The Sword and Laser discussion

Two years ago, Tor Books, the largest sf publisher in the world went DRM-free. Recently, Tor's founder and publisher Tom Doherty took to the stage to explain why he dropped DRM from his books.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/29/tor-...

DRM helps nobody and only hurts the reader, it is nice that Tom Doherty is such an advocate for the readers that he sees that.

I back up my Kindle books, and I strip the DRM from them (super easy, ridiculously easy, why would this prevent piracy?). I only do this to have a backup copy that is not beholdened to amazon. I could easily pirate books but I choose to purchase them.

Wow that turned into a rant/lecture, my apologies.

Andy wrote: "I back up my Kindle books, and I strip the DRM from them (super easy, ridiculously easy, why would this prevent piracy?). I only do this to have a backup copy that is not beholdened to amazon. I could easily pirate books but I choose to purchase them. "

Me as well.

I can't say how the process goes now (though I expect I'll be finding out soon), but when I published electronically for the first time with Amazon, I was told I had to either authorize DRM or publish sans same, and that whichever way I went, it was a permanant decision. That is, I couldn't change my mind afterwards.

The tide is against DRM, and I've heard a number of good reasons for this. One example, some folks in the early ebook days bought ebooks with DRM engaged, then lost access to their books when the company went under.

I certainly understand the frustration of having one's work pirated; I've seen it happen to mine. Making piracy less convenient might reduce some of it, though. One example, the fact that pirated works will lack access to useful ancillary services such as Amazon's Whispersync.

I think the greatest threat to a writer is obscurity and not piracy. Considering how easy it is to strip DRM from a book, better to get the exposure and hopefully convince the pirates to buy copies of your book in the future.

The best way to reduce piracy is to give everyone a convenient and affordable platform to buy, sell, and trade their digital purchases. DRM is the opposite of that. It is worse than useless; it drives people towards piracy in order to circumvent the restrictions it imposes.

DRM isn't really about piracy (I hate that word in the context of copying without permission, people actually DIE from pirates). It's about locking you into an ecosystem. By stripping the DRM from my books, I can buy at B&N, Amazon, or Google - whoever's cheaper. Meanwhile I see the technologically unsavvy complain on Goodreads that Book X or Y is cheaper on the website that doesn't work with their ereader. That's the real reason they want the publishers using DRM.

As for Tor, how does the non-DRM purchasing work? Maybe it's luck of the draw, but when I tried to purchase Redshirts through Tor, it just sent me to B&N, Amazon, etc. Or does the book just not come with DRM enabled on their sites? I thought it was on by default?

Walter wrote: "I can't say how the process goes now (though I expect I'll be finding out soon), but when I published electronically for the first time with Amazon, I was told I had to either authorize DRM or publ..."

You are so right when it comes to whispersync and the like. Do you know the one thing that got me to stop copying music without permission? Amazon's DRM-free music. Instead of finding badly tagged (or even misnamed) songs with iffy bitrates, I could just buy a great-sounding MP3 for a dollar. (Now a buck-thirty) Do you know the only time I ever copy music without permission nowadays? When the musician has made one of two dumb moves:
1) Not release the album or song in the USA. HELLO! I WANT TO GIVE YOU MONEY! I guess you don't want it. So I feel no moral qualms about not paying.
2) When they try to force a bundle-purchase. Sorry, this is no longer the 90s. Sell me the song I want, not an entire album. Thank you.

Keep things convenient and you get lots of money from me (relative to the costs of things) - I've spent a few thousand on music. Make them inconvenient and you get nothing.

It's why I still buy DVDs/Blurays when I've gone digital for everything else. Digital movies and TV shows still come with too many restrictions to make them worth the money for convenience.

Walter wrote: "I can't say how the process goes now (though I expect I'll be finding out soon), but when I published electronically for the first time with Amazon, I was told I had to either authorize DRM or publ..."

