# That Darn DRM



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

When you buy a book a book from Amazon it comes with DRM, which is restrictive software that limits what we can do with the book.

If you buy a paper book, you can do anything with it.  You can loan it to a friend or give it away. 

The DRM tells you what you can do with the Kindle book.  You might not be able to listen to your book if this feature is turned off.  If the publisher sells the book in audio form, you can be the publisher be sure that he will put in this restriction.  Also the DRM can turn off the loaning feature.

It also prevents you from converting the Kindle format to an epub so you can read it on the Nook.  

So you can invest a lot of money in books that can only be read by the Kindle.  So what happens if the Kindle goes under?  It seems like you are stuck with a lot of books that are not readable or transportable to another device.

I can remember buying movies on VCR tapes.  Then DVD came along and was so much better than the VCR went out the window.  That was a lot of money down the drain.

Will something come along better than the Kindle?  More than likely it will since technology is constantly changing.

Of course, the real solution to DRM is just to remove the DRM after you buy the book.  Then you actually own it instead of renting it.

However, removing the DRM is probably beyond the computer knowledge of most people so that is not a viable option for most people.

Frankly I think putting DRM on Kindle books should be illegal, but big business gets these laws passed to help themselves.  So this probably will not change.

One person said on a similar discussion that we should only buy DRM free books.  I am sure not aware of anyone though that sells DRM free books for the Kindle or for the Nook.

So what do you think of that darn DRM?


----------



## KingAl (Feb 21, 2011)

There are sites with non-DRMed books for the Kindle, such as Baen, Smashwords, and a bunch of others I can't remember offhand.

Similar to the music industry, I think DRM will go away in a few years.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Not all books from Amazon have DRM. Authors and publishers who publish through Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing have the option to turn DRM on or off. I don't believe that the DRM status is automatically listed in the book's details, though, so authors/publishers who choose to not have DRM should be sure to say so on their product page (nudge, nudge, see signature), because it is a selling point to many people.

As a reader & buyer of Amazon books, I'm OK with the system as it is, for now. I don't think Amazon will ever "go under", but if it did, I do not see an ethical problem with stripping the DRM - _at that time_ - so that you can continue to read the books you've paid for.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Eltanin Publishing said:


> As a reader & buyer of Amazon books, I'm OK with the system as it is, for now. I don't think Amazon will ever "go under", but if it did, I do not see an ethical problem with stripping the DRM - _at that time_ - so that you can continue to read the books you've paid for.


Same. DRM is an annoyance, but since I don't care about lending or giving away/selling books it doesn't really affect me.


----------



## Sporadic (May 1, 2009)

Sam Rivers said:


> Of course, the real solution to DRM is just to remove the DRM after you buy the book. Then you actually own it instead of renting it.
> 
> However, removing the DRM is probably beyond the computer knowledge of most people so that is not a viable option for most people.


The people who know or care about DRM can easily find out how to break it and do whatever they want with their files.

The people who don't know or care about DRM, don't know or don't care.

Seems like a non-issue to me.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

DRM isn't free, so it increases the cost we pay for books without actually stopping people from copying them.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2011)

"DRM isn't free, so it increases the cost we pay for books . . ."
______________

I have to disagree. Authors (or publishers) set the price for their books. Since DRM is offered to authors for free, then the book price is not affected.


----------



## SusanCassidy (Nov 9, 2008)

From Amazon, the DRM is basically free.  They just add it in on the fly when you download the book.  A tiny amount of extra processing on the server.  I'd be hard pressed to say it even costs 1 cent.  No contract with Adobe, like a lot of other sellers.

As the OP probably well knows, the difference between a paperback and an ebook is that you can have many copies of an ebook without losing your own copy, and that's why publishers want DRM, to prevent unauthorized extra copies.  Actually, I've been noticing more and more non-DRM books on Amazon.

I doubt Amazon is going to go under in the foreseeable future.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

It is easy enough to remove DRM if you want to. Really simple. It would be nice to not have to but it is not tough.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

ProfCrash, that is true since you can get a plugin for Calibre to do it for you.  There is no work involved at all.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Reminder: According to KindleBoards Forum Decorum

- DRM (Digital Rights Management): We do not allow threads or posts that include instructions, or links to instructions, on ways to hack, crack, or otherwise get around DRM protections. The term 'DRM' refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital content. Kindle books, e-books in general, purchased music, and other published digital content typically contain DRM controls. It is acceptable to post about DRM in general, e.g. to discuss DRM-related issues and benefits.

FWIW, this discussion _has_ been had many times on these boards. Bottom line: most books from Amazon will have DRM, though a publisher can choose for it not to. If it's there, to remove it is against the Terms of Service you agree to when purchasing the Kindle or a Kindle book. Is that good or bad? Maybe yes, maybe no. There are pros and cons. There are proponents and detractors. Minds are rarely changed, and discussion sometimes gets heated. Let's try not to do that, eh? 

And for sure, any specific reference as to HOW to remove DRM -- from Kindle books or those for any other reader -- will be deleted without comment.

Ann
KB Moderator


----------



## NightGoat (Feb 2, 2011)

Remember, you can't spell, "*D*arn! This *R*eally makes me *M*ad!" without DRM.


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

I think at this point DRM is fairly necessary inconvenience.  Yes it can be broken.  But I think the sharing rules (multiple kindles on an account primarily) are fairly generous (I have 10 people and 15 devices on my account).  I think it is the cost of getting books into ebook format.  Once the format is successful and people go through the frustration of losing books because they want to switch brands of readers, there will be enough backlash to remove DRM.  But I would rather have a large number of books with DRM than a very small group of books available and no-DRM. I bought and read from Baen for years before Amazon really took off, but the advantages of an integrated system I think outweigh the DRM free books.


----------



## Xopher (May 14, 2009)

The .mobi/.prc format that Amazon's format is based upon has been around for 10+ years. I remember reading MobiPocket ebooks on my Casio BE-300 PDA back before smartphones came into existence. The books I purchased back then are still readable on my current reading devices (have to re-download to get new DRM licenses for new devices). Amazon bought MobiPocket for their format.

I don't think there will be much to worry about with formats changing anytime soon. They may enhance it, like adding in book page numbers, or even lending capabilities (I think the original .mobi format had expiration dates already built in), but the base format should be around for quite a while. Since Amazon owns the .mobi/.prc format, they don't have to pay a license fee to another company (like paying Adobe to use their ePub DRM), so there is incentive to keep the format around for a while.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

A lot of indy authors, myself included, take a no-DRM stance, and Amazon allows that. To me it's one selling point among several. Obviously the quality (or I should say, the "anticipated quality") of the book is #1, but with so many books on the market, DRM or the lack thereof might come into play now and again.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

I did a search of books last night on my Calibre.  It shows if the book has DRM.  I was surprised to find that some were DRM free.

