6 ms·

As An Author, Why I Truly Hate Ebook DRM

60 points by danyork 15y ago

jgrahamc 15y ago
I, also an author, 100% agree with this. Also, the royalties that authors receive (roughly 10% of what the publisher receives after the retailer has taken their large, say 50%, part of the cover price) is tiny. When you consider the months of work to write a book and divide by the return it's not hard to see why authors have a hard time getting upset about 'lost royalties'.
- kkowalczyk 15y ago
  It's hard to see why authors should act irrationally. If poor royalty, not DRM, are the major reason for poor earnings, authors should complain about royalties, not DRM. It seems to me that today the best way to make money on technical books is to put the whole book for free in html on the web (for marketing and SEO) and sell digital version (PDF/ePub/kindle), where the author gets 70% (kindle) or ~95% (selling PDF/ePub via paypal). If you don't believe in free html version as a marketing tool, don't do it - just build a nice web page for the book with TOC, a free chapter etc. The point is: I'm mystified that authors of technical books (especially those in the programming field) still work with publishers given that self-publishing is potentially so much more lucrative and an author can probably market his own book better than Apress markets an average book they publish.
Prophasi 15y ago
I don't love DRM, but the hyperbole could be notched down. In particular, this cliche: "DRM starts from the premise that all readers are slimeballs and thieves." Such a dire pronouncement doesn't logically follow. DRM starts from the premise that there exist many slimeballs and thieves. Next, that we should thwart as many as we can with technology, even at the inconvenience of paying customers, presumably yielding greater profit than in the absence of DRM. The first assumption's undeniably true; the second is open to much debate. But "all readers are scum" is a needlessly cynical attitude to read into it.
- sp332 15y ago
  Well the decision is to treat all customers as criminals, just the same as if we already were criminals.
  - Prophasi 15y ago
    How so? Criminals are fined or arrested, not prompted to enter authentication information or sync devices via this approved route. Do you think locking your front door treats everyone else in the entire world as a criminal?
- danyork 15y ago
  While I grant you that those promoting DRM may in fact start from the premise you state, the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves. Perhaps it is an overly cynical attitude... but that is how I view it.
  - Prophasi 15y ago
    I'm not in the industry, so I'd expect your cynicism to be greater, I suppose. I get that. But to be accurate (if at the expense of nitpicking): "the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves" We all are potential thieves from the perspective of anyone who doesn't know us; and if you have a valuable good, it's a far more reasonable (and profitable) assessment than "no one is a potential thief." It's the same stance you take when you design a website: "everyone is a potential hacker." A potential thief, however, is not an actual thief, and to repeat what I said above, I don't believe DRM treats users as actual thieves: it treats them as potential thieves until they've authenticated and as honest users afterward. If you have to authenticate annoyingly often, it's a usability problem, but it doesn't change the essential dynamic.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
If we can get the antiDRM movement coming from both content producers and consumers, perhaps distribution will join in.
spatten 15y ago
A list of places to get DRM free ebooks: http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_stores#Dealers_and_Publishers_without_DRM http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_stores#Dealers_and_Pu...
- danyork 15y ago
  Thanks for the great list!
casca 15y ago
While I don't like DRM and will always choose an alternative product that does not have it, I don't buy these arguments. So looking at his points: "DRM Is Anti-Reader": There's no reason that DRM could allow the easy transfer of a book from one person or platform to another. You could submit a transfer request and the publisher could re-encode the book to the new owner or format. Would you expect that as the purchaser of the book, you'd be allowed to photocopy it and distribute the photocopy? "DRM Locks Readers In To Platforms": This is not necessarily the case. The publisher could easily offer the same book in multiple formats. Converting from source is a trivial technical task. "DRM Adds Unneeded Complexity": DRM does add complexity, but as most people read via an application rather than a text file, this can be abstracted for almost all readers. Again, this is a problem with the implementation. "DRM Stifles Innovation": Authors not getting paid so that they can eat also stifles innovation. There needs to be a balance here, it's not all about making everyone's work free. "DRM Halts The Spread Of Ideas": If someone can't afford the book, in many countries they can go to a library. They don't need ownership to read the ideas. In summary, the issue with DRM for books is the implementation. Many of the problems listed are real but could be almost completely negated by the publishers doing things that cost them almost nothing, even following the assumption that everyone wants to read their books for free. To be clear, I'm not implying that I support DRM or that it really does significantly reduce the availability of books that have not be paid for, just that the arguments presented here are against the current implementation rather than DRM itself.
- jellicle 15y ago
  You're misunderstanding the purpose of DRM. Every DRM format is cracked within hours of release. The purpose of DRM is not and never has been to stop "pirates". The purpose of DRM is to get you, the legitimate user, to pay multiple times to use the same content. They want you to pay once to read the book in your kitchen and another time to read the same book in your bedroom and another time if you want to let your wife read it too. By definition, you've already paid once so you're an excellent candidate to get more money out of. The purpose of DRM is to make it hard for you to use multiple devices, hard for you to use different platforms, and so on. So that you'll pay again. These aren't flaws. They're design goals.
nollidge 15y ago
I hate DRM too, but the one area where I'm conflicted is with libraries. There's a strong disincentive to buy if one can just download a book without restrictions on availability or borrowing period.
- smackfu 15y ago
  It's an interesting question. If a library buys all of the DRM-free Tor Books, then puts them up on their website as downloadable files for their community members, is that OK?

