5 ms·

I have to wonder if the authors who demanded DRM from Amazon have figured out that this is the kind of behavior that drives people to download books illegally,

I have to wonder if the authors who demanded DRM from Amazon have figured out that this is the kind of behavior that drives people to download books illegally, or if they still fail to see the connection.

shmerl 13y ago
Probably most of the time it's not demanded by authors, but by legacy publishers. They have some distortion in their mind, which was already compared to Lysenkoism: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/50413-with-a-little-help-digital-lysenkoism.html http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blog...
- betterunix 13y ago
  Perhaps, but then I am left wondering about newly written books -- why are the authors continuing to endorse DRM? Why are the authors continuing to do business with the publishers who demand it?
  - shmerl 13y ago
    It's not about new vs old books, it's about forward thinking vs backward thinking publishers. I.e. the story goes like this: When authors write books, and want to publish them, most of the time they has no means to do it. So they look for publishers to fund that. If publishers are thick-sculled and backward thinking (i.e. afflicted by DRM Lysenkoism), or otherwise somehow crooked, they demand DRM to be part of the deal. Authors might not like that, but they think they have no choice etc. If publishers are normal on the other hand, they don't care about DRM. Crowdfunding often helps to prevent all this mess, and it's starting to play a bigger role in publishing, not just for books, but for other media (video, games, etc.) which also is often afflicted by DRM because of the legacy publishers. Notably, practically no self publishing authors ever use DRM. As with many areas, old publishers for some reason most of the time are afflicted by DRM. Newer ones - less so. I can't explain the exact correlation, since DRM is really such a stupid thing than anyone with common sense would know that it's bad for business. More than often my feeling is that DRM is used for stupid (Lysenkoism) or side sinister and selfish reasons (covering one's incompetence, controlling technology progress, spying on users or what not).
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  It definitely isn't authors, at least not conventionally-published ones. TradPub authors have essentially zero input in the marketing and distribution of the book (they usually don't even get any input on the cover design). Amazon's publishing portal lets the publisher add DRM or not -- it's a checkbox. So, yeah, the blame for DRM (or praise for non-DRM) should accrue to the publisher, not the author (unless it's an indie author) or Amazon.
  - waps 13y ago
    It tends to be the legal system. With phycical books there was no question of going after illegal copies, but now with DRM you can actually go after physical copies, so the court demands that. Amazon "usually" doesn't have a choice in this matter. Of course the better way to proceed is to make sure they don't have a choice.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      What does court have to do with Amazon or publishers using DRM? It's not a sanctioned practice, it's their own unethical choice.

shmerl 13y ago

Probably most of the time it's not demanded by authors, but by legacy publishers. They have some distortion in their mind, which was already compared to Lysenkoism: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/50413-with-a-little-help-digital-lysenkoism.html http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blog...

betterunix 13y ago
Perhaps, but then I am left wondering about newly written books -- why are the authors continuing to endorse DRM? Why are the authors continuing to do business with the publishers who demand it?
- shmerl 13y ago
  It's not about new vs old books, it's about forward thinking vs backward thinking publishers. I.e. the story goes like this: When authors write books, and want to publish them, most of the time they has no means to do it. So they look for publishers to fund that. If publishers are thick-sculled and backward thinking (i.e. afflicted by DRM Lysenkoism), or otherwise somehow crooked, they demand DRM to be part of the deal. Authors might not like that, but they think they have no choice etc. If publishers are normal on the other hand, they don't care about DRM. Crowdfunding often helps to prevent all this mess, and it's starting to play a bigger role in publishing, not just for books, but for other media (video, games, etc.) which also is often afflicted by DRM because of the legacy publishers. Notably, practically no self publishing authors ever use DRM. As with many areas, old publishers for some reason most of the time are afflicted by DRM. Newer ones - less so. I can't explain the exact correlation, since DRM is really such a stupid thing than anyone with common sense would know that it's bad for business. More than often my feeling is that DRM is used for stupid (Lysenkoism) or side sinister and selfish reasons (covering one's incompetence, controlling technology progress, spying on users or what not).
Turing_Machine 13y ago
It definitely isn't authors, at least not conventionally-published ones. TradPub authors have essentially zero input in the marketing and distribution of the book (they usually don't even get any input on the cover design). Amazon's publishing portal lets the publisher add DRM or not -- it's a checkbox. So, yeah, the blame for DRM (or praise for non-DRM) should accrue to the publisher, not the author (unless it's an indie author) or Amazon.
- waps 13y ago
  It tends to be the legal system. With phycical books there was no question of going after illegal copies, but now with DRM you can actually go after physical copies, so the court demands that. Amazon "usually" doesn't have a choice in this matter. Of course the better way to proceed is to make sure they don't have a choice.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    What does court have to do with Amazon or publishers using DRM? It's not a sanctioned practice, it's their own unethical choice.