DRM Good or Bad?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

[...]There's a big difference between taking something *away* from you, and changing the marketplace so that your efforts are no longer suitable for sale. While changing the marketplace might be wrong, and might even be a crime, it's not "theft."

That may (or may not, I'm no lawyer) be technically/legally correct, but the effect on the victim is, or can be*, the same as theft. If I don't pay my plumber all I've taken from him was his ability to work somewhere else while he was working here (and maybe a bit of sealing tape). That may not be technical theft either, but the impact on my plumber may* well be the same as if I had taken the money from his pocket. It may not technically be theft, but the difference doesn't seem so "big" from where I'm sitting.

(*) I've seen the arguments about there wouldn't have been a sale anyway, or maybe my plumber didn't have any other work available at the time, but that is a presumption that the perpetrator is (usually) not in a position to make, and in most examples I've seen they don't really care anyway, it just sounds good as an excuse.

[VydorScope]

In a court of Law definitions matter. People can have cases thrown out if they are charged with Larceny instead of Burglary. To any sane person, they are both theft. So I can understand the argument that in a court of law the label would be different, only because our legal system here is a mess (speaking as an American, dunno much about rest of world).

That aside, as already shown, its still theft. Just as Larceny and Burglary are both names for "person a took something from person b."

[no.guru]

One day - maybe - media companies will enter the 21st century and give consumers the convenience they want. Books, music, and movies on their computers, rather than in an outdated format that must be manipulated to get the same results available to them more easily through other means. Convenience is what "pirates" are seeking, not content at no cost.

There will always be, always has been, a segment of the population that will take what is offered free but never buy. Consumers want their content, but they are willing to pay for it only if it is offered in their preferred format, on their computers.

See iTunes; Radiohead; Louis CK; pay what you want pricing, et al. There are plenty of examples of artists and businesses currently earning money in the 21st century, rather than burying their heads in the sand of the 20th.

Until then, these dinosaur media companies will continue using emotionally charged words like theft to get the unthinking masses on their side.

[mclien]

OK, I first excuse for not reading the thread all trough. (have very limited time at the moment).
So, I'm not an author, but a consumer and my opinion to that DRM stuff: It's just ugly, useless crap, trouhg which Distributors try to make the new media(ebook) work the same way the old medium works (paper book). Not that they very successful owith the old media.

My "ideal" world: All authors offer free, uncontrolled download w/o DRM. I do a download an pay, lt's say 5$. Than I read the book. If I like it I donate an extra amount of my choice on top of that. After some month, years, whatever I read the same book again, and maybe I like it the second time as good or better than before. And for enjoying it a second time I again pay an amount of money for it.
Sam works when I make it a gift to someone (by sending it via mail, or directly send it from my device to hers/his), give it to my wife, whatever.

OK, this works only with enough honest people. And yes I DO think there are enough in existence.
And if I download the book, like it and don't pay for it is extreemly shortsighted, if I expect other good stories from the same author. (How that is true, is to everyone him-/herself to find out. Those who don't get that conclusion are doomed to be a slave-customer to amazon and alike)

mclien

[MCoorlim]

I don't like it. I get why it exists - you don't "purchase" an ebook, you "purchase" the licensing to enjoy it - but DRM is a poor solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by MCoorlim

I don't like it. I get why it exists - you don't "purchase" an ebook, you "purchase" the licensing to enjoy it - but DRM is a poor solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

DRM puts "Rental" terms on something you are expected to pay "owner" prices for.
It's pure and utter horsepucky. Want to rent it to me? Sure, charge me 2 dollars and give me a "return by" date. Don't charge me $15 and then tell me in the fine print that it's not really mine!

I expect DRM on temporary materials such as library loans. Not on something that has my credit card number on the receipt.

I had a friend who wouldn't buy anything unless he knew it was also available on TPB. I wouldn't be surprised if half the so-called "pirates" are actually people who do the same. I don't find a lot of Baen books on pirate sites. Almost any other "booktitle + epub" if it is sold DRM normally a filesharing site isn't too far down on a google search query.

[Freeshadow]

Baen stuff unlikely to be pirated, shares this with linux native games.
Another example was 2Dboy's offer to get world of goo for any buyer-chosen price (including none)
In hindsight has been reported Linux users gave more than win or mackians.

Knowing that linux games still are a rarity the users aware are voting with thei wallets. That's a point also relevant for people not buying DRMed books, regardless of the simplicity of stripping; they know that every purchase is a pro-DRM vallet vote.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Baen stuff unlikely to be pirated, shares this with linux native games.

Exactly. Baen offers their books at reasonable prices AND aren't afraid of their customers actually owning it. For some bizarre reason that works

My husband and I have long been believers in the Open Source software philosophy, he is a DD. (Debian developer).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gmw

That may (or may not, I'm no lawyer) be technically/legally correct, but the effect on the victim is, or can be*, the same as theft. If I don't pay my plumber all I've taken from him was his ability to work somewhere else while he was working here (and maybe a bit of sealing tape).

