piracy/sharing to accurately understand what is happening and what may happen in the future.
Thanks, Septimus; but I’m thinking more of an e-book context than a music one. Beyond that, keep in mind:
1) Oodles of iTunes users are digitizing already-owned CDs.
2) DRM is so much of a hassle that it could be costing BIG revenue even if piracy takes place.
Thanks and happiest of holidays.
David
Addendum: How about Baen’s success without DRM? One Baen-style approach for other houses could be to create a feeling of community–of identification with the publisher and itrs writers.
Keep in mind that when people make tools to defeat DRM, publishers will use stronger DRMs that will be less friendly to honest users.
The situation is similar to shops in a bad neighborhood needing ugly steel shutters to cover the store windows at night and having security guards during the day. I don’t blame the store for the ugly shutters, I blame the criminals who make it necessary.
If you don’t like DRM, oppose those who make tools to break DRM.
For my purposes I prefer a DRMed ebook to paper books.
- I want authors and publishers to be re-assured they will get paid for their work and in return I get a lower price when buying their book a fair deal. For those who don’t like DRMed ebooks – you should just use the paper versions – or switch to get eBooks from authors that don’t use DRM.
- Unprotected ebooks will simply destroy the ability of authors (except the mega-stars) from earning a living, as many if not most people will not pay for what they can readily get for free.
- Anyone can publish through Amazon – try to publish through a paper book publisher.
- With Amazon get to read the first chapter before I decide to buy the book – which I can’t do with paper.
- ebooks have a lower cost to me, are easier to carry and store. I am also getting newspaper subscriptions. If I loose my Kindle, I can just get a new one and load all I have purchased. I have never recovered a book that was lost or stolen.
Paper books have “DRM” built-in as using a copy machine is time consuming and costs about as much as the actual book.
- ebooks and enewspapers are GREEN. Books and Newspapers are carbon-energy intensive ways to publish.