Perhaps this could be a selling point for some books since many people don't like the heavy hand of big brother.


----------



## D/W (Dec 29, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> A lot of indy authors, myself included, take a no-DRM stance, and Amazon allows that.


Yes!

You can tell if a book is DRM-free at Amazon because it will state "Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited" in the "Product Details" description. If you _don't_ see that statement, I believe you can assume that the book has DRM protection.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

Sam Rivers said:


> Perhaps this could be a selling point for some books since many people don't like the _heavy hand of big brother_.


This is a comment I really don't understand. DRM, while easy to strip, is a bit of protection for the author. Why on earth do people complain about not being able to make an unlimited number of copies of a $3 book? As someone pointed out, when you loan someone a physical book, that book is gone and out of your possession. Such is not the case with ebooks. Kindle offers an option to lend a book for 14 days. And there are library lending programs out there for ebooks as well. I guess if you're spending $30 on an ebook, I can almost understand the desire to lend it, give it away, or resell it, but for most books, especially fiction, DRM provides the author a modicum of protection. I for one (as a reader, not an author) have no problem with it. Then again, I don't see why people complain about being scanned at the airport either... If you're not planning on doing something illegal with it, why worry?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

samanthawarren said:


> Kindle offers an option to lend a book for 14 days.


To be fair, there are two problems/differences/limitations with this.

1. It seems relatively few books allow lending. I only have a couple that allow it.

2. The ones that are lend-able, can only be lent once, where one could lend their paperback (that generally costs the same or less than the e-book much of the time) as many times as they want.

I personally don't care as I was never much of a lender anyway. But I can see why others who did lend/borrow a lot find it too restrictive currently.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> To be fair, there are two problems/differences/limitations with this.
> 
> 1. It seems relatively few books allow lending. I only have a couple that allow it.
> 
> ...


1. Which is sad. I make sure my books allow lending. 
2. I'm hoping that Amazon will change this in the future. It wasn't long ago that they didn't allow lending at all. The way they have it set up, it's a decent system (doesn't let you read the book while it's lent, much like a DTB), so if they increased the number of times that it could be lent, it becomes a useful feature, IMO.

I agree that the lending system needs work. But I still don't agree that DRM is evil and should be done away with altogether. I don't think the authors should be punished for the lack of functionality on the Kindle.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

samanthawarren said:


> I don't think the authors should be punished for the lack of functionality on the Kindle.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

samanthawarren said:


> 2. I'm hoping that Amazon will change this in the future. It wasn't long ago that they didn't allow lending at all. The way they have it set up, it's a decent system (doesn't let you read the book while it's lent, much like a DTB), so if they increased the number of times that it could be lent, it becomes a useful feature, IMO.


I think that's more a publisher issue than Amazon. Publisher's don't really want lending at all, and conceded to one, so they haven't allowed any books to be lent more than once.

Amazon should change it so self publishing authors can specify books to be lent only once or an unlimited number of times.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


>


Authors can currently only decide whether a book is lend-able or not. They can't allow it to be lent more than one time currently. So I think she was saying that authors shouldn't be punished because of the limited lending ability as they can't change it to allow unlimited lending.

They could go DRM free, but her earlier post shows she likes DRM as it makes it so only one person can have that copy at a time just like a paper book. So what she'd like is the option for her books to have DRM but be allowed to be lent an unlimited number of times. At least that's how I took her post.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> I think that's more a publisher issue than Amazon. Publisher's don't really want lending at all, and conceded to one, so they haven't allowed any books to be lent more than once.
> 
> Amazon should change it so self publishing authors can specify books to be lent only once or an unlimited number of times.


That would be great. I wouldn't mind if my book was lent repeatedly. It's no different than if I loan a book to a friend. If they like it, they'll be more likely to buy it than they would have if they didn't read it at all.

Yes, mooshie explained it. The main valid (in my opinion) complaint about DRM is that it doesn't allow lending. And I think that's something that should be fixed. Some of the other reasons people want DRM removed I don't agree with, but lending is definitely something I do.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

samanthawarren said:


> The main valid (in my opinion) complaint about DRM is that it doesn't allow lending.


I never thought of limited lending as punishing the author - interesting view.

Expanded lending is easily implemented if publishers decide to allow it.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

Elk said:


> I never thought of limited lending as punishing the author - interesting view.


That's not exactly what I was saying, but now that you mention it, it kind of is. I guess there are two lines of thought here. When I said that, I meant that removing the DRM altogether to allow lending would not be an acceptable solution. They could just give them away to as many people as they choose while keeping a copy for themselves, which hurts the author unfairly. There is no incentive for someone to then buy the book beyond the initial purchaser. But not allowing lending at all (or limiting it severely) hurts the author too, because there are sales they could garner from the lent books. (As an example, I got turned onto the Drizzt books, the Song of Ice & Fire series, Harry Potter, and numerous other books through lending or library loans, and then I went out and bought those books.)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> I never thought of limited lending as punishing the author - interesting view.
> 
> Expanded lending is easily implemented if publishers decide to allow it.


I hadn't thought of it either. But having heard her explanation of her reasoning, I do agree with it.

No DRM is a bitter pill for authors who want to profit to swallow for the reasons she outlines. People can make copies that multiple people can have simultaneously and thus erode an unlimited number of potential sales.

But at the same time, current DRM is too restrictive in some ways--limited lending being one of them. So author's may be unfairly punished by people skipping their books for having DRM and only being able to be lent once, when authors can't currently change the lending limitations.

So Amazon should change that to let publishers and authors decide whether a book is only lend-able once or an unlimited number of times (having more options just needlessly complicates things). A book that could be lent out an unlimited number of times would silence a lot of gripes about DRM IMO--not all by any means, but a good bit of them.

While also allowing authors who prefer having their books DRMd like Samantha the ability to do so without restricting lending options automatically.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

I don't see how removing the DRM hurts the author at all.  Just because a person removes the DRM doesn't mean that she is going to give the book to someone else.  Maybe she just doesn't like to have the DRM on it since it restricts her from doing something with it, like having the Kindle read to her.

Everyone acts like it is easy to remove the DRM.  Obviously that is wrong since it is not easy and very few people will ever be able to do it.  It is not like music which was easy to bypass the DRM.  All a person had to do was play the music and then record it.  The DRM was actually removed, but a new copy was created, DRM free.

To remove the DRM a person has to actually buy the book.  Then she has to go through a complicated process to remove the DRM.  I looked at the process and although I consider myself fairly smart on computers, it is beyond my abilities and beyond most of the other people here too.

