Fantasy Faction

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fallen One on September 20, 2012, 08:15:58 PM

Title: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on September 20, 2012, 08:15:58 PM

 Dear community:

 As the thread about digital piracy didn't go as expected (and considering the ominous figure of the banhammer above my head), I decided to present another topic of interest: DRM, Digital Rights Management. For more information in that specific subject, you can check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management)

 Whether a person thinks piracy is detrimental for the authors or the other way around, I think it's a safe thing to say it's impossible to erradicate it without massively cutting out other rights (mainly freedom of speech). This is specially true with peer to peer networks, allowing the exchange of files directly between computers.

 Parting from that setting (piracy is and will be a harsh reality, at least in the foreseeable future), it strikes me as odd and counter-productive for music, video games and other digital media to have DRM, for it inconveniences the legitimate user (meaning the person who spent money for the product), while leaving the pirates (meaning those who didn't pay for the product) free of any care of the world.

 As an example, I'll use Ubisoft's infamous DRM measures for Assassin Creed II for the PC: it had a limit of three installations ever, and you needed to always be connected to internet in order to play (mind you, this is a single player game). All the criticism about how draconian the measure was, was completely ignored.

 So what happened? A short while after the game's launch, Ubisoft's servers went down, leaving thousands of players unable to play. Meanwhile, the pirates just had to wait a few days for a crack to go out and became able to play the game to their heart's content. The same happens to music, ebooks and everything: it's the legit user who has to deal with those issues, while the pirate can just enjoy them freely. To me it sounds quite counter-intuitive, what do you think about it?

 NOTE: The argument isn't originally mine, but I think it makes quite a lot of sense, so I present it here.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 20, 2012, 08:34:17 PM
It drives me crazy with music.  I use itunes on my laptop as its generally seems to be the best player around, but I use a Sandisk mp3 player and a Samsung Android phone so when I rip a music CD on iTunes I have to run the tracks through soundtaxi afterwards so I can put them onto my portable players. Pure madness.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 20, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
I don't think DRM is the answer - it's easy to crack anyway, and it only really penalises legit customers.

I don't know what the answer is, but IMO not that.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 20, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I don't think DRM is the answer - it's easy to crack anyway, and it only really penalises legit customers.

I don't know what the answer is, but IMO not that.

Exactly, its easy to crack, its wrong, so what's the point of it?
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 20, 2012, 08:40:37 PM
Buggered if I know!

ETA: To be fair, I know that several pubs offer DRM free ebooks on their own sites, but they seem to magically acquire it at online booksellers.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: THElewisdix on September 20, 2012, 10:07:32 PM

The fight over DRM is no different than the fight here in the US over gun laws. A pirate is still going to figure out how to steal your software/music/book, and a criminal is still going to get a gun.

All you're doing is making it more difficult for perfectly law-abiding citizens to use and/or obtain your product.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Elfy on September 21, 2012, 12:45:46 AM
I like reading ebooks, and I'd probably buy more of them if they made more of them available here in Australia. I've seen authors explain this, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that if a book doesn't get an Australian release I can happily go onto a site like Amazon or Book Depository and have it shipped to my door, generally costing less than what I would have to pay going into a bricks and mortar store, yet if I want the same book digitally I am not allowed to download it legally. To a certain extent issues like this are what drive the pirates. In terms of piracy downloading (mostly TV shows and movies) I believe Australia leads the world per capita (for a nation founded largely by convicts that seems oddly apt), the reason for this seems to be that for years TV networks here have refused to screen shows until they want to, and in many cases this can be months after they've originally aired (anything after S3 of Eureka being a case in point). I think it's similar with ebooks not being legally available everywhere. 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 21, 2012, 01:36:38 AM

The fight over DRM is no different than the fight here in the US over gun laws. A pirate is still going to figure out how to steal your software/music/book, and a criminal is still going to get a gun.

All you're doing is making it more difficult for perfectly law-abiding citizens to use and/or obtain your product.

I agree. We will always have criminals. There's nothing we can do besides police them.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Jian on September 21, 2012, 07:58:47 AM
I normally just make a playlist on youtube and add the music I like to it. One of them has 200 songs in it after two months, though. xD
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 21, 2012, 08:42:37 AM
This seems pertinent

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/pirate-party-member-julia-schramm-slammed-for-defending-copyright-a-856977.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/pirate-party-member-julia-schramm-slammed-for-defending-copyright-a-856977.html)

Potted version: Person what prominently supports the free exchange of copyrighted property, even going so far as to call the concept of intellectual property 'disgusting', member of the Pirate Party, issues take down notice when it's her book....
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on September 21, 2012, 02:02:00 PM

 I don't think it's pertinent, since I posted a thread precisely about that yesterday. Besides, in this forum it isn't allowed to speak in favor of piracy, so the conversation would turn boring:

 User 1: "Piracy is bad"
 User 2: "No, piracy is even worse"
 User 3: "I agree with all the above statements"

 Doesn't sound like much of a conversation to me :(
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Lor on September 21, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
We don't promote piracy, no. What you get up to in your private life is up to you, what we took exception to was someone telling us that we should be posting links to downloads here.

