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.
Certainly in terms of the DRM and licensing issues the Kindle is a step backwards, but it is an attempt to make purchasing books more convenient. As a lifelong bibliophile, I'm still waiting for something better to come along.
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.
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.
> The publishing industry needs to change, and it should take Steam as its example.
Err, you seem to have missed the entire point of the linked post. The linked post is noting that the publishing industry is changing, and that it is adopting Steam as a model, and the post is railing against that change. You don't own games purchased from Steam. You can't sell them, you can't will them to your offspring upon your demise, you can't loan them, you can't rent them. Indeed, a Steam purchase should be characterized as a brief, limited, rental agreement and it should be unlawful for Steam to use the word "purchase" anywhere in their descriptive text.
Perhaps my line of reasoning was too sideways to be seen clearly as a response to this post. And you also may have misinterpreted my citation of Steam.
In my view DRM exists because a dying industry is trying to hang on. Refer to the last paragraph. My argument is that DRM is wasteful, ineffective, and the result of an industry that isn't changing.
Steam is an example not because of its DRM, but because of its convenience. Steam would be even better without DRM, of course. And I think if there were a competitor to Steam that offered the same service and prices without DRM, people would choose that competitor. I state very clearly that I think DRM is caused by this kind of stagnation, where competitors that could win market share by not being dicks to their customers don't exist.
To most consumers, including me, "renting" a AAA game from steam for as long as I could conceivably want to play it is a simply fantastic. I simply don't care if I "own" it or not.
Same with the Kindle. I buy books for $9.99 that are 50 to 100% more in printed format and even more at a retail location.
So from a consumer standpoint, I get a product in a better format, I like reading books on the Kindle, I love downloading games. I get those products at less than 50%.
So if I want to share a book with someone, I can still buy it in print format. Or I simply buy it for them. Considering the goods are half priced or less, It's still a win.
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.
You don't "own" your instance of Basecamp, you just rent it. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Some might disagree.
Personally I find SaaS to be a general business imposition with significant long-term costs in terms of lock-in, operational expenditure, and an inherently poor negotiating position with the vendor.
I dislike required service contracts or yearly per-head licensing fees for the same reason.
With more openly licensed software, a key differentiator is that we can choose to continue to use a previous version of the software, whereas if we cease paying for a service, we must migrate all operations, data, and training.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But surely the distinction with a 'subscription' is more than just a language game? To my mind, a one-time fee for content strongly implies (by way of cultural expectation if nothing else) that I own rather than license that content.
On the other hand, for a subscription service such as Basecamp, my interactions with my data must necessarily be mediated by a server. I do of course expect a way to export the data itself should I wish to unsubscribe - and they provide this. What more could I reasonably expect from them?
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.
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.
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."
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.
"Most book readers don't know or care about it particularly."
This is just false: may not care about the mechanism, but they certainly notice the practicalities - the aforementioned lending, selling, bequeathing, etc. - and will be heavily reminded of them when e.g. the Kindle is no longer the market leader for ebook reading.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.