So while people are debating the merits of removing or not removing the DRM, it isn't actually possible to do it easily.  So it is really a non issue.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Reminder: According to KindleBoards Forum Decorum
> 
> - DRM (Digital Rights Management): We do not allow threads or posts that include instructions, or links to instructions, on ways to hack, crack, or otherwise get around DRM protections. The term 'DRM' refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital content. Kindle books, e-books in general, purchased music, and other published digital content typically contain DRM controls. It is acceptable to post about DRM in general, e.g. to discuss DRM-related issues and benefits.
> 
> ...


Just thought I'd remind y'all of this again.


----------



## screwballl (Jan 4, 2011)

Part of the problem also comes in with the "criminalization of civil law".

You take/steal your neighbors car = criminal law
Your neighbor lends you his car but you understand it was given as a present = civil law

You pay your neighbor normal and full asking price for the car, but later on he calls the cops on you after you paint and modify the car claiming the agreement was a lease or rent purpose = criminalized civil law per DRM standards. (Of course this is hypothetical as vehicle sale/rent/leases are stated as such, which is more than we can say about the digital media industry.)

The movie and DRM industry now has us by the short hairs with the criminalization of civil law and refusal of the Justice Department to shoot down these laws. The way these DRM laws and "agreements" are worded, it is actually a form of you renting/leasing the vehicle permanently, with the stipulation that you never change the paint job, never fix it if it breaks, never modify it, never sell it, only destroy the vehicle after you are done using it. If something breaks, you either use it until the entire thing is unusable, and/or trash it and spend the money on a brand new replacement.

As it pertains to digital media, ownership of said media is at the heart of the problem which is really the first time in history you purchase a item that you do not actually own. You purchase an item, doesn't matter if it is a VCR tape, DVD, music CD, mp3, ebook or streaming movie, yet the industry claims you are only "renting/leasing" the media.

I am just waiting until we start seeing lawsuits where the people take screenshots/pictures of the pages and store displays that state "purchase now", "buy now", "purchase price", "sale price" and so on, which means you are entering into a legal agreement to purchase the item. The signs/websites do NOT say "rent now", "lease now" which is an agreement to rent, lease or temporarily take possession of the item, and see how well that holds up in court.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

Sam Rivers said:


> IMaybe she just doesn't like to have the DRM on it since it restricts her from doing something with it, like having the Kindle read to her.


That's a valid argument and one I agree with. I always enable text-to-speech. It's a very handy feature.


----------



## hamerfan (Apr 24, 2011)

Funny, I'm new to Kindle so DRM hasn't bothered me at all. As a self-confessed music freak, though, DRM raises my hackles! I bought the music, dammit. Let me do what I want to with it.
But with the ebooks and DRM, meh. 
Hypocritical, ain't it?


----------



## Xopher (May 14, 2009)

On a side note, B&N uses DRM on their ebooks. Apple has DRM on their ebooks as well ( even though they are ePub, ebooks purchased through Apple cannot be read on non-iDevices).

I would love to see DRM go by the wayside, but until then, I'm glad that the ebooks I purchase through Amazon can be read on almost any device (I can read on a Kindle, BlackBerry, PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device).


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

samanthawarren said:


> . . . I guess there are two lines of thought here. <snip>


Very thoughtful, well-thought out response included in the "snipped" part. Nicely done.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

screwballl said:


> . . . ownership of said media is at the heart of the problem which is really the first time in history you purchase a item that you do not actually own.


It is functionally the same as owning a physical book. With a physical book you only own the container/pages, not the content. The words are not yours.

With an e-book it is essentially the same. You don't own the content, you do not have the right to copy and distribute the contents, but you do own the one physical manifestation of it.

DRM attempts to enforce this. It keeps one from copying the contents, the part you do not own. Unfortunately, as a side effect it keeps one from giving the copy you legitimately own away or loaning to another.

Interestingly, we accept that with a physical book we can only read the copy in the way it is presented. Wed on't expect anotehr free copy with large text, an audible version, etc. Yet with an ebook, many expect to be able to copy the contents on to any medium or reader they choose.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

hamerfan said:


> Funny, I'm new to Kindle so DRM hasn't bothered me at all. As a self-confessed music freak, though, DRM raises my hackles! I bought the music, dammit. Let me do what I want to with it.
> But with the ebooks and DRM, meh.
> Hypocritical, ain't it?


I'm much the same. I think the difference for me is replay value. Music I love I'll periodically listen to for ages (probably for my whole life given I still listen mostly to bands I got into a as a teenager in the mid to late 90s!). But I seldom re-read books, so the DRM stuff is kind of a moot point for me for 99% of books. I don't care about loaning and I'll never re-read most books so it just doesn't affect me.

But if I buy an album, I want to be sure I can listen to it years down the road. Same with movies as I re-watch movies often.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

screwballl said:


> I am just waiting until we start seeing lawsuits where the people take screenshots/pictures of the pages and store displays that state "purchase now", "buy now", "purchase price", "sale price" and so on, which means you are entering into a legal agreement to purchase the item. The signs/websites do NOT say "rent now", "lease now" which is an agreement to rent, lease or temporarily take possession of the item, and see how well that holds up in court.


I think the courts would probably say that the stores had no right to make any such offer, since they don't own the rights.

Mike


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I couldn't figure the value of adding DRM to my novel, but I could foresee some readers' annoyance. That's why I left it DRM-free when Amazon and B&N asked me. I think quite a few other indie novels are DRM-free too. (They show up as "unlimited" sharing on Amazon's site.) Some authors are even okay with piracy, believing it will increase word-of-mouth on their work. Neil Gaiman is one such advocate.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I want buyers to be able to make backup copies of my book. I want them to be able to make copies to read over several platforms. I don't even mind if they give a copy to a few friends.

Yeah, I'd rather that they didn't list it on the internet to distribute for free to millions of people. That's not lending, it's publishing.

I just weigh one set of considerations against the other, and I come out in favor of making my book DRM-free.

Other authors and publishers may come to different conclusions, and that's fine. That's one of the great things about being an indie author/publisher. I can make my own decision and not worry about what others are doing.


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

Xopher said:


> The .mobi/.prc format that Amazon's format is based upon has been around for 10+ years. I remember reading MobiPocket ebooks on my Casio BE-300 PDA back before smartphones came into existence. The books I purchased back then are still readable on my current reading devices (have to re-download to get new DRM licenses for new devices). Amazon bought MobiPocket for their format.
> 
> I don't think there will be much to worry about with formats changing anytime soon. They may enhance it, like adding in book page numbers, or even lending capabilities (I think the original .mobi format had expiration dates already built in), but the base format should be around for quite a while. Since Amazon owns the .mobi/.prc format, they don't have to pay a license fee to another company (like paying Adobe to use their ePub DRM), so there is incentive to keep the format around for a while.


