Malhavoc copy/paste eased

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

DRM is use protection, but it's implemented in such a way as to take away The Right of First Sale.

Excellent post. I would submit that one of the major selling points of DRM (from a content owners POV) is precisely that it infringes on the right of first sale. The recording industry has fought for years to shut down used CD stores. The movie studios have recently been trying to find disincentives that would prevent Blockbuster, etc., from selling use DVDs. I just read an article this morning where the computer/console game industry is starting to freak out about the rising percentage of sales of previously-owned games.

The interesting thing is that this will put the content owners in opposition to the retailers that they depend on. The computer store near me loves it when people sell them back old games. They benefit in two ways. First, instead of buying a games from the publisher for $40 and selling it for $50, then can buy it from me for $20 and sell it for $40. Secondly, they know I'm probably just going to spend the $20 in their store right away. As more and more entertainment goods become 'non-perishable' (CDs, DVDs, etc) this re-sale market will become more and more important to the retailer. And all of this is perfectly legal because of First Sale principles.

 

[maddman75]

I'm glad to see Monte is listening, though this is a good gesture it isn't enough, as the copy/paste restrictions really weren't the main issue. With the DRM scheme the PDFs are useless to me, as I can't have them printed and bound at the local print shop. Further, it is insulting, needless, and cripples the product.

I'll also agree that the day DTRPG drops the DRM from a product I'll rush on over and buy one of them.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Me, too. Should DTRPG ever drop DRM entirely, I have a bunch of cash I'm going to drop there. Until they do so, however, they won't see a penny from me.

No offense, but I wonder how long this determination will last? I'm speaking in macro terms (not about Sigil or any other specific poster). It seems to me that the only thing DRM supporters have to do is keep pushing DRM onto more and more products. Once the availability of non-DRM material is reduced sufficiently, people will start buying DRM'd files. It's just a matter of reaching the point where buyers *have* to have something that they can't legally get elsewhere.

A real-world example. I despise product activation on software. For me, it's
just another form of DRM. But when I had to get the latest version of MS Access for my home pc (my work pc had been upgraded to the newer version), I was stuck. My options were: find an illegal work-around on the net or activate through Microsoft. I did the latter, and it still bugs me, but I did it.

Since a lot of very smart people are working on this exact problem (how to protect both the seller's and the buyer's rights concerning copyrights), I'm hopeful that a better solution will be found before DRM becomes ubiquitous. Because, sure as anything, if it does become widespread, most of us *will* put up with it, holding our noses as we do so.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Once the availability of non-DRM material is reduced sufficiently, people will start buying DRM'd files.

Or they can wait 15 minutes and download a hacked version via p2p programs.

Note: I'm all for the protection of IP and company profits. I just feel there are better ways of doing it. For instance, with this technology, wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and cleaner to just "stamp" a pdf sale with a unique ID? When this file with its unique ID is found on a p2p program, its ID is tracable to the original purchaser, making liability/prosecution easier by undeniable verification (including how many copies of that ID'd file have been made).

 

[johnsemlak]

Heck yeah. I generally spend about $150 each month on this hobby. I would be more than happy to buy those OOP titles that I missed.

But I will never buy a PDF that requires me to register my machine. I'm surprised the folks at WW didn't realize how offensive so many people would find this. Actually I'm more than surprised. My mind is truly boggled.

Dunno about White Wolf, but based on the Line of Site article Monte wrote in conjuction with announcing his deal with DTRPG, he did anticipate some backlash.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It's just a matter of reaching the point where buyers *have* to have something that they can't legally get elsewhere.

A few things will happen. In some cases, companies will be forced to back down, as M$ did with product activation for large-volume customers. In other cases, the competitive disadvantage of DRM will allow other companies to enter the market and succeed (open-source alternatives, for example). In the gaming market, this will provide an excellent opportunity for the small publisher. Given the nature of OGL, where your competitor is free to use large chunks of your work, you could really screw yourself if you are a big publisher. Put out 'Bunnies and Bandits' in an expensive .pdf where 75% of the work is freely copyable by your competitors and watch 'Rabbits and Robbers' appear next week in a $5 .pdf.