The article Francis linked to is interesting though; funny how quickly people's opinions can change when it is them being affected. If she truly believed art shouldn't be intellectual property she would have been giving away her book for free in the first place.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on September 21, 2012, 03:05:26 PM
Or selling it AND posting it so it could be downloaded for free by those who don't have the means or aren't interested enough in her book to buy it. That seems like the smartest course of action toe, specially for someone from the pirate party. Too bad this episode will tarnish the image of pirates everywhere :(
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Idlewilder on September 21, 2012, 03:17:47 PM
Too bad this episode will tarnish the image of pirates everywhere :(

What image do pirates have of themselves anyway? Can't say my image of them could be tarnished much further anyway.  :-\
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 21, 2012, 03:28:19 PM
Too bad this episode will tarnish the image of pirates everywhere :(

Can't say I'm particularly bothered about the image problems of thieves.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on September 21, 2012, 03:35:38 PM
The image of someone who thinks information should be free, whether it comes from them or from other people, and who see the act of downloading something not akin to stealing, but instead to borrowing from a friend, from a library or buying it second hand: in none of those three situations is the author receiving money for their work.

 Besides, piracy can be used to further the sales of books in the long term. In my personal case (I'm aware this might be on the grey area of the banning for advocating piracy, let me know if it's gone too far and I'll immediately delete it) , I downloaded a few rpg books, played them and enjoyed them thoroughly. A few years later, when I had some money, I bought many of those books from amazon, though not all. The books are somewhat expensive (at least for my meager economic means), so I probably wouldn't have spent the money I did if I hadn't read them first, so in the end the publisher got a bit more money from me than it would have had I not downloaded the books.

 Ps: is it possible to get a few guidelines about the discussion of piracy? I can feel the banhammer looming over me, and I wouldn't like it to fall because of my failing to understand the limits of the aforementioned prohibition.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 21, 2012, 03:51:15 PM
I have books for sale online. I wrote them and contracted with publishers to produce them in sellable format. If you download them without paying for them and without the express permission of either me or my publishers, you are stealing our property. You're a thief.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Autumn2May on September 21, 2012, 04:25:55 PM
MOD POST

The policy on talking about piracy on site is "don't talk about piracy onsite". I know there are arguments as to why it should be okay some of the time and why some pirates are worse than others. But onsite it comes down to the fact that it is illegal. Since it is against the law to pirate things, it is against forum rules to try to explain why it's okay if this person does it because X. X might be a good reason, but the person doing X is still breaking the law.

If you want to discuss how DRM is stupid and ineffective, or how awesome it is (if you feel that way) please continue, but if this is going to devolve into “because of DRM it's okay for some people to pirate stuff”, then this thread will be closed too.

And again, I promise I won't ban you without a couple warnings. :)

Everybody clear? Good. :) Continuing on then. :)
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 21, 2012, 07:31:05 PM

 I don't think it's pertinent, since I posted a thread precisely about that yesterday.

Not sure how I completely missed that was the link in your original thread. My bad!

Quote
Besides, in this forum it isn't allowed to speak in favor of piracy,
  You won't find me in favour. I just liked the irony.

Anyhow, *looks at mod note* I've seen a few postulated alternatives to DRM, but none of them seem to be much better. Anyone seen any that might actually be beneficial to real customers and to to The Other Ones?
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 21, 2012, 09:46:46 PM
I have books for sale online. I wrote them and contracted with publishers to produce them in sellable format. If you download them without paying for them and without the express permission of either me or my publishers, you are stealing our property. You're a thief.

Sorry to join in and tread the wire, but I feel this point ought to be made clear. Whatever your views on piracy, it is not theft. It is its own separate entity. I have a friend who is a copyright lawyer for a major fashion retailer. He does not pirate, but he would get very annoyed with you if you called piracy theft in his presence.

In software piracy, there is no deprivation involved. You haven't gained a sale, but you haven't had anything taken away from you. This is basically why the issue is so problematic for lawmakers. Piracy is illegal, but it is not theft. You can call it theft if you want, but I suspect naming an individual as a thief would probably technically count as libel/slander!

Isn't society wonderful?

Anyway, to get to the point, that article is not a terribly good example to discuss intellectual property rights! This person is called a hypocrite because a third party exercised their rights to the content, without (I suspect) her permission or knowledge.

And OK, she negotiated a deal with the third party to edit, typeset, print, market, sell and otherwise generally publish her book, but presumably some members of the pirate party at least believe that piracy provides a positive sales boost for intellectual content? Without any kind of comment from her, I think the criticism is just ridiculous.

And to address the original thread's discussion point, I believe DRM is probably the biggest advocate for piracy in existence. Which is why Jennie is currently having a coronary as we chat. 

 

 

 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Idlewilder on September 21, 2012, 09:49:55 PM
But pirates are known for theft! - also pillage, looting, swashbuckling and general high seas mayhem. ;)
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 21, 2012, 10:01:25 PM
Quote
Anyway, to get to the point, that article is not a terribly good example to discuss intellectual property rights! This person is called a hypocrite because a third party exercised their rights to the content, without (I suspect) her permission or knowledge.

Which she sold them the right to do (leased the copyright in effect), despite supposedly being pro the free exchange of copyright/IP. And the fact the pub would do that would be either heavily implied (because that's what pubs do), or in the contract. She sold them that permission.