That happened to me both with music and with books. Bought books with Microsoft's DRM - thankfully only about $50 worth that I can no longer read. Bought about $10 of music when Napster went legit that I can no longer listen to. I swore to never buy stuff with DRM again if I have a choice. The only things I have bought with DRM since are video games and comics from Comixology. I have decided to stop buying comics form Comixology, however, since Image and Top Shelf went DRM-free. Until DC/Marvel follow suit I'll either buy physical comics or not at all.

Eric wrote: "DRM isn't really about piracy (I hate that word in the context of copying without permission, people actually DIE from pirates). It's about locking you into an ecosystem. By stripping the DRM from ..."

This article makes a good case as to why lock in has nothing to do with DRM. If DRM is what locked people in, nobody would care that Amazon doesn't have a Kindle version of the Sword and Laser Anthology available. Amazon's entire ecosystem makes it easier when the books are ones in their system.

The ironic thing is that if you are technically savvy enough to take a book from one ecosystem and use it with a reader from another ecosystem, you can probably sidestep the DRM pretty easy.

Tor wised up and realized that the only thing DRM does is restrict what your good customers can do. It is hardly a barrier for a pirate.

Usually, if you look at the end of the book description for Tor books on Amazon or B&N, there is usually this statement that tells you it doesn't have DRM:
At the publisher's request, this title is being sold without Digital Rights Management software (DRM) applied.

I know people who have pirated movies and tv shows, to the point their computers literally became unworkable due to all the viruses, keylogging programs, spyware, etc., these files are frequently infested with.

Which makes me wonder, have these folks found a way to do the same thing with epub and mobi files? I know they're primarily text, but there are also image files (the cover, if nothing else) which could possibly contain something nefarious. Or perhaps while downloading an otherwise innocuous epub or mobi file, something else comes along for the ride.

If this is happening, or happens in the future, that might discourage downloading pirated works more so than any degree of DRM.

Wilmar wrote: "I think the greatest threat to a writer is obscurity and not piracy. Considering how easy it is to strip DRM from a book, better to get the exposure and hopefully convince the pirates to buy copies..."

This is the crux of the matter. DRM never worked for any media outlet. It is a shot in one's own foot here as well. The pirates will always find ways around misguided security measures, and the result will simply impact legitimate honest customers - deterring them from purchase due to the aggravation DRM causes.

As a creative artist myself, I vehemently oppose DRM and have never used it on my music recordings or stories, nor will I buy media attached to DRM as I refuse to support it in any way.

The number of music albums and books I own is... staggering. I mention it only to underline the point that the decision to abandon DRM has financial implications for those who doggedly cling to it. I will spend $45 on an LP but will not spend $0.99 on a song if it has DRM on it. I have roughly 500 or so LPs, from the '50s to released-last-week. Bookwise, the same. I buy paper books. I don't support DRM in e-book sales.

Walter wrote: "I know people who have pirated movies and tv shows, to the point their computers literally became unworkable due to all the viruses, keylogging programs, spyware, etc., these files are frequently i..."

I haven't read the epub spec, but in editing epub files in Caligra, they seem to be somewhat like HTML - there are links and images. It think it's possible to create malware that will work with epub as the payload.

Shad wrote: "This article makes a good case as to why lock in has nothing to do with DRM. If DRM is what locked people in, nobody would care that Amazon doesn't have a Kindle version of the Sword and Laser Anthology available. Amazon's entire ecosystem makes it easier when the books are ones in their system."

That articles doesn't make a good case about anything having to do with DRM. It's just saying the Kindle is so awesome that it doesn't matter that it has DRM. But the fact of the matter is that DRM is always about lock-in. It's about making it harder to migrate your stuff from this guy. Not for you and me, but for the average Joe.

Eric wrote: "Shad wrote: "This article makes a good case as to why lock in has nothing to do with DRM. If DRM is what locked people in, nobody would care that Amazon doesn't have a Kindle version of the Sword a..."

I have to disagree. DRM is not about lock in to a particular ecosystem, it is about publisher control. If it was just about locking you into Amazon's ecosystem, then why the draconian rules on lending? Why the text to speech restrictions on so many titles? Amazon has designed their entire system to lock you in and put DRM in their to get the publishers to go along.

