An open letter to DriveThruRPG and the publishers using them

[Kem]

If I am not mistaken, Adobe Acrobat (reader) ALWAYS downloads to the "my ebook" folder on your hard drive, so this may be a moot point.

Also, specific sections of US code do not count "necessary" copying required for functioning as "counting" for the purposes of copyright. What this means beyond that is a topic for a lawyer; I just wanted to point out that it's not as simple as applying traditional copyright law to the computer.

However that Ebook folder is in the "My Documents" Folder and that folder can be placed anywhere you want.

I could easily set it to be on an external Hard Drive. And I don't think it'd be too hard to set it to a removable media like a CDR drive.

 

[Eben]

On his boards, Monte Cook said he was looking into a "lend" feature that would allow the DRM-PDFs to be accessed from a non-registered computer for a short time. Is such a thing technically feasible, and have other publishers thought about such a feature?

Apparently there is. Such a feature allows you to use a copy for a certain amount of time, after this it locks up and you need a key to open it up again. Such a feature would make it possible for libraries to lend out ebooks. It's in the faq on the adobe site, I entered it throug the drivethry site.

 

[Eben]

On his boards, Monte Cook said he was looking into a "lend" feature that would allow the DRM-PDFs to be accessed from a non-registered computer for a short time. Is such a thing technically feasible, and have other publishers thought about such a feature?

Apparently there is. Such a feature allows you to use a copy for a certain amount of time, after this it locks up and you need a key to open it up again. Such a feature would make it possible for libraries to lend out ebooks. It's in the faq on the adobe site, I entered it throug the drivethry site.
But I do believe that any machine you use it on must be DRM activated.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Just in case people were wondering, Morrus' warning to keep things civil in the other DriveThru thread applies here as well.

 

[maddman75]

The question is, since pirates can circumvent DRM anyway, what does it actually accomplish other than inconveniencing some of our honest customers? For me, Adobe's DRM provides three main features: security, communication, and potential.

Security: This one is pretty limited. Most of our books have been pirated and are available on the Internet for free. Electronic versions are just going to make things easier for these hardcore pirates, and they're going to make the pirated copies of our work of higher quality. I can't possibly express how much it hurts to have one's work stolen--and not even by hardened criminals, but just by ordinary gamers who simply don't give a damn or, I guess, just enjoy the thrill of stealing. The fact is, though, there's virtually nothing we can do to stop this kind of theft. DRM certainly isn't going to do it--that's been pretty well documented.

DRM might, however, limit a more subtle and less malicious sort of "casual theft." This, for example, is the guy who downloads one of our eBooks and then makes copies for his friends or players. Maybe he's the DM. He downloads Midnight, and before he starts his campaign, he burns copies of all the rules chapters for his players. It's great, he figures, because now all the players can have their own copies of the rules without being tempted to read the juicy setting stuff. He may even forbid his players to buy a copy of the book, for fear that they might read something they're not supposed to. (BTW, would you guys be interested in "player's version" eBooks of things like Midnight, Dawnforge, and the Horizon minigames?) *This* guy might be less likely to commit this sort of piracy with DRM in place. And in my experience, this kind of piracy happens a lot--I know, because I've been offered just these sorts of CDs from my DMs.

However, I think that this DRM scheme may increase piracy. If someone has trouble getting it to work or can't for whatever reason - if they don't use an "approved" operating system, their gaming machine doesn't connect to the internet, or they want to print their pdf at a print shop these pseudo-pdfs are useless. All you've done it given them motive to download a real PDF off the pirate network that they can actually use.

Communication: This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point. DRM makes it very clear what rights the publisher of an eBook is selling and what rights the publisher is reserving. Sure, the customer can go ahead and crack the DRM if he wants to, but it will be pretty obvious when he's doing something the publisher didn't authorize him to do. This kind of integrated, clear definition of rights is extremely valuable to me for a number of reasons. For one, it should eliminate most unintentional piracy--some folks don't know a whole lot about copyright law and shouldn't be expected to learn it. At best, DRM can be a sort of integrated copyright tutorial that tells the customer exactly what he can and can't legally do with the copy of the work he purchased. Further, the more clearly I can define the rights I'm selling to my work and the rights I'm reserving (within the bounds of the law, of course), the more likely I am to be able to successfully defend those rights should the need, or opportunity, ever arise.