Quote
But pirates are known for theft! - also pillage, looting, swashbuckling and general high seas mayhem
And ravishing, don't forget the ravishing.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on September 21, 2012, 10:21:01 PM
Anyhow, *looks at mod note* I've seen a few postulated alternatives to DRM, but none of them seem to be much better. Anyone seen any that might actually be beneficial to real customers and to to The Other Ones?

 For the pirates, the benefit would be minimum, if any: right now, pirates already get free video games without need for codes, activation, online requirements (in the case of offline games like single player assassin creed, of course) or anything (except maybe the chance to play online, and that isn't in 100% of the cases). With music and books, they can read it wherever they want: smartphones, computers, electronic book readers, etc., without a limitation.

 So, the abolishment of DRM would only benefit the legitimate purchaser, who 1) Doesn't get treated as a criminal, 2) Can use a product he bought in any way he sees fit. The pirates already have those benefits, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. It wouldn't make things any easier to pirate: there's already a lot of people who specialize in breaking through DRM and posting the DRM-free stuff on the net.

 Right now, the pirates get a better product than the legit users. Without DRM, the users would at least get a product of the same quality the pirates enjoy. That seems like an improvement for legit users.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 21, 2012, 10:46:32 PM
This might tread on some thin ice, but what's the argument for digital piracy? How do you justify that?
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 21, 2012, 11:43:32 PM
Which she sold them the right to do (leased the copyright in effect), despite supposedly being pro the free exchange of copyright/IP. And the fact the pub would do that would be either heavily implied (because that's what pubs do), or in the contract. She sold them that permission.

Of course it would be in the contract. But how exactly could she get a book professionally published without selling those rights? If those editors want to give her $100,000 for something she'd sell for free, more fool them.

Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 22, 2012, 12:08:23 AM
I have books for sale online. I wrote them and contracted with publishers to produce them in sellable format. If you download them without paying for them and without the express permission of either me or my publishers, you are stealing our property. You're a thief.

Sorry to join in and tread the wire, but I feel this point ought to be made clear. Whatever your views on piracy, it is not theft. It is its own separate entity. I have a friend who is a copyright lawyer for a major fashion retailer. He does not pirate, but he would get very annoyed with you if you called piracy theft in his presence.

He can spout his sophistry until the cows come home. That is, after all, what lawyers do for a living. But I call bollocks to it. Someone who steals my property is a thief.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 22, 2012, 07:52:52 PM
He can spout his sophistry until the cows come home. That is, after all, what lawyers do for a living. But I call bollocks to it. Someone who steals my property is a thief.

I don't think it's sophistry, I think it's a fair and valid distinction. If someone takes a book you own, you have lost something. If someone pirates an ebook you wrote, you have lost nothing. You certainly feel like you've lost something, but you haven't. You've not gained anything.

That's the problem and it's tough to deal with, because the primary argument over the principle of piracy is also an argument against second-hand bookshops and libraries or otherwise lending books to friends. Another of my friends once argued that the difference between second-hand and piracy is one-to-one vs. one-to-many. But here, I would point out that the argument has shifted from principle to scale and therefore what's important is whether piracy is commercially beneficial.

Also, I would point out that sites like Amazon make the second-hand market much larger scale and effectively one-to-many.

But certainly, I see your point. If I had worked hard on something, I would feel I deserved to be adequately compensated for my effort too! But in reality, I think the question is far more complicated.

 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Lor on September 22, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
From what I understand, piracy is different from theft in that whilst theft involves the removal of property without permission, piracy involves the copying and distribution of property without permission. Would I be right there?

I can understand why it would feel like theft, which is why it is such a tricky subject to discuss.

On the subject of DRM, I don't know that removing it will necessarily lead to more piracy, or that it may encourage more people to actually buy products, since they will know they're not restricted to one device, and having to buy them multiple times for different devices. iTunes is a real bug-bear for me; I have a huge music collection, and having it locked in like that really gets to me at times. It is easier for me to buy and download music than gather CDs in my already overcrowded shoebox of a room!
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 22, 2012, 09:15:16 PM
I don't think it's sophistry, I think it's a fair and valid distinction. If someone takes a book you own, you have lost something. If someone pirates an ebook you wrote, you have lost nothing. You certainly feel like you've lost something, but you haven't. You've not gained anything.

That's the problem and it's tough to deal with, because the primary argument over the principle of piracy is also an argument against second-hand bookshops and libraries or otherwise lending books to friends. Another of my friends once argued that the difference between second-hand and piracy is one-to-one vs. one-to-many. But here, I would point out that the argument has shifted from principle to scale and therefore what's important is whether piracy is commercially beneficial.

Also, I would point out that sites like Amazon make the second-hand market much larger scale and effectively one-to-many.

But certainly, I see your point. If I had worked hard on something, I would feel I deserved to be adequately compensated for my effort too! But in reality, I think the question is far more complicated.

My first degree included Criminal Law, although I never intended to practice it, so I think I'll stand by my statement that sophistry is what lawyers do for a living. Leaving that aside, however, here's the definition of theft in the Theft Act 1968:

(my bolding for the sections I believe are pertinent to this discussion)


1 Basic definition of theft.

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

2 “Dishonestly”

(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

3 “Appropriates”.