My only real DRM loss was way back when paperback digital went out of business. Their DRM server was also taken off line and could never authorize for other books. Lost about 15-20 books. What this has done for me is insure I will never buy from a small company. Mobipocket spent some (not sure how much) effort trying to get their DRM info so they could enable those purchases but it never went anywhere for the couple years I paid attention to it. I was reading on a Dell Axim at the time so it had to have been around 2000-2003.


----------



## Trulte (Apr 2, 2011)

Am I a criminal? I want you to consider this situation:

I live in Norway, and I love to read ebooks on my Kindle. I also like, once in a while, to read ebooks in Norwegian - naturally. I cannot do that! Not on my preferred gadget, which is my Kindle 3. Why? Mainly because of DRM. And all Norwegian ebooks are sold in the EPUB format - with DRM. 

What do I do?

I buy my Norwegian ebook happily at a price between $25-$50(!). I remove the DRM (easy if you know how to) and convert my ebook to the Kindle readable MOBI format. I do NOT lend this ebook to anybody, not even my boyfriend (because he is Irish and don't read Norwegian..), I do NOT put the ebook file on the internet for anybody to download and I certainly not resell this Norwegian ebook for half the price (which is a more normal price, if you ask me). I actually take better care of this DRM removed and converted ebook file than I do with a paperback, because I often leave paperbacks behind on holiday, forget on the bus, plane, train etc..

If honestly buying an ebook and read it on my preferred gadget is a crime, well - then I'm a criminal...!! That said, 90% of my ebooks I buy from Amazon, but I REFUSE to buy another e-reader just to read a Norwegian ebook once in a while...


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I fail to see how DRM protects the author. This argument was tried by the music industry, DRM protected the artist, and it failed miserably. Today most music is sold DRM free.

1) It is ridiculously easy to remove DRM. Anyone who wants to can figure it out in less then 30 mintues. So the DRM only protects the author if people are willing to accept it. 

2) Print books were easily photocopied and, later, scanned. This allowed piracy. Just ask people who were reading paper bound pirated versions of Harry Potter shortly after it was released. Heck, ask people who are reading Harry Potter on their Kindles right now. Or any number of books

What protects authors and artists is people willingness not to steal their work when they know that it is available through legitimate sales. It is that same willingness to pay for the work as opposed to buying a cheaper pirated version before e-books became common place.

All DRM does is make my life harder. It means I have to work harder when I buy a book to put it on my device. It is an insult to buy a book with DRM because it assumes that I am going to pirate the book. It is insulting and, in the end, useless because the people pirating books are stripping the DRM and putting the books up on torrent sites at a breath taking pace.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

That's part of what I meant about reading a book on various devices. You shouldn't have to read Amazon-purchased books on a Kindle and B&N-purchased books on a Nook and Kobo-purchased books on a Kobo, etc.

With Calibre, you can convert one format to another, but that stupid DRM gets in the way.

Booksellers have to get over themselves and get back to the business of selling books regardless of the reader you read them on!


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

DRM gets in the way if you let it get in the way.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

ProfCrash said:


> What protects authors and artists is people willingness not to steal their work when they know that it is available through legitimate sales.


True. Sadly, however there are many, many people who will not hesitate to copy and illegally widely distribute a work - be it a book, music or movie - especially if it is popular.

Music files typically do not have DRM now only because it created enough problems for a sufficient number of people that the industry stopped distributing MP3s this way. Music piracy remains a massive problem however.

No one yet has devised a way to prevent/minimize theft of intellectual property while not inconveniencing legitimate users.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Trulte said:


> Am I a criminal?
> 
> ...
> 
> I buy my Norwegian ebook happily at a price between $25-$50(!). I remove the DRM (easy if you know how to) and convert my ebook to the Kindle readable MOBI format.


In the U.S. this is legal. It is however illegal to provide software that removes DRM.

I personally find what you are doing to be perfectly acceptable.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Elk said:



> True. Sadly, however there are many, many people who will not hesitate to copy and illegally widely distribute a work - be it a book, music or movie - especially if it is popular.
> 
> Music files typically do not have DRM now only because it created enough problems for a sufficient number of people that the industry stopped distributing MP3s this way. Music piracy remains a massive problem however.
> 
> No one yet has devised a way to prevent/minimize theft of intellectual property while not inconveniencing legitimate users.


Agreed and DRM is not stopping them. All it is doing in inconviencing me.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Xopher said:


> ...I don't think there will be much to worry about with formats changing anytime soon...


I am not saying I'm against DRM necessarily, I just want to point out one situation in which DRM can cause problems due to no longer supported formats. Over on the B&N Nook discussion boards, some people are very upset that the new Nook announced yesterday no longer supports a format called PDB. In the early days of ebooks, many were sold in PDB format from places like Fictionwise. The first Nook supported PDB. The new one doesn't, so people with DRM'ed PDBs have no choice but to break the DRM and convert to a format that a modern ereader can read.

I've already said I'm fine, at the moment, with how Amazon handles their DRM. But many people feel that once they buy a book, they should be able to read it on the device of their choice. I love Amazon and the Kindle, but if someone thought the new Nook was totally awesome, they'd have trouble switching because they can't read their Amazon books on other devices - not because of the file format (formats can be converted) but because of the DRM.

If I decide to buy a different MP3 player, it's not a problem - all my already-bought music can go on any new player. But that is not true with ebooks, and that's a problem.

There are certainly pros and cons to DRM, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out some issues that some people haven't mentioned.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Anyone who thinks that DRM prevents piracy is kidding themselves. Do you have any idea how easy it is to strip DRM?

ALL DRM does is inconvenience honest users. Most honest users don't know how (obviously there are exceptions), but I assure you that people who pirate software/novels/music know how to. It never prevents piracy. I can go out and find any and ALL novels that have DRM on bit-torrent somewhere.

But as far as I'm concerned there is another important issue.

People loan books. People have always loaned books. This is NOT a bad thing! Writers get new readers by people loaning out books or from library loans. Writers who don't realize that are shooting themselves in the foot.

By the way, if it hasn't been mentioned (and I plead guilty to not having read all the posts) INDIE AUTHORS do NOT have to DRM their work and many don't. Some choose not to.

As for a non-indie author and his opinion on piracy? I give you Neil Gaiman:






I admit my opinion on this has more to do with me as an author than as a reader or consumer, but I have long opposed DRM of products which prevents full and free use of products which *I* have paid for or which my readers have paid for.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

ProfCrash said:


> Agreed and DRM is not stopping them. All it is doing in inconviencing me.


