

Doctorow, How to Destroy the Book - michael_dorfman
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/doctorow-how-destroy-book

======
SlyShy
The publishing industry needs to change, and it should take Steam as its
example.

The way I see it, the economics of publishing are entirely backwards right
now. A creative producer, who wishes to distribute their goods to the masses,
should look for a distributer in a competitive market. The current system is
that the distributer looks for creative producers, and filters out lots of
artists that it doesn't think will be successful. This is as absurd as a
trucking company looking to nurture manufacturing businesses so it has more
things to ship.

Let's consider the issue of pirating. It's not a false dichotomy to state
there are two kinds of pirates. The kind that can afford the item they are
pirating, and the kind that can't.

If someone pirates an item because they can't afford it, the producer isn't
losing any potential income, because the pirate has none to give regardless.
Stamping down on this kind of piracy is pointless.

If someone pirates an item they can afford, however, then you've got problems.
What this indicates is that someone found pirating to be more convenient than
the legal way of buying the item. Would people really buy more items instead
of pirating them if it was more convenient and pleasant to buy the item
legally? Steam certainly indicates so. Take a look at the thousands of Reddit
comments on steam. One of the remarkable themes that emerges from those
comments is this kind, "Downloaded this from Steam, even though I already own
the CDs, because I didn't feel like looking for them" or "Bought it on Steam
after I torrented it". (If you don't believe me, seriously, look for youself.
Also note that Reddit users are basically the demographic of people who pirate
out of convenience.)

What this indicates is that traditional publishing as done in the film, book,
or game industries haven't been keeping pace with the consumer's desire for
convenience. You can blame an uncompetitive market for that. If creative
producers were able to select from a gamut of publishing companies and
evaluate cost versus effectiveness of sales, etc., then publishers would be
forced to innovate. And also to offer better deals to artists.

Of course, the established industry is resistent to change, which is why we
are getting all of this DRM. They are approaching the problem of downloading
for convenience in exactly the wrong way. Instead of trying to make purchasing
games, music, movies, and books more convenient (like Steam has done with
games) they are trying to make pirating less convenient. Guess which approach
would be more efficient, but would actually take some thought and overhaul of
the current system? Amazon is moving in the right direction with the Kindle.

~~~
mlLK
Still though, the shitty thing with Steam (or why Valve is so evil) is the
fact that the customer can not act as a reseller if he/she is either
unsatisfied with the game or is just tired of playing it.

I don't really know what sort of model (subscription?) Steam has implemented
here, but it appears very monopolistic and evil given the PC gaming market.

<http://www.digitalruin.net/node/55>

~~~
ElliotH
But on the other hand you do get some advantages in return for that sacrifice
of your 'reseller' right. For example, the ability to use your game wherever
you want, however many times you reinstall or whatever.

Theres a real risk Valve or any company that controls your software could go
bust - and then you'd be in trouble, but in my opinion Valve is more
trustworthy than, for example, EA - since you can at least redownload your
software and use it more than some fixed number of times.

~~~
steveklabnik
Valve has also stated that in this situation, they'll release the keys to the
Steam servers.

------
GavinB
DRM isn't the main issue. Most book readers don't know or care about it
particularly. Yes, eventually ownership products should be DRM-free, but
raging about it from a moralistic standpoint isn't helping with the key
issues.

We need affordable, high quality readers with convenient, low priced books.
DRM-free would be great, but if some DRM lets the transition happen more
quickly, then so be it.

Hulu, Steam, etc all show that DRM can be useful and create compelling
products.

I would also remind all web startup founders that the SaaS model is basically
DRM. One of the major benefits of server-side code is that it is very hard to
pirate. You don't "own" your instance of Basecamp, you just rent it. And
there's nothing wrong with that.

~~~
stcredzero
_the SaaS model is basically DRM._

How is that DRM? With DRM, you _have the machine_ in your hands, and yet you
can't do what you want with it. If you don't have the machine, didn't pony up
any money for it, then I don't see that you have a right to complain.

Bits are not hardware, and hardware is not bits.

~~~
GavinB
We're talking about audio files, ebooks, and software--it's all bits. The
difference is just on whose drive the bits reside.

"Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term for access control
technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright
holders and individuals to try to impose limitations on the usage of digital
content and devices."
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management>)

The current best way to control access to software is to run some key
components on the server side in the SaaS model. From a business perspective,
it accomplishes the goals of DRM beautifully--because the DRM naturally flows
from its purpose and structure.

~~~
stcredzero
_the DRM naturally flows from its purpose and structure._

To me that's just a fancy way of saying, it's on their server, they get their
way. Not a problem, so long as I can do it my way on my machine. Therein is
the big difference.

~~~
GavinB
You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to
download DRMed content.

DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects
content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical
approaches to achieve the same goal. I suspect the reason that no one objects
is that SaaS uses the language of "subscription."

I just have a hard time seeing why a DRMed program that runs on a client is
morally repugnant while a functionally similar program running partially in
the cloud is perfectly fine.

