5 ms·

Why are you guys so concerned about authors trying to control the profitless distribution of their product? I'm being serious -- what's the issue?

leggomylibro 9y ago
That's not really a relevant question. We are concerned about content that we purchase being tied to a single method of distribution which may disappear at any given moment, so we make backups which will be compatible with future and past devices and storage.
lazyasciiart 9y ago
Why should they control it? I want to buy one copy of a book and then lend it to my friends and family members and borrow books that they have bought. I want to give my old collection of YA sci-fi to my friend's kid. I want to browse my friends' bookshelves and borrow something that looks interesting.
criddell 9y ago
Because their quest for control works only when it restricts the things I've always been able to do with paper books. When I buy books I can give them away, I can resell them, I can loan them to you, I can leave them to my kids in my will, and I can read them in any country that I want. I want to be able to do the same things with digital books. I remove the DRM from every book that I buy and I feel no guilt over doing so. Today I read on a Kindle, but maybe tomorrow I want to buy a Kobo device. When I do, I don't want to lose access to my library. Is any of that unreasonable?
- bykovich2 9y ago
  Perhaps that's just the price you pay for access to ebooks at all -- particularly via an incredibly convenient system like Kindle? (Also, loaning -- the most pressing concern here -- is supported.) Authors need to get paid. I completely understand the irritation DRM presents, but if you want to be able to resell your books or pass them down through the generations, maybe paper copies are the way to go under our present conditions. A second question. Most of us, I presume, work in software. How do you approach the distribution of your work? Is unlimited piracy of your code an acceptable price to pay for giving customers unfettered access to the product of your labor, in your eyes?
  - criddell 9y ago
    Loaning is supported as long as the other person is also using a Kindle. I think if there were a non-proprietary DRM system where I could give my books away or loan them to friends reading on non-Amazon devices, I would feel a lot better about it. Having access to your library when you travel is also a pretty big deal. You suggest sticking with paper books, but the accessibility benefits (ie large typefaces or screenreaders) that you get with ebooks is hard to give up. For some people, it isn't a matter of choosing between paper or digital, it's digital or nothing. I agree that authors should usually get paid (I say usually because I support public libraries). However, I don't think there's much evidence that DRM helps authors get paid. Is there a popular book that hasn't been pirated thanks to DRM? Do you think the Amazon lock-in that DRM provides is good for the industry? I certainly don't. As for your second question, you are probably not going to get the answer you expect. Lots of people here support and work on free and open source software.
    - bykovich2 9y ago
      Open source software is fantastic -- but is that how we're making our livings? From what I can tell, OSS is either a) a labor of love, in addition to a separate full-time job, b) supported by a nonprofit that pays you a salary out of grants and donations, or c) supported by a corporation that pays you a salary out of EE sales or support revenue. (There may be exceptions, but they seem few.) Only (a) bears any resemblance to the business model for authors. Some authors certainly receive nonprofit monies, but funding for the arts is notoriously thin. If you were able to create a corporation that sells support contracts for literature or an enterprise edition for scholarship -- and payed out to authors regardless of how well their product performed -- then there might be a comparison.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    I wished people thought so high of my code that they actively tried to use it,even through illegal means.
  - MrMorden 9y ago
    Your question is based on two premises: that DRM reduces piracy by a non-negligible amount, and that anyone pirating a copyrighted work would have otherwise purchased it legally. The available evidence contradicts both.
e12e 9y ago
The other day I walked past a few used book stores. I'm quite sure many of the publishers are out of business - yet the books can be read. Books only available behind solid DRM will dissappear along with those who operate the drm system. Never mind the fact that they allow for virtual book burning by taking control over the DRM. See Microsoft zune, yahoo music. Consider that we still read books that are 100s of years old, and ask yourself if you believe DRM will help or hinder the spread of books. Add to this the possibility of "banning" books in certain regions (as with Netflix, Amazon video) - the role of DRM in ensuring corporate profit (author rights and profits are hardly their raison d'être) - puts the world at unacceptable risk.
- criddell 9y ago
  Copyright doesn't last forever, but DRM can. That's actually a pretty big problem. Maybe DRM vendors should have to share the key and an unlock method with the librarian of Congress?
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Good idea - and if the Feds think that asking for backdoors in encryption is reasonable, I don't see how they could possibly disagree with that.