Yep, that's the rub with DRM. It does nothing to stop the pirates as by nature they are relatively tech savy types who know where to go online to find pirated material, how to use torrent programs etc. So they can certainly strip the DRM which is a pretty simple task. So it just inconveniences regular users who may not be as tech savy, while not even being a speed bump for piracy.

The only way to slow piracy is two fold (and I don't really know a good way to do either unfortunately).

1. Change the popular view of piracy being ok/justifiable. Most people pirating things would never shoplift or steal physical products, but they seen nothing wrong with obtaining copyrighted material without paying for it and/or distributing illegal copies to others. Stealing a physical product is of course worse as you're depriving a store or person of a tangible good so there's more clear loss involved. But we need to get rid of this view that piracy isn't a wrong and isn't harming artists, publishers etc. some how so more people refrain from it simply for moral reasons.

2. Some way to raise the percentage of pirates (especially major ones) get caught and punished. Part of that also has to make the punishment fit the crimes, and not be huge symbolic law suits where that are rare and the person doesn't end up actually having to pay that huge sum anyway. Make it a misdemeanor that comes with a fine of MSRP of the pirated content plus a 25% penalty, with the risk of getting a misdemeanor arrest on your record as the main deterrent. Have it be a felony if the value of the pirated content exceded the threshold for petty theft in the state in question and gets into the felony grand theft level. Still should be no prison time for it, but couple fines with probation and community service.

But again, neither will be easy to do. It's naive to think any kind of public service message is going to change people's (especially kids/teens) about piracy being a moral wrong. For the second, changing the laws is feasible, but the policing side of it is very difficult as it's not easy to police the internet and catch pirates. And there's no easy solution to doing that. Is it a new federal agency who does it? Does each state need their own agency (if it's state laws)? If so who pays for these agencies? Tax payers? Publishers/record labels/studios? So as much as that needs done, it may not be feasible.

It's just a tough/scary time to be a successful artist. For an up and comer it's a great time as its easy to self publish and get your work out there. But for established authors, musicians etc. who don't need to build a fan base, it's no doubt a big source of lost revenue.

Authors probably have it the worst. Musicians make most of their money from touring and merchandise, so they can weather the piracy. Movies don't have that but do have rising ticket prices (especially with 3D showings) to keep earnings from getting hit as severly. Authors don't have anything really but book sales, aside from the lucky few that write a huge hit where they can sell the movie rights and rights to merchandising etc.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

DreamWeaver said:


> . . . if I purchased another type of e-reading device in the future, I'd be pretty irritated that I couldn't just transfer the e-book from my Kindle to the new reader [because of DRM].


It would, of course, be frustrating - but why should ebooks be any different than any other piece of software? We bought Kindle books as Kindle books, not as generic ebooks.

It is the ease of copying computer files that leads us to believe that we should be able to use them any way we want.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> It would, of course, be frustrating - but why should ebooks be any different than any other piece of software? We bought Kindle books as Kindle books, not as generic ebooks.
> 
> It is the ease of copying computer files that leads us to believe that we should be able to use them any way we want.


I don't think it's that easy of copying files so much as it is our traditional experience with media.

We buy a movie on VHS/DVD/Blu Ray etc. and it will play on any brand of hardware that reads the disc/tape. Same with CDs.

A better parallel is digital music. It used to be DRMd, but it's been DRM free for years so now you can buy a digital album and load it on any MP3 player, computer etc. There's really no rational reason for digital books or digital movies to be treated any differently than digital music. The threat/risk of piracy is the same.

So hopefully DRM will eventually die off like it did in music. Again, I don't really care that much personally since I don't re-read and there are Kindle apps on every platform. But I'd prefer things not be DRMd so I could easily put it on another e-reader device down the road if it happens to lack a Kindle app.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> We buy a movie on VHS/DVD/Blu Ray etc. and it will play on any brand of hardware that reads the disc/tape.


This example actually supports my point. You buy a movie but can only use it on a specific type of hardware. Additionally, you can't make a copy of it for keeping at your cabin or transcoding to your portable device without removing DRM. You have one copy to play or to loan. If technology changes, you don't don't get additional copies in the new format. As with a Kindle book, you don't "own" the movie but have a license - you only own the specific copy. Yet we generally accept these limitations without much complaint.

Kindle books are in some ways easier to access than a movie. You can read it on multiple Kindles and transfer the license if your original Kindle dies. Typically six different Kindles - and Kindle apps on many _different _machine types - can read a single book simultaneously _and _a copy can reside on each. This last aspect is broader than a DVD. Yet, as a group, we bristle that a Kindle e-book may, at some point, become obsolete and whine we don't get to use it on every possible device. (If you want permanent, buy a physical book.)



> A better parallel is digital music. It used to be DRMd, but it's been DRM free for years.


I don't find this to be a good parallel. CDs were always DRM free. It was only "pre-ripped and transcoded to MP3" files that were ever protected. More significantly, no one felt entitled to multiple copies of CDs (such as for the car, portable players, etc.) until CD burners came out and they were easy to copy.

CDs are a good parallel however in that many feel entitled to as many copies as they want, and readily make copies for friends, and even make a point of gifting illicit copies of "mix" CDs. Similarly, non-DRM MP3s are routinely and massively pirated. The ease of copying leads to a sense of entitlement.

You are correct that certain punishment would deter pirates (Cesare Beccaria anyone?) but as a society we are unwilling to prosecute piracy, probably because music piracy is both common and popularly accepted.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> This example actually supports my point. You buy a movie but can only use it on a specific type of hardware.


I disagree as you can buy any brand of hardware you like--Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung and on down the line--to play any dvd or blu ray or cd you buy. Same with MP3 players and MP3s as I can put music from iTunes or Amazon on any brand of MP3 player I so choose. With e-books you can only put the books on certain hardware because of the DRM in many cases.

I love the Kindle store, and went Kindle for that reason, but I always found the Sony Readers to be MUCH better hardware. Better looking, better designed, metal instead of cheap plastic, models with touch screens etc. So I'd love a legitimate option (i.e. no DRM stripping) to buy any e-reader and buy e-books from any e-book store like I can with MP3s. Then I can get the hardware I like best and shop around for best e-book prices etc.



> Additionally, you can't make a copy of it for keeping at your cabin or transcoding to your portable device without removing DRM. You have one copy to play or to loan. If technology changes, you don't don't get additional copies in the new format. As with a Kindle book, you don't "own" the movie but have a license - you only own the specific copy. Yet we generally accept these limitations without much complaint.