(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

4 “Property”.

(1) “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

(2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say—

(a) when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or

(b) when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or

(c) when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.

For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.
 
(4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

5 “Belonging to another”.

(1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).

(2) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.

(3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.

(4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.

(5) Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

6“ With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 22, 2012, 09:24:43 PM
1 Basic definition of theft.

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Thank you, yes. That's my understanding of it and where I am told the problem lies - you have not been permanently deprived of your property.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Lor on September 22, 2012, 09:29:48 PM
1 Basic definition of theft.

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Thank you, yes. That's my understanding of it and where I am told the problem lies - you have not been permanently deprived of your property.

So how does DRM tie into all of this? Is it supposed to be to protect property and make it more difficult to move it?
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 22, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
You can't just cherry pick a phrase from the basic definition without referring to the explanatory notes in the subsections below it. I've bolded the relevant bits.

And on that note, I shall withdraw from this conversation. I don't hold any grudges or wish anyone ill. I'm not even angry. It just makes me tired and there are more productive ways for me to use my energy. Like writing books for people to steal. :D
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: David Bridger on September 22, 2012, 09:33:44 PM

So how does DRM tie into all of this? Is it supposed to be to protect property and make it more difficult to move it?

I believe that's what parts of the industry think DRM does, Lor. I think it's rubbish at its job and prefer to publish with houses that don't use it, although as someone said upthread certain retailers then go ahead and slap it on anyway.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Lor on September 22, 2012, 09:36:57 PM
You can't just cherry pick a phrase from the basic definition without referring to the explanatory notes in the subsections below it. I've bolded the relevant bits.

And on that note, I shall withdraw from this conversation. I don't hold any grudges or wish anyone ill. I'm not even angry. It just makes me tired and there are more productive ways for me to use my energy. Like writing books for people to steal. :D

Genuinely no disrespect, but that meant nothing to me, bolded bits or not. I do find it difficult to get my head around things like that, so it's probably just me :)

This whole issue confuses me to be honest, the little I do know rubs me up the wrong way though. Then again, if everything in the world was simple, we'd all be bored.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 22, 2012, 10:03:40 PM
If I may add, Nestat, I believe the answer to it being theft lies in this part:

(1) "Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Wouldn't you say that the ebooks or other such things on the internet, used for digital piracy, is intangible? Taking that without permisson or paying it  would constitute stealing in my opinion. And I'm with Lor, I don't have a clue about this DRM stuff. :D
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 22, 2012, 10:04:11 PM
Yes, the whole point of DRM is to allow control of content to remain with the providers, who felt the law didn't protect their revenue. A lot of DRM is clunky, buggy, invasive or runs against the principle of free-market competition. But the biggest problem with much of it is that it isn't user-friendly or violates what the user feels is reasonable use. For example, where DRM prevents a user from having the content on two platforms, the user resents having to pay for the same content twice, so they seek a non-protected version - often only available through piracy.

Where DRM tends to work is where it doesn't noticably affect the user's experience, e.g. the Kindle. As the Kindle is clearly the most superior product on the market, very few people care that they can't read Amazon-published ebooks on other readers. However, that leads to the issues around letting one company corner the market and then ringfence its customers so other companies can't effectively compete. I think that was the publishers' argument when they compelled Amazon to agree to the agency model for ebook sales.

Again that ties back to the problems with nonphysical products. With a paperback, the publisher sells to the retailer, it becomes the retailer's property and they then sell the book on to the customer. However with an ebook, the publisher does not sell ebooks to the retailer, they sell them through the retailer. The big publishers argued that online retailers act as distribution agents, like Apple does. So the publisher sets a universal price for each ebook and then pays the retailer a set commission for each ebook distributed. Amazon doesn't like it, because they lose their ability to exploit their market share and set prices lower than their competition.  

Of course, Amazon then approaches its own customer base and elegantly sets up the argument that publishers are doing this to protect their profits (which they are) and set ebook prices outrageously high (which they aren't). And that Amazon's concerned because they believe that several publishers controlling ebook prices strangles competition (which they emphasise) so it would  far better to let one retailer - Amazon - control the market instead (which they don't emphasise).

 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Lor on September 22, 2012, 10:06:10 PM
Ok, that makes a LOT more sense to me now, thanks dude.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 22, 2012, 10:08:35 PM
Ok, that makes a LOT more sense to me now, thanks dude.

Seconded.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 22, 2012, 10:24:45 PM
You can't just cherry pick a phrase from the basic definition without referring to the explanatory notes in the subsections below it. I've bolded the relevant bits.

And on that note, I shall withdraw from this conversation. I don't hold any grudges or wish anyone ill. I'm not even angry. It just makes me tired and there are more productive ways for me to use my energy. Like writing books for people to steal. :D

I wasn't cherry picking - I did read it all! As far as I could see (and this is @C. Hill too), while the law extensively defines property and appropriation,  it does not clarify the definition of permanent deprivation. And that's what the issue boils down to for you as an author: if I download a pdf of your ebook, what have you been deprived of? That's where the law falls down.    