Shad wrote: "Eric wrote: "Shad wrote: "This article makes a good case as to why lock in has nothing to do with DRM. If DRM is what locked people in, nobody would care that Amazon doesn't have a Kindle version o..."

If it were about publishers, why does every platform - B&N, Amazon, etc have a different one? There should be one DRM and one file type because that's what's easiest for publishers. Not creating epubs and mobis and pdfs and a different DRM scheme for each one.

As for the lending and text to speech, if the DRM's there - they're going to use it. Lending is so tough, I don't agree with digital being more restricted than physical, but I haven't been able to come up with anything other than moral compunction for keeping them from just selling one copy. (which everyone shares) The text to speech is the dumbest thing ever. I know it has to do with selling audio books, but here's the thing - an audio book is a performance. Text to speech is shit. One does not replace the other. Text to speech is to allow those without sight to have the same abilities as me. If they want a performance they can get the audio book. If they just want the words, then text to speech. I think disabling text to speech is one of the most amoral things done with DRM.

How Hachette made the rope that Amazon is hanging it with

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/20/how-...

Having just stripped DRM from some Nook and Kobo books, I will say that it's all about locking users into a platform. I had to provide my email address and credit card number to unlock the Nook books. Some of them couldn't be unlocked at all, I think because they were showing a different credit card number for the DRM. I'm doing this for two reasons: I don't want to lose my books if B&N quits the ebook market, and I want to read on my Paperwhite. It's ridiculous to have to jump through such hoops.

In a perfect world, the publishers would support storage of their books in the cloud and different bookstores would sell ebooks that were managed by that cloud system. You would have an account with the publisher cloud and when you bought a different ereader, you would enter your account number and presto, your books would be available. They would not be in the mess they are in now and readers would not be locked into any one bookseller, be it Amazon or anyone else. Most people would not care whether they put DRM on there as long as they didn't have to mess with it everytime they want to read a book.

But this is not a perfect world and the greedy publishers would mess up creating a system like that. Time and time again, content providers have proven to be slow to reacting to digital and it is killing them.

Shad, that works great until a publisher goes out of business and takes there cloud with them. I think what a lot of people are advocating now is a pretty good system, personal backup, and the ability to go from one format to another via something like caliber.

While this is technically not that hard, it may be illegal. The thing is most (including those in the government) see breaking encryption for personal backup of media to be OK, just don't share it with any one else. The MPAA, RIAA, and publishers don't necessarily see it the same way. But, the people who are gone after are those that share, not those that backup and keep to ones self, despite what the warning at the beginning of blue ray movies say.

It's a growing transition from purchasing a digital copy toward purchasing leasing rights to use a service. I'm not OK with it, and I don't support it for software or music or any such services.

Kenneth wrote: "It's a growing transition from purchasing a digital copy toward purchasing leasing rights to use a service. I'm not OK with it, and I don't support it for software or music or any such services."

A subscription service probably represents the ultimate vendor lock in, since as soon as you stop paying your subscription fee you lose access to all your music/movies/books. But the advantages are very compelling, as the success of Netflix, Spotify and Rdio demonstrates.

I am opposed to DRM for content that you supposedly own in perpetuity, but I happily pay for access to Netflix and Rdio's libraries of content. I find it liberating to no longer agonize over whether an album or movie is worth paying ~$10-20 for, or waste hours organizing my digital library.

I'm a perpetuity guy. Like to preserve things. Like permanence and stuff that's built to last. Puts me at odds with the vaporware of subscription

Kenneth wrote: "I'm a perpetuity guy. Like to preserve things. Like permanence and stuff that's built to last. Puts me at odds with the vaporware of subscription"

Jonathan wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "It's a growing transition from purchasing a digital copy toward purchasing leasing rights to use a service. I'm not OK with it, and I don't support it for software or music or any s..."

I think there's room for both. There are movies and TV shows I buy - the ones I always want to have access to. There are movies and TV shows I rent - the ones I don't care if it's not available when I want to watch it. I'm fine with doing the same with books, music, and video games. I'm just not fine with EVERYTHING only being rental.