Not really without complaint as the reason so many movies are starting to come with DRM'd digital copies in addition to the disc copy is because people thought it was unreasonable to have to buy a 2nd digital copy of a movie they own on DVD/Bluray if they wanted to watch it on their iPad etc. So the industry is changing. Though I think it would be much more simple to just allow people to rip their own digital copies for personal use just like we can with CDs.

Pirates are going to pirate either way. This is just another way of doing nothing to stop piracy and just inconveniencing legitimate consumers.



> Yet, as a group, we bristle that a Kindle e-book may, at some point, become obsolete and whine we don't get to use it on every possible device. (If you want permanent, buy a physical book.)


I don't bristle over that. I'd just like a legitimate option to shop in the Kindle store but use superior e-ink hardware from other companies. But I get why people want to back up things like they can with MP3s.

Again, no reason they should be different than MP3s. I buy an MP3 album, I have a permanent copy as I can back it up and make sure I never lose it. Can put it on any MP3 playing device I want. Can legally convert it to other audio formats etc. Why should e-books be any different? Or digital movies for that matter? We need consistency in the digital media marketplace. A digital file is a digital file. It shouldn't matter if it's a song or a book or a movie or a video game. DRM laws, copying laws etc. should just cover all digital media and be consistent across all of them. There's aren't different laws for shop lifting a book instead of a music CD, no reason for it to be different with digital media IMO.



> CDs are a good parallel however in that many feel entitled to as many copies as they want, and readily make copies for friends, and even make a point of gifting illicit copies of "mix" CDs. Similarly, non-DRM MP3s are routinely and massively pirated. The ease of copying leads to a sense of entitlement.


Well you're mixing two things here IMO. A person should be able to take a CD (or MP3 album) they bought and make copies to put on all their MP3 players, computers etc. They should feel entitled to that as it's absurd to think they should have to buy say 4 copies of the MP3 album if they want it on their iPod classic in the office, their iPod nano they use in the gym, and their home and office desktop computers etc.

However, they are not entitled to give any copies to anyone else. That's piracy. And it is wrong that people feel entitled to do that. Hence my earlier post about us as a society having to find a way to change that line of thinking and get people to understand that it's morally wrong and that it hurts authors, musicians, etc.



> You are correct that certain punishment would deter pirates (Cesare Beccaria anyone?) but as a society we are unwilling to prosecute piracy, probably because music piracy is both common and popularly accepted.


I don't think there's that much resistance to the idea of having more certain punishment. I don't think a majority would be opposed to my idea of having it be a misdemeanor with a small fine of MSRP +25% or 50% or what have you.

The problem is how do you get certainty up? How do you police the internet and catch enough people to make pirates really fear getting caught and decide the risk outweighs the benefits? That's much harder than stopping say shoplifting.

And just like shoplifting, it's something that will fall to private businesses. Tax payers don't pay cops to go and patrol Best Buy and other stores to stop theft. The stores have to hire their own security team and pay for their own security cameras etc. and catch people and gather evidence to turn over to the police to make arrests.

So it's going to be on publishers/studies/record labels/tv networks etc. to band together and do two things if this is ever going to change:

1. Lobby to get laws changed so piracy is a criminal matter with punishments that are proportionate to the crimes as I outline or along those kind of lines.

2. Start and fund an agency that polices the internet and builds cases to turn over to law enforcement agencies to make arrests.


----------



## tsemple (Apr 27, 2009)

If I had reason to believe that I would live forever, or had access to a chronosynclastic infundibulum, I might care about DRM. As it is, I don't have time to read everything I'd like to once, much less two or more times. I have some minor issues with Adobe DRM (will I run out of authorizations? are all my authorized devices using the same password?) but not really any with Amazon's. If it gives publishers and authors some (illusory) comfort concerning piracy, more power to it.

That said, I'd be in favor of a kinder, gentler DRM that would not prevent copies from being read outright, but rather reading systems using this form would nag you about it if it detected such a discrepancy, and offer options for 'getting legal'. Piracy is often unintentional (buyer didn't know the seller did not have the rights to sell), or only apparent but not actual (as in the case I alluded to above, where I was not able to move Adobe DRM content from one authorized device to another, because I think I used different passwords on each). It's virtually never a deterrent to piracy itself, at least in the case of ebooks.

At its best, DRM serves to reinforce the implied contract between the author's authorized agents and the buyer, and provides a legal basis for prosecuting those who abuse the system. At its worst, it inconveniences the heck out of end-users who just want to do some reading.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

If DRM worked, then I would have no problem accepting it. It doesn't work so all it is accomplishing is inconveniencing me. I don't like being inconvenienced. If I decide to get one of the new Nook or Kobo Touches, I am going to want to move my library with me. I know how to do that and have no problem choosing to do that.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Being locked into reading your purchased books on one particular device is like having a movie on DVD and being told you can play it on a Sony DVD player, but not on a Samsung or Toshiba VCR. Not because the Samsung or Toshiba DVD players are incapable of playing the DVD - it's not a case of VHS vs. Betamax - but because there is an artificial restriction. You don't have a right to a DVD copy just because you own a VHS copy, because you if you get a DVD copy, you are getting something extra that you didn't have with the VHS copy: direct access and higher quality audio and video.

You're not getting anything extra by being able to play your DVD on whatever player you wish, and you aren't getting anything extra by being able to read your books on whatever device you want. It's not like expecting a program from a Mac to run on a PC, it's like expecting a text file from a Mac to work on a PC. I haven't removed the DRM from a book. But if I were to buy an ebook, remove the DRM and play it on a different player, who loses? The bookseller? No, the bookseller got paid. The publisher? No, the publisher got paid. Then surely it must be the author who loses? No, the author got paid.

When my wife and I got married, we merged our bookshelves. She has full access to any of my books, and I have full access to her books. Let's say I have a Kindle, and she had a Nook. With DRM, we can't merge our bookshelves. The books are all paid for, but there is an artificial restriction.

You might say "This may be an unfortunate inconvenience, but it's worthwhile to stop piracy." But at most, DRM delays books from hitting the torrent sites by perhaps half an hour, so it isn't stopping anyone.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Exactly QuantamIguana.

DRM as it currently exists just limits legitimate use among people who buy ebooks while barely being a speed bump for piracy.

And it just makes no sense when you consider how we can use our dvds, cds, mp3s etc.

As I said above, we need consistent rules/policies/restrictions in place across mp3s, e-books and digital movie files.  There all copyrighted digital media files, and there's no reason for one to be treated any differently than the others.