~~~
stcredzero
_You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to
download DRMed content._

The DMCA contradicts you.

 _DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects
content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical
approaches to achieve the same goal._

Not at all. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a long standing common law
principle. The way companies can "own" stuff you have in your possession runs
counter to that. Not a good thing, IMO.

~~~
GavinB
What DRMed files is the DMCA forcing you to download? _You_ make the decision
to engage with companies that use DRM. No one is forcing you. (I don't mean to
defend the entire DMCA, just the idea that you're being forced to download
DRM)

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is not a useful principle in cases where
there is a contract. It seems that you want to force others to _not have the
option_ of entering into certain contracts, because you find them distasteful.

~~~
stcredzero
_It seems that you want to force others to not have the option of entering
into certain contracts, because you find them distasteful._

[citation needed]

Really, have I ever asked for legislation? I don't think I did. Please point
this out in the thread. My _actual_ position is that DRM and SaaS are two
different things, because the former restricts what you can do on machines
_that you possess_. You reply by pointing out that you can simply choose not
to participate. However, my fear is that DRM on home computers and laptops
will become as widespread as DRM in DVD players. And yes, this battle should
be fought in the marketplace. This seems to be working so far, somewhat. Or is
it?

That's an interesting point. If I wanted to buy a _new_ laptop or desktop
completely free of DRM, how easy or hard is it for me to do so? Well, leave
out any machines that come with Windows or OS X installed. Those contain DRM.
Leave out machines with HDMI -- this also contains DRM. I think I'd have to
build my own machine or custom order one.

I think we're in danger of becoming a world where non-DRM hardware is hard to
attain. There is far less danger of restrictive SaaS. If we don't like one
provider, we simply move to a different one. The market for SaaS is still a
bit more "free."

~~~
GavinB
_DRM and SaaS are two different things, because the former restricts what you
can do on machines that you possess._

Okay, i think this is our only serious point of disagreement. I guess I just
care _how_ I am restricted, not where the specific restrictions come from, or
whether they take place locally or on the server.

Going forward watch for all consumer software that can conceivably go SaaS to
do so, as client-based programs become completely unprofitable. They'll say
it's because of the advantages of the cloud, but a large portion of it will be
because SaaS achieves the goals of DRM.

------
motters
I just bought my first electronic book recently in PDF format, without any
DRM. As a "book person" I might consider getting an ebook reader at some point
in the future, provided that the copyright/licensing issues are clarified and
nobody is restricting what files I add or remove from the device. Retailers or
publishers should not be able to remove or modify books on an ebook reader
without the permission of the owner of the device/books.

Personally I wouldn't knowingly purchase anything which contained DRM,
although I realize that probably most consumers aren't as hardcore on these
issues as I am.

------
pragmatic
Another strawman, lending books.

I've found over and over again that a book that I loan to someone, or one that
someone loans to me, remains unread.

Same with games.

The game is changing under your nose. Major titles and books for cheap prices.
Consumers win big.

The practical result is that all producers of creative content are in a race
to zero.

I considered building an indy flash/silverlight game recently. But if you can
get great AAA games for $5, how on earth can you compete with that.

------
flatline
Many people - probably most - don't care. My wife buys new pop fiction
hardbacks and gives them away when done reading them, she doesn't want to have
the burden of the book to store somewhere or lug around. She used to throw
them in the trash until I yelled at her about it and we gave a bunch to the
library. The goal is to read the material cheaply and conveniently, not to own
a copy of the material.

~~~
lukifer
For some, it's the exact opposite: buying a copy of something you've already
read, in order to lend it out or display it on your bookshelf.
[http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2009/08/08/the_book_st...](http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2009/08/08/the_book_stalker.html)

~~~
Semiapies
This is why the focus on One True Model (book ownership or license rights)
strikes me as a red herring.

------
pragmatic
My books/games are available for re-download anytime/anyplace. I can't lose my
books/game disks. Half price products. (I can buy it again if I need to).

I don't understand the problem. DRM == strawman?

~~~
oiuytgfhj
Anytime? Or until your kindle breaks, or Amazon decide to stop offering the
service. or your ebook supplier gets bought by a competitor and discontinues
your device. Or they decide to introduce a new fee structure that you don't
want to pay?

Anybody notice any small print in their contracts where Amazon offer free,
eternal downloads of books to any future device

------
pragmatic
The Kindle supports small independent publishers:

<https://dtp.amazon.com/mn/signin>

------
dmoney
I recommend reading the full speech: <http://thevarsity.ca/articles/23855>

------
pragmatic
With the concern over carbon, isn't digital delivery of goods a win/win?

~~~
oiuytgfhj
Not if it includes digital 'taking back' of goods you thought you owned - when
your dealer decides to get out of the market, or change their business plan or
you don't want to sign up for their next offering.