leggomylibro 9y ago

That's not really a relevant question. We are concerned about content that we purchase being tied to a single method of distribution which may disappear at any given moment, so we make backups which will be compatible with future and past devices and storage.

lazyasciiart 9y ago

Why should they control it? I want to buy one copy of a book and then lend it to my friends and family members and borrow books that they have bought. I want to give my old collection of YA sci-fi to my friend's kid. I want to browse my friends' bookshelves and borrow something that looks interesting.

criddell 9y ago

Because their quest for control works only when it restricts the things I've always been able to do with paper books. When I buy books I can give them away, I can resell them, I can loan them to you, I can leave them to my kids in my will, and I can read them in any country that I want. I want to be able to do the same things with digital books. I remove the DRM from every book that I buy and I feel no guilt over doing so. Today I read on a Kindle, but maybe tomorrow I want to buy a Kobo device. When I do, I don't want to lose access to my library. Is any of that unreasonable?

bykovich2 9y ago
Perhaps that's just the price you pay for access to ebooks at all -- particularly via an incredibly convenient system like Kindle? (Also, loaning -- the most pressing concern here -- is supported.) Authors need to get paid. I completely understand the irritation DRM presents, but if you want to be able to resell your books or pass them down through the generations, maybe paper copies are the way to go under our present conditions. A second question. Most of us, I presume, work in software. How do you approach the distribution of your work? Is unlimited piracy of your code an acceptable price to pay for giving customers unfettered access to the product of your labor, in your eyes?
- criddell 9y ago
  Loaning is supported as long as the other person is also using a Kindle. I think if there were a non-proprietary DRM system where I could give my books away or loan them to friends reading on non-Amazon devices, I would feel a lot better about it. Having access to your library when you travel is also a pretty big deal. You suggest sticking with paper books, but the accessibility benefits (ie large typefaces or screenreaders) that you get with ebooks is hard to give up. For some people, it isn't a matter of choosing between paper or digital, it's digital or nothing. I agree that authors should usually get paid (I say usually because I support public libraries). However, I don't think there's much evidence that DRM helps authors get paid. Is there a popular book that hasn't been pirated thanks to DRM? Do you think the Amazon lock-in that DRM provides is good for the industry? I certainly don't. As for your second question, you are probably not going to get the answer you expect. Lots of people here support and work on free and open source software.
  - bykovich2 9y ago
    Open source software is fantastic -- but is that how we're making our livings? From what I can tell, OSS is either a) a labor of love, in addition to a separate full-time job, b) supported by a nonprofit that pays you a salary out of grants and donations, or c) supported by a corporation that pays you a salary out of EE sales or support revenue. (There may be exceptions, but they seem few.) Only (a) bears any resemblance to the business model for authors. Some authors certainly receive nonprofit monies, but funding for the arts is notoriously thin. If you were able to create a corporation that sells support contracts for literature or an enterprise edition for scholarship -- and payed out to authors regardless of how well their product performed -- then there might be a comparison.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  I wished people thought so high of my code that they actively tried to use it,even through illegal means.
- MrMorden 9y ago
  Your question is based on two premises: that DRM reduces piracy by a non-negligible amount, and that anyone pirating a copyrighted work would have otherwise purchased it legally. The available evidence contradicts both.

e12e 9y ago

The other day I walked past a few used book stores. I'm quite sure many of the publishers are out of business - yet the books can be read. Books only available behind solid DRM will dissappear along with those who operate the drm system. Never mind the fact that they allow for virtual book burning by taking control over the DRM. See Microsoft zune, yahoo music. Consider that we still read books that are 100s of years old, and ask yourself if you believe DRM will help or hinder the spread of books. Add to this the possibility of "banning" books in certain regions (as with Netflix, Amazon video) - the role of DRM in ensuring corporate profit (author rights and profits are hardly their raison d'être) - puts the world at unacceptable risk.

criddell 9y ago
Copyright doesn't last forever, but DRM can. That's actually a pretty big problem. Maybe DRM vendors should have to share the key and an unlock method with the librarian of Congress?
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Good idea - and if the Feds think that asking for backdoors in encryption is reasonable, I don't see how they could possibly disagree with that.