I can put my MP3s on any brand of MP3 player, put my Blu Ray discs and DVDs in any brand of BR/DVD player etc.  No reason I shouldn't be able to put all my purchased e-books on any brand of e-reader I choose without having to break rules and strip DRM.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfCrash said:


> If DRM worked, then I would have no problem accepting it. It doesn't work so all it is accomplishing is inconveniencing me. I don't like being inconvenienced. If I decide to get one of the new Nook or Kobo Touches, I am going to want to move my library with me. I know how to do that and have no problem choosing to do that.


Very well put.

Much of this argument ignores the fact that DRM just plain _does not work_!

What's more a buyer who has bought a novel should (and in my opinion does) have the right to read it on whatever device they chose. If they decide they want to read a novel bought on Amazon on their nook, as an author AND as a reader I am only harmed by the attempts by some to prevent that.

All DRM does is inconvenience purchasers and cause pirates a since of achievement when they easily outmaneuver it. This does none of us any good.

If I buy a song for one brand of MP3 player and change brands, I can move my music. WHY in god's name shouldn't I be able to do the same with novels without having to strip DRM? It makes no sense. I can and will do so.


----------



## pomtroll (Oct 5, 2010)

*I want to buy books. So unless I'm willing to strip DRM I am limited to where I can buy books. If I have a Kindle & want to buy a book at a better price at B&N (this is just an example) I can't unless I strip it. Otherwise I have to have 2 readers...Which I ended up doing. I had a Nook but there were books at Amazon I wanted but couldn't get elsewhere. I do not want to strip DRM. I see no reason for there to be proprietary DRM for either B&N or Amazon or any other book buying site. Just my opinion, but it sounds like to me it is an Amazon, B&N etc. issue & not a publisher or author issue. Explain it to me if I'm wrong. *


----------



## Xopher (May 14, 2009)

I really don't understand the "one device" argument when it comes to Kindle ebooks. They have software for PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry, and Android. You can read a book on your Kindle, and even read the same ebook on your iPad. I'm considering getting an Android tablet, which I could load up the Kindle software and read on that as well. I read on my Android phone all the time (when I'm out sans Kindle). Heck, you can even root the Nook Color and load the Kindle software onto it. Since the newly announced Nook 2 uses Android 2.x, it probably won't be long before it is rooted and capable of reading Kindle books as well.

I think it would be a little stronger argument if the ebooks were locked to one device (or even locked down like iBooks, which only works on iPad and iPhone). Even different ePub providers use different DRM schemes, so you can't always buy from one store and read on any ePub device. 

It would be nice not to have to worry about DRM, but with Amazon's "buy once, read anywhere" philosophy, I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to read on whatever device I currently choose.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Xopher said:


> I really don't understand the "one device" argument when it comes to Kindle ebooks. They have software for PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry, and Android. You can read a book on your Kindle, and even read the same ebook on your iPad.


That's true and does lessen the problem on the Kindle.

However, what I was saying is I'd like to have the option to read them on other dedicated reader, e-ink devices. I'm not a huge fan of the Kindle hardware. The Kindle store and whispersync are great--and that's why I went Kindle. But I prefer some other hardware, namely some of the Sony readers. The Kindle finally got away from being ugly with the K3, but it still feels cheap being plastic instead of metal, I'd prefer a touch screen etc.

Also, it just would be nice to be able to shop around for e-books--though that's lessened some with agency pricing of course. But it would be nice that regardless of what brand of e-reader you have to be able to get books from the Kindle store, Nook store etc. both to compare prices and to get books that one store has and the other doesn't etc.

All those types of options are taken away from us by DRM that does nothing to stop piracy. In fact, taking away those options is probably the main reason for the DRM. Amazon, B&N etc. want to lock customers into only shopping in their stores.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't read Kindle books. I read books on my Kindle. I may have purchased them from Amazon, but they are just books.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

samanthawarren said:


> That would be great. I wouldn't mind if my book was lent repeatedly. It's no different than if I loan a book to a friend. If they like it, they'll be more likely to buy it than they would have if they didn't read it at all.


Do you think so? I don't know. I'm an avid reader, and book lover. I'd say that IN GENERAL, if I have already read a book, I am pretty UNLIKELY to buy the book. Certainly for specific collections I might choose to purchase an already read book (like, I *must* have a copy of everything by a given author, or I *must* buy it because I have a personal connection to the author and want to be supportive, or I *must* buy that book because for some unusual reason I am very excited about owning it), but generally speaking, once I've read it, I'm not going to buy it. That said, if I'm unsure about an author I might borrow a copy of one book she has written, and then subsequently buy other of the author's works.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

webhill said:


> Do you think so? I don't know. I'm an avid reader, and book lover. I'd say that IN GENERAL, if I have already read a book, I am pretty UNLIKELY to buy the book.


I agree with that, as I seldom re-read.

Though if I borrow a book (from a friend or the library) and love it, I'm much more likely to buy future books from that author. So they can still generate a following through book borrowing by getting their name out and building fans who are more likely to buy their future books.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> I don't read Kindle books. I read books on my Kindle. I may have purchased them from Amazon, but they are just books.


Bingo.

They are not liscences. They are not owned by one store. I will read my books on the device that best suits me regardless of where I bought them.

If the DRM stopped piracy I could at least understand the logic and I would deal with it. It doesn't so I fail to see the need for DRM.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I may not be likely to buy that particular book if I have read it for free, but I am vastly more likely to an author's work if I have been able to borrow a copy. There are a lot of C.J. Cherry's books on my bookshelf, I only started reading her because someone loaned me a paperback of one of her books. I might not have read her work at all otherwise.


----------



## D/W (Dec 29, 2010)

pomtroll said:


> Just my opinion, but it sounds like to me it is an Amazon, B&N etc. issue & not a publisher or author issue. Explain it to me if I'm wrong.


When an author makes their ebook available at Amazon.com through their Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) program, they are given the choice to include DRM or not. An increasing number of indies, in particular, are choosing _not_ to include DRM in their ebooks there. In the "Product Details" section for a Kindle ebook, it will say "Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited" if there is no DRM. I'm not sure how things are done with the big publishers, who are choosing DRM.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Publishers tend to be the ones pushing DRM not authors.


----------



## wvpeach (Jul 12, 2010)

Unlimited lending would undoubtedly lead to entrepreneurial websites where you could sign up to borrow a book for 50 cents. 

  That would translate to a whole lot less books sold so I wouldn't think authors and publishers would like that.


----------



## pomtroll (Oct 5, 2010)

DreamWeaver said:


> When an author makes their ebook available at Amazon.com through their Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) program, they are given the choice to include DRM or not. An increasing number of indies, in particular, are choosing _not_ to include DRM in their ebooks there. In the "Product Details" section for a Kindle ebook, it will say "Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited" if there is no DRM. I'm not sure how things are done with the big publishers, who are choosing DRM.