That's taking an *actual* resource from him: his time.

Comparing infringement to that would be like opening your own plumber shop, using his specialized methods, but undercutting his prices. Or telling everyone in town what a lousy plumber he is, so they won't hire him. In either case, you've destroyed his ability to profit, but you haven't taken away anything he already has.

If you're lying about his lack of skills, that's defamation and libel... but not "theft." Different crime, different penalties. Different enforcement methods--which is the core issue here.

The end result from the plumber's viewpoint may be the same, but the way to stop these offenses is different. There is nothing the plumber can do to "protect" his future profits from bad press. And, like that, there is nothing authors can do to "protect" their future profits from copyright infringement.

Pre-emptive crackdowns on everyone who *might* infringe, much like pre-emptive crackdowns on everyone who might slander a business, are (1) draconian and (2) unconstitutional in the US.

One of the ways to discourage infringement is to penalize it when it happens--in proportion to the damage it causes. $50,000-per-song penalties are so ridiculous that it dissuades nobody; it's like if we had penalties of 10 years in prison for saying "I don't eat at McDonald's because their food sucks."

Make the penalty for copyright infringement for noncommercial purposes similar to the penalty for theft--maybe a couple hundred dollars, for an album--and we might be able to reach an agreement that copyright infringement is "mostly like theft."

As it stands, in my state:
Penalty for shoplifting a book out of a store: infraction petty theft - fine less than $250.
Penalty for emailing an ebook to a friend: $200 to $150,000

If it's "just like theft," why the discrepancy in penalties?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

[...] Make the penalty for copyright infringement for noncommercial purposes similar to the penalty for theft--maybe a couple hundred dollars, for an album--and we might be able to reach an agreement that copyright infringement is "mostly like theft."

As it stands, in my state:
Penalty for shoplifting a book out of a store: infraction petty theft - fine less than $250.
Penalty for emailing an ebook to a friend: $200 to $150,000

If it's "just like theft," why the discrepancy in penalties?

Probably because there is a huge difference between what a great many people do (for example share their ebook with "a friend" in such a way that violates the conditions of their purchase), and what some other people do (distribute ebooks to a million friends (see how many "friends" some people have on Facebook)). When I steal a pbook I can either read it myself or give it away to one friend, that sort of limits the damage that can be done. It seems obvious, to me, that the penalties for ebook piracy would have a large variation.

One of the difficulties with the "noncommercial purposes" provision is that on the Internet the damage to the victim may be the same regardless ... but I imagine that intent and benefit-received would also be one of the factors taken into account when penalties are applied.

Are there actual examples of individuals being prosecuted for "emailing an ebook to a friend" ? (If so do you know the situation and penalty applied?)

[gmw]

I realised I hadn't responded this bit:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's taking an *actual* resource from him: his time.

Comparing infringement to that would be like opening your own plumber shop, using his specialized methods, but undercutting his prices. Or telling everyone in town what a lousy plumber he is, so they won't hire him. In either case, you've destroyed his ability to profit, but you haven't taken away anything he already has. [...]

By emphasising the defamation side of it you really are getting taking the less than perfect analogy way off base. Yes VydorScope mentioned the possibility of malware attached to pirate ebook downloads, but that's not an aspect I think particularly relevant, nor was it the primary focus of his post (not the way I read it).

The real point is that denying the author payment is effectively the same as not paying for any other service or goods received. The fact that different services or goods generate income in different ways does not deny the correlation. Not paying for what you have taken/used is taking away the income of the provider.

[Belle2Be]

Drm is useless. I just learned how to remove mine because I bought format thst didnt work with the app i use and it's stupid easy. Like, if you can google to find a book, you can google how to and remove in 3 easy clicks. Useless.

But I'm a female who likes fantasy so clearly I'm never going to be interesting in non fiction.

[VydorScope]

By trying to not call it theft, what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to say that "since the author lost nothing, its okay to do?" Or you just trying to stick a different label on the crime?

Personally, I do not care what label you put on it, the end result is the same. It is a loss to the content creator caused by another person taking something illegally. Sure sounds like theft to me though!

[DrNefario]

Calling it theft is a distortion of the argument used cynically to exaggerate the financial impact and call for more draconian penalties.

The fact is, most people getting the free book are only getting it because it is free. They would never have paid for it, and are not a lost sale. They might never even look at it. The author has lost absolutely nothing.

Some people will be specifically seeking to avoid paying for that book, and yes, they are doing wrong. They still have the legitimate options of using a library or simply not reading it, as well as actually paying for the book.

Calling it theft is a bit like calling it murder. It is trying to associate one crime with another, to get the moral connotations of the first to apply to the second. It's dishonest and unhelpful.

I accidentally committed copyright arson myself the other day. I downloaded a free audiobook from Librivox which I then discovered was still in copyright (I think) in the UK (Whose Body by Dorothy L. Sayers). I'm now wondering whether I might as well go ahead and listen to it if I've already committed the crime.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I accidentally committed copyright arson

Quick pour water on your computer before your house is consumed!