I quite understand the withdrawal though! I imagine law's tiring enough without having to explain it to amateurs, especially when you have a emotional investment in the subject. I'd like to think that my views on piracy would remain objective if I were a published author, but I'm not arrogant enough to say - or even think - they would.



Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 01:43:07 AM
Publishers and therefore authors only get money when the book is sold to the retailers, and therefore they get nothing from people reading their books through borrowing from a library, a friend or buying their books second hand. 

We are all saying its awful downloading books illegally because the writers are not getting compensated, but yet we all advocate borrowing books or buying them second hand and therefore not giving writers compensation.  Guess the argument would be that at least the writers get their money through the initial sale, but it is another factor which murks the waters so to speak. 

Let's be honest here, when you read a good book do you tell your friends to go out and buy it, or do you simply lend them your copy?  And if you do that, surely its then fine if you read a good e-book to copy it and then give it to a friend to read?  (provided you remove the DRM first!)

My story is that this week I was done a solid by a friend in Indonesia and owed him 40 pounds as a result.  He asked me instead of wiring the money over to buy him 40 pounds worth of e-books and then download and email them to him.  I did just that through Amazon, and then converted them via Calibre to E-Pub format as that is the format that works on his e-reader and emailed them to him.  (I had to also search online to find plug ins for Calibre to remove the DRM!).  But these same books are now on the kindle app on my android and will  be read by me  as well, and since my mum has a kindle and is a voracious reader, I emailed her the mobi format copies of the books.  Is this either legally or morally wrong? 

And if you do say I am wrong put it like this, I often lend books to friends and my mum to read.  Would you be saying I was wrong if I told you I bought 40 pounds worth of books from Amazon, lent them to my friend, who then returned them, after which I lent them to my mum?  (Which I have done on many an occasion!)
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 23, 2012, 02:07:55 AM
I understand what you're saying Hound. I'm guilty of that too. But I also lie nearly everyday somehow, cheat at every game of cards, make rude comments about my friends and the main populace, and am very straightforward which leads to rudeness. Does that make any of that right? No. But do I continue to do it? Yes. I believe it lends itself to the idea that people are inherently sinful, and there is nothing we as humans can do about it.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 02:18:48 AM
I understand what you're saying Hound. I'm guilty of that too. But I also lie nearly everyday somehow, cheat at every game of cards, make rude comments about my friends and the main populace, and am very straightforward which leads to rudeness. Does that make any of that right? No. But do I continue to do it? Yes. I believe it lends itself to the idea that people are inherently sinful, and there is nothing we as humans can do about it.

So am I wrong to copy e-books and pass them onto close acquaintances only?  If so that means that lending books to close acquaintances is wrong as well.  It doesn't make sense!
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Doctor_Chill on September 23, 2012, 02:31:39 AM
I understand what you're saying Hound. I'm guilty of that too. But I also lie nearly everyday somehow, cheat at every game of cards, make rude comments about my friends and the main populace, and am very straightforward which leads to rudeness. Does that make any of that right? No. But do I continue to do it? Yes. I believe it lends itself to the idea that people are inherently sinful, and there is nothing we as humans can do about it.

So am I wrong to copy e-books and pass them onto close acquaintances only?  If so that means that lending books to close acquaintances is wrong as well.  It doesn't make sense!

Does that also lend the idea that public libraries are wrong? It's a tough subject. Economically it's wrong. Morally, tough.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 11:26:27 AM
See exactly!  Which is precisely the point Nestat was getting at it's not as simple as just saying 'piracy' is wrong. 

In my case my defence would be that I paid for the books initially and only copy for close acquaintances.  It's not like I downloaded the books for free and/ or then made them available on a file sharing site for one and all. 

If you start saying file sharing is completely wrong - you are also saying book sharing is completely wrong and that second hand book shops and libraries are wrong - and that we should only read books bought for and paid for by ourselves and that were purchased new.

It's an area where common sense seems more needed than actual laws or DRM. 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 04:53:16 PM
Had some more thoughts on this:

What I did was okay because 1) I purchased the content originally
2) I only shared the content with my close acquaintances (i.e. my friend and my mum) Think of the warning screen you get when watching a DVD.  It says not to be broadcast to large groups of people but clearly watching the film with a group of friends or family is perfectly acceptable, and what a DVD is designed for. 
3) You might say I was wrong to copy the content to pass on, after all you don't take a book down to a photocopy shop and then pass on the copies to friends or family, BUT e-books are not the same as physical books.  Unless you are going to lend your mum or your friend your kindle as well to read your book, the only way to lend it is to copy it. 

Probably the best solution would be a technology that meant you only had one e-book copy.  You can send it to a friend's e-reader, but as soon as you do its physically removed from your e-reader, and only when your friend sends it back do you have a copy on your e-reader to read again.  (Does this make sense?)  Not sure the tech exists, anyone know if this is possible?
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 23, 2012, 05:25:25 PM
Which she sold them the right to do (leased the copyright in effect), despite supposedly being pro the free exchange of copyright/IP. And the fact the pub would do that would be either heavily implied (because that's what pubs do), or in the contract. She sold them that permission.

Of course it would be in the contract. But how exactly could she get a book professionally published without selling those rights? If those editors want to give her $100,000 for something she'd sell for free, more fool them.