*I still don't what has that got to do with proprietary DRM. B&N has theirs & Amazon has theirs etc. Which means you can't buy a book at Amazon with a Nook & you can't buy one at B&N with a Kindle (once again I know about stripping). I would think they would knock this nonsense off so they could sell more books...But maybe that isn't what thy have in mind? Maybe they just want to sell reader devices.*


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

wvpeach said:


> Unlimited lending would undoubtedly lead to entrepreneurial websites where you could sign up to borrow a book for 50 cents.
> 
> That would translate to a whole lot less books sold so I wouldn't think authors and publishers would like that.


Doubtful. If someone tried to set up such a business, they would be shut down FAST. Not having DRM doesn't mean you can rent the book out. Besides, if we did allow people to rent out copies of books, someone would come out with a 49 cent rental, then someone would come out with a 48 cent rental, and so on. We already have libraries where people can "rent" books for free, and that hasn't hurt authors, it's helped them.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

pomtroll said:


> *I still don't what has that got to do with proprietary DRM. B&N has theirs & Amazon has theirs etc. Which means you can't buy a book at Amazon with a Nook & you can't buy one at B&N with a Kindle (once again I know about stripping). I would think they would knock this nonsense off so they could sell more books...But maybe that isn't what thy have in mind? Maybe they just want to sell reader devices.*


The proprietary issue has to more do with the stores, not the publishers or authors.

Amazon wants people who buy Kindles to only spend money in the Kindle store. And B&N wants people who buy Nooks to only buy books in the Nook store.

They make most of their money off of books, so they don't want people who own their hardware to spend money on e-books in other stores. Thus they use proprietary DRM to lock people into buying books in their store.

They think they can make more money by locking Kindler's into their store, than they do by having no DRM (or a standard DRM across stores) and being able to also sell Kindle books to people on Nooks or Sony readers etc. I guess.


----------



## pomtroll (Oct 5, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> The proprietary issue has to more do with the stores, not the publishers or authors.
> 
> Amazon wants people who buy Kindles to only spend money in the Kindle store. And B&N wants people who buy Nooks to only buy books in the Nook store.
> 
> ...


*I guess. I realize they both use different formats & to me that is irritating too. It will be interesting to see what type of "rumored" epub Amazon will have down the road.

Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the company. They can do whatever they please & they will as long as we continue to buy form them.....Since I want to read e-books I buy from them. Though I do use different sources more often than them.*


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

wvpeach said:


> Unlimited lending would undoubtedly lead to entrepreneurial websites where you could sign up to borrow a book for 50 cents.
> 
> That would translate to a whole lot less books sold so I wouldn't think authors and publishers would like that.


These sites do exist, and I'm okay with them. Why? Because I believe the value of the word-of-mouth generated by these free-reads is greater than the earnings I would receive from somehow forcing bargain hunters to buy my work. I read my first Diana Wynne Jones novel in an elementary school library. I read my first Steven King novel after finding it in trash bin. I've bought each author on sight since encountering them...and I'm still afraid of clowns.

B.


----------



## Tim C. Taylor (May 17, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> When my wife and I got married, we merged our bookshelves. She has full access to any of my books, and I have full access to her books. Let's say I have a Kindle, and she had a Nook. With DRM, we can't merge our bookshelves. The books are all paid for, but there is an artificial restriction.


I know exactly what you mean. Here's what's going to happen tonight. We're off on a camping holiday this afternoon. When my 4-year-old lad is settled down in his sleeping bag tonight, he'll want me to read him a story. For that I'll have to borrow my wife's Kindle (with is snazzy pink cover) and read one of the Enid Blyton stories she bought on hers. Meanwhile my wife will want to read her Kindle but can't because I'm reading from it. 

I suppose we could put some on mine and some on hers, but any parent will know that when it comes to bedtime, my Kindle will have the 'wrong' stories.
Tim


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tim C. Taylor said:


> I suppose we could put some on mine and some on hers, but any parent will know that when it comes to bedtime, my Kindle will have the 'wrong' stories.
> Tim


The Kindle can hold thousands of books (assuming your on K2 or 3s that have 2GB and 4GB of storage respectively). No reason you can't make a "Bedtime Stories" collection on both Kindles that has all the kid books in it.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

screwballl said:


> I am just waiting until we start seeing lawsuits where the people take screenshots/pictures of the pages and store displays that state "purchase now", "buy now", "purchase price", "sale price" and so on, which means you are entering into a legal agreement to purchase the item. The signs/websites do NOT say "rent now", "lease now" which is an agreement to rent, lease or temporarily take possession of the item, and see how well that holds up in court.


Very good point. I wrote earlier that part of the confusion stems from the fact that e-book retailers are intentionally not clarifying this issue. As you say, the button says "Buy Now," not "Click Here to Enter into a Complicated Licensing Arrangement," which is actually what it is.

For the record, I make my novels DRM-free wherever possible (Amazon and B&N allow this, along with Smashwords and my own website, but Apple, Kobo, and Sony do not). And I don't consider someone who buys my books and wants to convert them to read on a different e-reader a _criminal_, I consider them a valued _customer_. Heck, I offer to send them the e-book in whatever format they want if they email me.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Elk said:


> Interestingly, we accept that with a physical book we can only read the copy in the way it is presented. We don't expect anotehr free copy with large text, an audible version, etc. Yet with an ebook, many expect to be able to copy the contents on to any medium or reader they choose.


You make a good point. As I just said in my last post, I'm not a huge fan of DRM, because I think it prevents legitimate customers from doing things like converting it for other devices. But I'm not one of the "all info should be free and DRM is pure evil" people either. And I do find it interesting that some people will complain about the downsides of e-books (DRM that limits lending and re-sale, mostly), yet will ignore the fact that they can (a) change font sizes at will, (b) have a text-to-speech version for free (if the publisher allows it), share and read it simultaneously with people on your account, etc. When people say, "But you can lend and re-sell a paper book, so we should get to do the same with e-books!" they never say "We should get paperback, hardcover, large print, and audiobook versions of printed books for free with any one purchase, like we do with e-books!"


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

I have made all of my short stories and novels DRM-Free. I have been going back and changing all my book covers to show DRM-Free on them.  I also include DRM-Free in the book description.

If you are an author and don't like DRM then make a statement by showing your books DRM-Free.  Then if others don't like DRM, they may just buy your books over DRM books?

Of course, some people might give a copy of your book to their mom or sister to read on their Kindle.  However, that is what happens with DTB books anyway.  It is sort of a compliment that they like your writing so much that they want to share it with their family and friends.


----------