And a letter at the beginning of each PDF, or a statement when the pdf is bought couldn't do this in a much less antagonistic and insulting way?

Potential: Adobe's DRM is far from foolproof. It's not 100% versatile and user-friendly. But it's better than other attempts that have been made in the past. I like Adobe. I'm an Adobe fanboy. I consider many of their products to be among the highest-quality, most useful software applications I have ever owned. So I trust their ability to do good work, to continue to innovate, to continue to improve their products. I believe that publishers need technological solutions to these issues we're discussing if electronic publishing is ever to reach its full potential, and I'm confident in Adobe's ability to provide those solutions. But I also recognize that the problems themselves often present a moving target, so I expect the solutions to be ongoing and never 100% perfect. I also want these solutions to be as user-friendly and non-intrusive as possible for my customers, and I trust Adobe to improve its product on that front as well. Some of this progress will require improvements in the technology, but some can be made through customer service. DTRPG, with help from Adobe, is already working on some possible solutions that may address some of the concerns about functionality that have been raised here.

I don't like adobe. I think their products are bloated and slow, and I don't like their history with ebooks or digital rights. But since PDFs are an open standard I don't have to use their reader -- unless its one of these DRMed Pseudo-pdfs that I can only read on approved operating systems with approved versions of their software.

Further, not only does this DRM not work, DRM will never work. Ever. Its impossible. If I can view your data, I can make a copy of it. If all else fails a pirate could use a digital camera to take pictures of his monitor. If that sounds like a lot of hassle, remember that some of these people will despine their books so they can get better scans. Don't trust me, ask anyone educated in encryption. If Alice sends a message to Bob and Bob has the key, there's nothing Alice can do to keep Bob from sending it to Carol.

Now, having said all that, I also understand if some of our potential customers are unwilling to purchase our eBooks. There are plenty of valid reasons, whether philosophical or practical, not to buy DRM-protected eBooks. I respect that and can only hope that the situation changes in the future.

Only if you and the other companies on DTRPG remove the spyware from your products. An RPG book does not need to be phoning home to make sure its okay for me to open it.


That is, at least, the case for FFG. Even so, we'd like to price our eBooks at a more competitive price--obviously, we'd like to produce as much revenue from this venture as possible. However, many of our retailers and distributors are extremely concerned (and every bit as passionate as many here) about direct-to-consumer competition from publishers. These folks are extremely important to us. Consider: The vast majority of FFG's revenues do not even derive from RPG products, let alone eBook versions of those products. It would be the height of insanity for us, as a company, to jeopardize even one relationship with a retailer or distributor over the pricing of RPG eBooks. We may all believe that eBooks and print products don't compete with each other, but frankly, it isn't our perception that matters here. It's theirs, and we're going to respect that. If that means we sell fewer eBooks than we otherwise would, that's unfortunate for both the company and the customers we might otherwise have gained, but we'll have to live with it. For now.

Thanks much,

Greg
FFG[/QUOTE]

 

[kreynolds]

If you download an eBook from DTRPG to your hard drive, First Sale does not entitle you to copy that file to a CD...whether or not you subsequently delete or destroy the original, purchased copy.

Now, I'm not a lawyer or anything, and neither do I claim to be an expert, but my common sense/logic alarm just went into high gear. I can't help but seriously doubt the legitimacy of this. To my understanding, and I could very well be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time), if I purchase a book or magazine, I can give it away. It is my legal right to do so. When I give it away, it is presumed I no longer have it. The copyright owner of that book has no idea whether or not I actually have retained a copy, but it's irrelevant. First Sale says it is still my right to give that book away.

I don't see how this is any different. If each and every PDF you sold included a EULA, that would be one thing, but no license agreement is included with these PDFs. Now, it could be said that the DRM itself is a form of license agreement, in which case the license, as far as I can tell, does indeed step on my rights to give the PDF away to someone. Such a license is fully within your right to use, and I'm not saying otherwise.