Exactly! A load of people called her on that (and then when the Cease and Desist went out, called her on that too because she had to know that would happen - given her background she would be incredibly naive to think it wouldn't)

If she was really pro free distribution of copyright and against the idea of intellectual property, she wouldn't have sold the rights, no?
Quote

If you start saying file sharing is completely wrong - you are also saying book sharing is completely wrong and that second hand book shops and libraries are wrong - and that we should only read books bought for and paid for by ourselves and that were purchased new.

 I think the difference is here, is scale, and the internets taking people by surprise.

If I buy a book and then give it to friend/donate it to a charity shop, that's just one copy, given over to one extra person (or maybe I'd lend it to two or three people). It's very small scale and you can think of it as promo - maybe these extra people will get turned onto a new author and buy another of their books new.

With piracy, someone can upload a copy and thousands can (and do) partake of it, and if they get turned on to a new author well, they can just download the whole library of their backlist - it's the sheer scale of the thing.

Personally, I think that most pirates aren't lost sales - they would have never paid for the book in the first place. Most people (hah, maybe I'm just hopelessly deluded, but I hope not) will pay for something if the price is fair. So DRN is not only ineffective, it isn't getting at the reason people do it in the first place. Ofc I have no idea what anyone can do instead, or even if there is anything anyone can do - like I say, there are a lot of people out there who think all art should be free and screw the artist.



Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Autumn2May on September 23, 2012, 05:32:13 PM

Probably the best solution would be a technology that meant you only had one e-book copy.  You can send it to a friend's e-reader, but as soon as you do its physically removed from your e-reader, and only when your friend sends it back do you have a copy on your e-reader to read again.  (Does this make sense?)  Not sure the tech exists, anyone know if this is possible?

That's actually how Kindles work. You can loan out certain books and when you do, you no longer have access to that book until they send it back or a certain period of time pass and it is sent back to you by the Kindle (I think. There might be a preset time limit.). I haven't tried it yet, but that's how it's supposed to work. Now you can only do it with certain books at the moment, but it seems like a decent system.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 05:41:11 PM

Probably the best solution would be a technology that meant you only had one e-book copy.  You can send it to a friend's e-reader, but as soon as you do its physically removed from your e-reader, and only when your friend sends it back do you have a copy on your e-reader to read again.  (Does this make sense?)  Not sure the tech exists, anyone know if this is possible?

That's actually how Kindles work. You can loan out certain books and when you do, you no longer have access to that book until they send it back or a certain period of time pass and it is sent back to you by the Kindle (I think. There might be a preset time limit.). I haven't tried it yet, but that's how it's supposed to work. Now you can only do it with certain books at the moment, but it seems like a decent system.

Oh that is interesting ... though again its limiting you and your friends to Kindle.  It means you all have to have a Kindle which is an enforced monopoly (or summat.)   The system should be that you get an e-book - lend it to your friend where it automatically converts to be read on their e-reader, and then when it comes back to you - it converts back to the format your e-reader uses. 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 05:44:14 PM

 I think the difference is here, is scale, and the internets taking people by surprise.

If I buy a book and then give it to friend/donate it to a charity shop, that's just one copy, given over to one extra person (or maybe I'd lend it to two or three people). It's very small scale and you can think of it as promo - maybe these extra people will get turned onto a new author and buy another of their books new.

With piracy, someone can upload a copy and thousands can (and do) partake of it, and if they get turned on to a new author well, they can just download the whole library of their backlist - it's the sheer scale of the thing.

Personally, I think that most pirates aren't lost sales - they would have never paid for the book in the first place. Most people (hah, maybe I'm just hopelessly deluded, but I hope not) will pay for something if the price is fair. So DRN is not only ineffective, it isn't getting at the reason people do it in the first place. Ofc I have no idea what anyone can do instead, or even if there is anything anyone can do - like I say, there are a lot of people out there who think all art should be free and screw the artist.



So my example I gave would be acceptable because my scale is still refined to close acquaintances as it would have been with books?  Both my mum and friend buy lots of books as well, so they are actively pumping money into the industry.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 23, 2012, 05:53:23 PM
I don't know whether acceptable is the word (and let's face it, my definition of acceptable means not a hill of beans)....but I'm sure it's certainly a lot easier for an author to look favourably on it!

But yes, certainly I'd have no problem with that - people lending out my books to friends/relations or giving them to a charity shop. Making them available for thousands of people? Not so much. Ofc, then you get the 'well where do you draw the line?' Thing is, it seems to me to be mostly those two extremes - lending to a few, or giving to (potentially) everyone with a net connection.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Autumn2May on September 23, 2012, 05:56:50 PM

Probably the best solution would be a technology that meant you only had one e-book copy.  You can send it to a friend's e-reader, but as soon as you do its physically removed from your e-reader, and only when your friend sends it back do you have a copy on your e-reader to read again.  (Does this make sense?)  Not sure the tech exists, anyone know if this is possible?

That's actually how Kindles work. You can loan out certain books and when you do, you no longer have access to that book until they send it back or a certain period of time pass and it is sent back to you by the Kindle (I think. There might be a preset time limit.). I haven't tried it yet, but that's how it's supposed to work. Now you can only do it with certain books at the moment, but it seems like a decent system.

