Download

So says a blog post by Charles Stross, and it makes a lot of sense.  An article in Gigaom picks up on this:

This kind of insistence on DRM and incompatible platforms, as well as the tangle of rights and often competing interests of publishers and authors when it comes to licensing copies or sharing, makes e-book buying a snake-pit of complexities — and only reinforces Amazon’s hold on the market, since it offers a simple end-to-end solution. This makes sense for the retailer, and its focus on launching new platforms like the Kindle Fire make it obvious it plans to extend that dominance into other areas. But how does that help publishers and authors? To quote Stross again:

As ebook sales mushroom, the Big Six’s insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy, it has locked customers in Amazon’s walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon’s leverage over publishers.

Publishers — and some authors, especially those who control the Authors Guild, which has fought every attempt by Google and others to open up the book market — have been so obsessed with piracy and locking down their products that they have allowed Amazon to take control of their fate (if that reminds you of Apple and the music industry, that’s probably not a coincidence). Instead of making it easy for readers to download their authors’ work on different platforms and share and copy it, they have only made it easier for Amazon to control them and dominate the industry.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

19 COMMENTS

  1. Perhaps if Stross made his money one book at a time, the way independent publishers do, and didn’t get a paycheck up-front from those same publishers, he might be a bit more concerned about the part about “copying and sharing” ebooks… the overriding issue that has publishers pushing for DRM in the first place.

    And unless Stross has a better way of ensuring copywritten products be protected (besides the ever-popular “consumers treated fairly won’t steal… really” argument), it’s pointless to attack the only form of property security the publishers have, however ineffective it is.

  2. No fair jumping on Charlie for getting advances, or publishing with the big guys. He HAS acted on what he believes: he released Accelerando as a free ebook. He would release more of his books either free, or DRM-free if he could, but all he can say is that there are contractual issues. I have the impression that Tor, his US publisher, would be happy to follow Baen’s lead in putting out DRM-free ebooks, but, as they’re owned by Holzenbrinck, a larger, stodgier corporation … they can’t.

    If you’re going to blame Charlie for taking advances from a big company with antedeluvian policies, then you’re going to have to blame most of the writers out there.

  3. Being worried about people “copying and sharing” ebooks is ridiculous. Since there are these things called ‘libraries’ where one can -gasp- borrow books for free! /sarcasm

    If my mother buys a book and I can take it off her bookshelf to read it (or maybe just to prop up that uneven table leg… depends on the quality of the book), why can’t I buy an ebook and share it with my mother, even if we have two different pieces of hardware for it? If I can leave a book at a train station library for someone else to pick up, why can’t I pass an ebook to a co-worker when they ask me for a recommendation?

  4. BTW, he’s actually made the point explicitly on his blog – Tor actually started selling ebooks without DRM, but were forced to recant by their corporate owners.

    Zora, I think you misunderstand. Stephen’s objection is not that Stross is hypocritical; simply that he is wrong; and that if Stross had his wish granted he would come to realize his mistake.

    It’s a valid opinion, however sourly it might be expressed.

    I think the world would be a richer place if Stross (and others) were able to perform the experiment. Without, as Stross points out, immediately losing over 50% of their sales, doubling their workload, going into debt, and burning their bridges. But it seems the opportunity for radical experiments within existing publishers has passed.

    Calling this a “pointless attack” is… meaningless. Most obviously, by speaking out like this, Stross gains publicity – and very much within his target audience! Less cynically, what you might call his idealism is made apparent many times in his books, non-fiction writing, and in his previous blog posts, interviews etc. If he says nothing, then readers will certainly consider him hypocritical. By repeatedly explaining his situation, Stross invites readers to sympathize. At worst, those who disagree with his conclusions can see he’s put a lot of thought into the ebook question.

  5. I’m actually not “jumping on Charlie”… I’m merely pointing out that his situation regarding bookselling and profit is different from the publishers’ point of view. The publishers believe they are threatened by the actions of consumers who freely share their books, so they understandably want to protect their interests. And without any other way of doing so, they choose the only tool they have (as imperfect as it is).

    So let the publishers slit their own throats. Stross should leave the publishers and start selling as an independent, if he disagrees with their business practices. I disagree with their business practices, too; that’s why I’ve always sold my books as an independent, offer other books free, and will continue to do so.

  8. Steven – It may be me 🙂 … but in your first comment you ‘appear’ to scold Stross for not being concerned about “copying and sharing”. In your second paragraph you also appear to firstly suggest DRM does protect copyrighted products, and then follow it immediately by accepting that it is indeed ineffective. Surely it can’t be both …
    In your second comment you again accept it is ineffective and point out that you don’t use it yourself.
    I hope you can see how I find it all a bit confusing 🙂

  9. Yes, Stross isn’t concerned about copying and sharing… mainly because he’s already been paid for his books by his publisher. (And no, I’m not criticizing him for that, just making the point.) So DRM means nothing to him other than being an annoyance to consumers. If consumers didn’t care… I’d wager neither would he.

    The only thing you’re missing is that it’s the publishers who believe that DRM protects their products enough to merit its use. Stross believes otherwise, and I believe it has a slight effectiveness (it works on consumers who like a simple ebook solution enabled by the Kindle store, for example). Given a choice of using it or no, Stross and I are in agreement: It’s not worth the trouble.