60 points by danyork 15y ago

I, also an author, 100% agree with this. Also, the royalties that authors receive (roughly 10% of what the publisher receives after the retailer has taken their large, say 50%, part of the cover price) is tiny. When you consider the months of work to write a book and divide by the return it's not hard to see why authors have a hard time getting upset about 'lost royalties'.

kkowalczyk 15y ago
It's hard to see why authors should act irrationally. If poor royalty, not DRM, are the major reason for poor earnings, authors should complain about royalties, not DRM. It seems to me that today the best way to make money on technical books is to put the whole book for free in html on the web (for marketing and SEO) and sell digital version (PDF/ePub/kindle), where the author gets 70% (kindle) or ~95% (selling PDF/ePub via paypal). If you don't believe in free html version as a marketing tool, don't do it - just build a nice web page for the book with TOC, a free chapter etc. The point is: I'm mystified that authors of technical books (especially those in the programming field) still work with publishers given that self-publishing is potentially so much more lucrative and an author can probably market his own book better than Apress markets an average book they publish.

Prophasi 15y ago

I don't love DRM, but the hyperbole could be notched down. In particular, this cliche: "DRM starts from the premise that all readers are slimeballs and thieves." Such a dire pronouncement doesn't logically follow. DRM starts from the premise that there exist many slimeballs and thieves. Next, that we should thwart as many as we can with technology, even at the inconvenience of paying customers, presumably yielding greater profit than in the absence of DRM. The first assumption's undeniably true; the second is open to much debate. But "all readers are scum" is a needlessly cynical attitude to read into it.

sp332 15y ago
Well the decision is to treat all customers as criminals, just the same as if we already were criminals.
- Prophasi 15y ago
  How so? Criminals are fined or arrested, not prompted to enter authentication information or sync devices via this approved route. Do you think locking your front door treats everyone else in the entire world as a criminal?
danyork 15y ago
While I grant you that those promoting DRM may in fact start from the premise you state, the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves. Perhaps it is an overly cynical attitude... but that is how I view it.
- Prophasi 15y ago
  I'm not in the industry, so I'd expect your cynicism to be greater, I suppose. I get that. But to be accurate (if at the expense of nitpicking): "the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves" We all are potential thieves from the perspective of anyone who doesn't know us; and if you have a valuable good, it's a far more reasonable (and profitable) assessment than "no one is a potential thief." It's the same stance you take when you design a website: "everyone is a potential hacker." A potential thief, however, is not an actual thief, and to repeat what I said above, I don't believe DRM treats users as actual thieves: it treats them as potential thieves until they've authenticated and as honest users afterward. If you have to authenticate annoyingly often, it's a usability problem, but it doesn't change the essential dynamic.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

If we can get the antiDRM movement coming from both content producers and consumers, perhaps distribution will join in.

spatten 15y ago

A list of places to get DRM free ebooks: http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_stores#Dealers_and_Publishers_without_DRM http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_stores#Dealers_and_Pu...

danyork 15y ago
Thanks for the great list!

casca 15y ago

While I don't like DRM and will always choose an alternative product that does not have it, I don't buy these arguments. So looking at his points: "DRM Is Anti-Reader": There's no reason that DRM could allow the easy transfer of a book from one person or platform to another. You could submit a transfer request and the publisher could re-encode the book to the new owner or format. Would you expect that as the purchaser of the book, you'd be allowed to photocopy it and distribute the photocopy? "DRM Locks Readers In To Platforms": This is not necessarily the case. The publisher could easily offer the same book in multiple formats. Converting from source is a trivial technical task. "DRM Adds Unneeded Complexity": DRM does add complexity, but as most people read via an application rather than a text file, this can be abstracted for almost all readers. Again, this is a problem with the implementation. "DRM Stifles Innovation": Authors not getting paid so that they can eat also stifles innovation. There needs to be a balance here, it's not all about making everyone's work free. "DRM Halts The Spread Of Ideas": If someone can't afford the book, in many countries they can go to a library. They don't need ownership to read the ideas. In summary, the issue with DRM for books is the implementation. Many of the problems listed are real but could be almost completely negated by the publishers doing things that cost them almost nothing, even following the assumption that everyone wants to read their books for free. To be clear, I'm not implying that I support DRM or that it really does significantly reduce the availability of books that have not be paid for, just that the arguments presented here are against the current implementation rather than DRM itself.

jellicle 15y ago
You're misunderstanding the purpose of DRM. Every DRM format is cracked within hours of release. The purpose of DRM is not and never has been to stop "pirates". The purpose of DRM is to get you, the legitimate user, to pay multiple times to use the same content. They want you to pay once to read the book in your kitchen and another time to read the same book in your bedroom and another time if you want to let your wife read it too. By definition, you've already paid once so you're an excellent candidate to get more money out of. The purpose of DRM is to make it hard for you to use multiple devices, hard for you to use different platforms, and so on. So that you'll pay again. These aren't flaws. They're design goals.

nollidge 15y ago

I hate DRM too, but the one area where I'm conflicted is with libraries. There's a strong disincentive to buy if one can just download a book without restrictions on availability or borrowing period.

smackfu 15y ago
It's an interesting question. If a library buys all of the DRM-free Tor Books, then puts them up on their website as downloadable files for their community members, is that OK?