Oh that is interesting ... though again its limiting you and your friends to Kindle.  It means you all have to have a Kindle which is an enforced monopoly (or summat.)   The system should be that you get an e-book - lend it to your friend where it automatically converts to be read on their e-reader, and then when it comes back to you - it converts back to the format your e-reader uses. 

You can read them on a computer instead of a Kindle, but yeah you should be able to loan them to anyone. That's where the DRM gets in the way and proves that, once again, it's stupid.  You should also be able to loan any book you've bought to a friend, not just some of them.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Autumn2May on September 23, 2012, 05:59:27 PM

 I think the difference is here, is scale, and the internets taking people by surprise.

If I buy a book and then give it to friend/donate it to a charity shop, that's just one copy, given over to one extra person (or maybe I'd lend it to two or three people). It's very small scale and you can think of it as promo - maybe these extra people will get turned onto a new author and buy another of their books new.

With piracy, someone can upload a copy and thousands can (and do) partake of it, and if they get turned on to a new author well, they can just download the whole library of their backlist - it's the sheer scale of the thing.

Personally, I think that most pirates aren't lost sales - they would have never paid for the book in the first place. Most people (hah, maybe I'm just hopelessly deluded, but I hope not) will pay for something if the price is fair. So DRN is not only ineffective, it isn't getting at the reason people do it in the first place. Ofc I have no idea what anyone can do instead, or even if there is anything anyone can do - like I say, there are a lot of people out there who think all art should be free and screw the artist.



So my example I gave would be acceptable because my scale is still refined to close acquaintances as it would have been with books?  Both my mum and friend buy lots of books as well, so they are actively pumping money into the industry.

I don't know whether acceptable is the word (and let's face it, my definition of acceptable means not a hill of beans)....but I'm sure it's certainly a lot easier for an author to look favourably on it!

But yes, certainly I'd have no problem with that - people lending out my books to friends/relations or giving them to a charity shop. Making them available for thousands of people? Not so much. Ofc, then you get the 'well where do you draw the line?' Thing is, it seems to me to be mostly those two extremes - lending to a few, or giving to (potentially) everyone with a net connection.

Agreed. I think it should be okay, but technically it's still against copyright law to do so. :P That's the trouble with piracy laws and DRM in general. They are bad and ineffective. They need to be completely rewritten so that they make sense in reality instead of just in someone's head, whoever's head that is. :P
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 23, 2012, 06:19:57 PM
Is it?

I'm looking at a copyright notice at the start of a book right now. It says the book can't be reproduced, or transmitted or stored in a retrieval system, and can't be distributed in anything other than the cover it has. It doesn't say 'must not be leant or otherwise transferred' or anything tha might cover lending (if it did, libraries would be screwed, wouldn't they?)

Under US copyright law, it says this:
Quote
Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item,

UK law states:
Quote
The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
However, I'm not sure if that covers personal lending or not.

So, I'm not 100% sure lending a copy of a book to your mate is in breach of copyright. I'm not sure it isn't either! ETA: though looking at a couple of other places, it seems that it's okay? Ofc IANAL and I'm not up on legalese so maybe I'm reading it wrong...*scratches head*

Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on September 23, 2012, 06:31:48 PM
Lending my books seems to be okay, as is selling them on.  I just can't copy my physical books.  But reading the initial pages of an e-book - and actually the bit about copying and reproducing the book has been removed entirely.  It just says that copyright belongs to the author.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Autumn2May on September 23, 2012, 06:38:30 PM
Is it?

I'm looking at a copyright notice at the start of a book right now. It says the book can't be reproduced, or transmitted or stored in a retrieval system, and can't be distributed in anything other than the cover it has. It doesn't say 'must not be leant or otherwise transferred' or anything tha might cover lending (if it did, libraries would be screwed, wouldn't they?)

Under US copyright law, it says this:
Quote
Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item,

UK law states:
Quote
The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
However, I'm not sure if that covers personal lending or not.

So, I'm not 100% sure lending a copy of a book to your mate is in breach of copyright. I'm not sure it isn't either! ETA: though looking at a couple of other places, it seems that it's okay? Ofc IANAL and I'm not up on legalese so maybe I'm reading it wrong...*scratches head*



Well it is okay, if they give it back. If you're making a copy and giving it someone to read, and then they keep it, that is where the problem is. With a physical book or a lending e-copy that you can't access when you loan it out, you make darn sure that you get it back, and there is still only one copy of it. If you are copying a file and sending the copy out, but keeping the original, then you're not really lending it, you're giving a copy of something you own that most likely will not be returned.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 23, 2012, 07:48:14 PM
Publishers and therefore authors only get money when the book is sold to the retailers, and therefore they get nothing from people reading their books through borrowing from a library, a friend or buying their books second hand.  

I should throw out here that authors have traditionally been paid (small) royalties on library loans, up to a yearly allowance of £3000. The government were planning to do away with that during the library cuts, but I'm not sure if they did.

If she was really pro free distribution of copyright and against the idea of intellectual property, she wouldn't have sold the rights, no?

Not necessarily. After all, if I was in her shoes, I would sell the rights happy in the knowledge that even if the publisher tries to stop piracy, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it. She's compensated for her time and everyone who wants to get the book free will be able to pirate it. Job done.