    I just think it’s pointless to berate the publishers for using DRM, if they have no other viable solution available to them. It’s like telling a storefront not to put a lock on their door, but NOT telling them how to keep thieves out in that case.

    The complexities mentioned in the article are there because no one is on the same page, and frankly, they don’t want to be on the same page; so every act is an end-run around the other guys, and it’s gotten so complicated no one knows which way they should be going to get ahead.

    Stross has a point in that publishers are making it unduly hard on themselves… but it’s not just the publishers’ fault. Consumers are contributing to those complications, and both sides are in denial as to whose fault it all is. Until everyone’s on the same page, the complications will only get worse.

  10. Steven: Yes, Stross isn’t concerned about copying and sharing… mainly because he’s already been paid for his books by his publisher.

    No, he gets advances, which are deducted from any future royalties. Once the advances are paid back, he gets royalties. Royalty checks (about which we occasionally hear on his blog, when publishers or banks mess up). Charlie does have skin in the game.

    The problem with DRM is that it annoys the legit customers without stopping the pirates in the least. Baen has shown that DRM is not necessary … if you price the books low enough, and make buying them easy and safe, customers will pay rather than search for pirated books. I’m poor as a churchmouse, but I buy my Baen books. It’s easier, and it feels good to know that the author is benefiting.

  11. I think Stross is spot on.

    With DRM, you are effectively locked into “whatever horse you rode into town on” because of the difficulty of moving your collection to another platform.

    Go DRM-free and readers are free to purchase books from whatever retailer they wish — this is the ONLY way they publishers can prevent Amazon from continuing to dominate the ebook market…and when they do dominate, they will have the ability to dictate terms far stricter than what they do now, as most UK publishers have seen in terms Amazon forces on them.

    I think there is ample evidence in a variety of mediums to suggest that readers will purchase much more when they can buy and use in whatever format suits them…multiple studies have shown that heavy file sharers buy more than “non-pirates.”

    The only defense for DRM is “look what happened to the record companies.” But what happened to the record companies is that people got sick and tired of paying $10-15 for a CD just to get the one song they really wanted. Give them an option to buy the one or two hit songs and they pounced on it. And record companies still sell an awful lot of plastic disks.

    People are tired of being burned by DRM, whether it is video-game locks from EA, rootkits from Sony or not being able to format shift the product you bought. They are tired of it and will not support it.

    Also, to say that Stross doesn’t care because he’s already been paid is completely disingenuous: We all know that authors have royalties upon which they depend.

    — Bill Smith
    http://www.BillSmithBooks.com

  12. Zora – you are so right.

    “The problem with DRM is that it annoys the legit customers without stopping the pirates in the least.”

    Here is the nub. The only logical inference of their actions is … that they honestly believe that everyone is a potential pirate and if they don’t put handcuffs on everyone, then they’ll all turn in to raving pirates. Sad and dumb.

  13. To further beat the “DRM is a waste of time” horse:

    Music specific:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110727/16233815292/another-day-another-study-that-says-pirates-are-best-customers-this-time-hadopi.shtml

    http://torrentfreak.com/former-google-cio-limewire-pirates-were-itunes-best-customers-110726/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

    For movies:

    http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/movie-industry-bins-report-proving-pirates-are-great-consumers-20110720/

    For video games:

    http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-vancouver/pirates-are-the-video-game-industry-s-largest-customers

    Links courtesy of the message boards regarding Louis C. K.’s DRM-free concert download, $5, no DRM:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/n7kdv/louis_ck_is_cutting_out_the_middleman_and_selling/?limit=500

    In summary, DRM is an expensive utter waste of time.

    — Bill Smith
    http://www.BillSmithBooks.com

  14. @Howard This is what happened in Spain. We were all deemed guilty of piracy unless proven otherwise and a “canon” payment has been applied to all digital media that have the possibility of being used for piracy.

    This has been deemed illegal by the EU, but it hasn’t been revoked yet.

  15. Stross isn’t concerned about “copying and sharing” because he realises that isn’t the main problem for publishers or authors. The main problem is allowing a huge concern like Amazon to become both a monopoly bookseller *and* publisher. This is orders of magnitude more dangerous for all publishers and authors than the relatively small hit they take from ebook piracy.

    DRM does nothing to stop piracy, in fact it encourages it, but that’s not the worst thing about it. The worst thing is it helps lock customers into one ebook store such as Amazon. It makes it much easier for them to become the dominant force in the industry and eventually kill both other ebook sellers and other publishers. Amazon are now well on the way to achieving this goal, and they have the short-sightedness of the major publishing houses to thank for giving them that power.

  16. If Stross doesn’t sell enough books for the publishers to recoup the advances and the rest of the expenses of publishing his books, he won’t be able to get any more book deals. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I’m guessing that he believes that people who are getting his books without buying them wouldn’t pay for them anyway.

    While it’s not that hard to format-shift between Kindle and ePub even when the ebooks have DRM (if you do the right web searches), once a typical user buys a Kindle, they’ll never switch to a different device. Stross knows it, and we know it, and Amazon counts on it. The major publishers may be fighting for their future but they don’t seem to know where the battlefronts are.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.