The fallacy is in assuming that DRM is intended to stop either large-scale piracy or the casual copying of the technologically savvy. It isn't, it won't, it can't, and the content companies know this.

What they are trying to stop is the small-scale casual copying between friends. This is where they lose (or at least think they are losing) a sale they would have otherwise gotten, and this is the only place DRM really works.

So, if eventually all gaming .pdfs are DRM'd, you'll have three (legal) choices:

1. Buy an expensive print copy you can share with friends, that is easy to read, and is relatively hard to lose, and requires no skill other than the ability to read. You can't easily copy content from it for inclusion in your own work, and you can't share it with more than one person at a time, encouraging the purchase of multiple copies.

2. Buy an expensive .pdf (because some publishers are afraid of cannabalizing print sales) with restrictive DRM that doesn't allow you to loan it to a friend, limits the utility that electronic publishing was supposed to provide (cut'n'paste, easy distribution, re-printing damaged or lost content, etc). This is ideal from the publishers point of view, as the cost of production is basically nil, and if they continue to not provide repeat downloads, even better because some people will be forced to buy it again.

3. Not buy the product at all.

3 is the worst-case for the publisher, because that generates zero revenue, and no repeat business. 2 is ideal for the publisher, because it maximizes profits and requires almost nothing in way of expenses, maintaining inventory, etc. 1 is not as good for the publisher as 2, but better than 3. They still make some money, but expenses are much higher.

From the consumer's standpoint, they will choose 2 last of all. There is no (or little) cost savings, reduced utility and increased hassle. If they really want the product, they will return to buying print products, or they will resort to dubious means to acquire an unencumbered .pdf. If it was a marginal purchase, they will likely just opt out of the purchase altogether.

The end result is that either prices on the .pdfs will have to be substantially lower than print (which risks alienating the retail channel) or that the .pdf market will die off. Selling PDFs that are DRM encumbered and as expensive as their paper counterparts is not a sustainable business model. You'll either destroy your business, or go back to being a print-only publisher for all intents and purposes.

 

[Tsyr]

Sir Whiskers, I think you underestimate the level to which DRM is despised by many.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, DRM just doesn't work for a number of people/uses, so it's not a matter of 'holding our nose'. We *cant* use it, no matter how much we might want to (Which, if it involves DRM, is nill, to a lot of us).

 

[sjmiller]

Due respect, Joe, I don't think that is likely to happen. It seems their primary business model is to sell products by companies that won't live without some guarantee that their work won't be copied.

As some of you may know, Steve Jackson Games is one of the biggest supporters of Intellectual Property Rights and Anti-Piracy efforts. Later this year, they are going to be opening something called e23.com, which will sell PDFs of many of their products, old and new. There was concern recently that they would use a model somewhat along the lines of DriveThruRPG.com. SJG said that not only would the site be nothing like DTRPG, but that they would be putting no restrictions on their PDFs. To paraphrase them, you bought it, you can use it how you wish. They'll even allow you to download a new copy if you lose the original file, and they'll let you know when files are updated so you can get new ones.

This is from the folks who, untill recently, were saying that piracy and copying concerns prevented them from making PDFs. Perhaps the folks who are using DTRPG as their vendor should talk to Steve Jackson. I am sure he has lots of things to say about DTRPG.

 

[Psion]

As some of you may know, Steve Jackson Games is one of the biggest supporters of Intellectual Property Rights and Anti-Piracy efforts.

At the same time, Steve Jackson Games has good reason to be on the forefront of civil rights concerns, having had a history of having their intellectual property seized.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Sir Whiskers, I think you underestimate the level to which DRM is despised by many.

I sincerely hope so.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, DRM just doesn't work for a number of people/uses, so it's not a matter of 'holding our nose'. We *cant* use it, no matter how much we might want to (Which, if it involves DRM, is nill, to a lot of us).

And unfortunately, the companies who use DRM have simply written you off as pdf customers. I don't agree with their business case, but it seems they believe they'll actually get more sales in the end if they use DRM - simultaneously locking out a portion of the market. In effect, your business isn't worth their trouble. Sheesh...