I think the difference is here, is scale, and the internets taking people by surprise.

Ja, I made the point about scale earlier...

Another of my friends once argued that the difference between second-hand [purchasing] and piracy is one-to-one vs. one-to-many. But here, I would point out that the argument has shifted from principle to scale and therefore what's important is whether piracy is commercially beneficial.

Also, I would point out that sites like Amazon make the second-hand market much larger scale and effectively one-to-many.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on September 23, 2012, 07:50:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Francis Knight on September 23, 2012, 08:11:28 PM

If she was really pro free distribution of copyright and against the idea of intellectual property, she wouldn't have sold the rights, no?

Not necessarily. After all, if I was in her shoes, I would sell the rights happy in the knowledge that even if the publisher tries to stop piracy, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it. She's compensated for her time and everyone who wants to get the book free will be able to pirate it. Job done.


I don't think her fellow Pirate Partiers saw it in quite the same way...it goes against quite a lot she'd previously advocated/supposedly stood for. And really, to say that copyright distribution should be free and the concept of IP is disgusting and then flog your book to a pub? That a pretty sharp 180 turnabout. Ofc, that often happens when money gets added to the equation - if I'm not earning any, I can afford to be liberal with my IP. If I have the chance to make some money...sod that, line my pockets, baby. If you stand on a moral/ethical platform, it helps if you stick by those morals/ethics, if you want to be taken seriously.

PS: Bender rocks.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Arry on September 24, 2012, 05:40:40 PM

Probably the best solution would be a technology that meant you only had one e-book copy.  You can send it to a friend's e-reader, but as soon as you do its physically removed from your e-reader, and only when your friend sends it back do you have a copy on your e-reader to read again.  (Does this make sense?)  Not sure the tech exists, anyone know if this is possible?

That's actually how Kindles work. You can loan out certain books and when you do, you no longer have access to that book until they send it back or a certain period of time pass and it is sent back to you by the Kindle (I think. There might be a preset time limit.). I haven't tried it yet, but that's how it's supposed to work. Now you can only do it with certain books at the moment, but it seems like a decent system.

Oh that is interesting ... though again its limiting you and your friends to Kindle.  It means you all have to have a Kindle which is an enforced monopoly (or summat.)   The system should be that you get an e-book - lend it to your friend where it automatically converts to be read on their e-reader, and then when it comes back to you - it converts back to the format your e-reader uses. 
The Kindle lending system works well ... when it is available (and you either both have kindles or are willing to read on a non e-reader). However, I have over 200 books on my kindle and only a very small percentage of them or so are lendable (esp. if you dont include the free or really low priced self pubbed books ... then I think I could count them on one hand).

I have borrowed books from a coworker ... you get them for 14 days or until you manually return them (just like a library book). Another restriction with the Kindle lending is that you can only loan out a book once. I can understand limiting the lending feature so that users dont abuse it, it would be easy to set up online sites to "swap" books and loan out books to anyone. But I dont think allowing a user to loan out a book twice would be unreasonable. Since once is better than nothing, I'm not going to complain...it's an attempt to address it, and they have to start somewhere. I think there are also some restrictions if you try to loan to another country (if the book is not available for the kindle there, I dont think you can lend it).

Another note on lending, I am happy my library lends out ebooks ... but they dont have all ebook formats for everything (some may only be e-pub, some may only be kindle). However, they do count all formats they have available for a book as one copy, so when you check out a book, you select your desired format from those available, the total number of ebooks available for that book goes down by one while you have it checked out. They dont do separate counts for each format, its just a total for the book. Hopefully if there is not a universal format adopted (which would be ideal for the consumer), the lending features will at least move towards the library model. That might be a bit much to hope for at this point, but it would be nice.
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nighteyes on October 09, 2012, 07:20:21 PM
Look at this great deal from Tor.  Set your own price, choose where your money actually goes, and all DRM free and available in a variety of formats.  Could this be the future of book selling?

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/10/get-eight-great-sff-ebooks-for-the-price-of-your-choice (http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/10/get-eight-great-sff-ebooks-for-the-price-of-your-choice)
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Nestat on October 09, 2012, 07:40:25 PM
Coincedentally, I was thinking that this would be a great (though no doubt stressful) experiment for an author: release a full novel as a DRM-free ebook. Don't charge for the ebook, but tell people you'd like them to read it then make a contribution based on how much it was worth to them.

Then at the end of the ebook, list all the work you put into it... how many hours, how much of a year, separately list writing, editing, proofing, design, marketing. Mention if it's on top of a day job. Add a page on a website which you can update with any further marketing you put into it and increase the running total. Let them know how much blood, sweat and tears went into it.

Then ask them to contribute based on how much they think it was worth to them. Then after they've contributed, allow them to see how much other people paid.

 
Title: Re: About Digital Rights Management
Post by: Fallen One on October 09, 2012, 07:46:33 PM

 I was thinking, once I finish translating, polishing, proofreading, etc. my novel, to upload it to Amazon.com for sale and, at the same time, to as many file-sharing sites as I can, asking people to buy it if they liked it, or otherwise to seed and share so it can become known.