So let's be clear, DRM doesn't change the fact that I have the right to give away something I purchase. A EULA (i.e. DRM, in this case), however, can to my understanding, lawfully and legitimately override that right. I fully understand this. If I purchase a game, but I don't like the EULA that says I can't make a backup copy, then I can never make use of the game. "Breaking the seal", as it were, means that I agree with this EULA. So, in the case of DRM, interpreted as your EULA, I won't purchase your PDFs. Why? I don't agree with your EULA.

Anyway, like I said, I could be wrong about First Sale and my right to give away something I purchase, but that's why I wish Clark was around right about now.

 

[Umbran]

First Sale would entitle you to give away or sell your hard drive, which includes the purchased copy of the eBook.

I'm sorry, but there's a problem. This is effectively saying, "You retain right of First Sale for this book. However, you must give or sell your entire library of other books to the same person in the process. In fact, you must give away everything that sits on the bookcase, even if it isn't a book!"

Let us say I purchace two of these ebooks. I should enjoy right of First Sale on each one of them separately. However, unless I store them on separate hard drives, I cannot excercise those rights fully. I cannot give the separate books to different people? This is still preserving my rights?

It gets worse! If Adobe always puts the ebook in the same folder, and that folder is always created on the same disk as the OS installation, then, in effect, you've tied by right of First Sale to a completley different license - my license with Microsoft! I'd need a separate OS installation for every book, and that means another fee. How many dollars do I need to spend in addition to the download fee if I want to exercise my rights of First Sale freely for each book?

Now, I expect that nobody hereabouts has the resources or time or enthusiasm to legally pursue the issue, but I expect that under normal copyright law tying up rights like that is probably illegal. You'd have to be issuing your wares under a different license, and making the terms clear to the user before they purchase.

 

[Wasgo]

Now, I'm not a lawyer or anything, and neither do I claim to be an expert, but my common sense/logic alarm just went into high gear. I can't help but seriously doubt the legitimacy of this. To my understanding, and I could very well be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time), if I purchase a book or magazine, I can give it away. It is my legal right to do so. When I give it away, it is presumed I no longer have it. The copyright owner of that book has no idea whether or not I actually have retained a copy, but it's irrelevant. First Sale says it is still my right to give that book away.

I don't see how this is any different. If each and every PDF you sold included a EULA, that would be one thing, but no license agreement is included with these PDFs. Now, it could be said that the DRM itself is a form of license agreement, in which case the license, as far as I can tell, does indeed step on my rights to give the PDF away to someone. Such a license is fully within your right to use, and I'm not saying otherwise.

So let's be clear, DRM doesn't change the fact that I have the right to give away something I purchase. A EULA (i.e. DRM, in this case), however, can to my understanding, lawfully and legitimately override that right. I fully understand this. If I purchase a game, but I don't like the EULA that says I can't make a backup copy, then I can never make use of the game. "Breaking the seal", as it were, means that I agree with this EULA. So, in the case of DRM, interpreted as your EULA, I won't purchase your PDFs. Why? I don't agree with your EULA.

Anyway, like I said, I could be wrong about First Sale and my right to give away something I purchase, but that's why I wish Clark was around right about now.

There is no formal right of first sale with respect to digital works. As part of a followup to the introduction of the DMCA, a commision was formed to study its ramifications. One of those was the limitations placed on the right of first sale by the seller. The conclusion drawn was that the original intent of the first sale provision was to prevent seller intervention over goods purchased; currently though, they felt the rights of the seller should include newer, different rights. So, no provision was recommended to allow for the sale of digital goods.

So, while a good lawyer could argue that it should and thereby does still apply, as far as the government is concerned it simply doesn't. Which in turn makes any argument about restricting these right a very moot point. Bottom line is that the DMCA pretty much trumps the older laws and it takes a very good lawyer to prove otherwise.

 

[The Sigil]

There is no formal right of first sale with respect to digital works.

Really? IANAL, but here goes...

US Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101 contains the following definitions:

''Audiovisual works'' are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied.

''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

A ''device'', ''machine'', or ''process'' is one now known or later developed.

''Literary works'' are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied.
==========
I would submit to you that a PDF would fall under the category "literary works" as it is expressed in words and is not an audiovisual work.

Clearly, when I purchase a product from a download site, I have lawfully acquired a copy. I would submit that it IS in fact possible to have that download delivered to a piece of removable media, such as a CD-ROM or an external Hard Drive (I have done it myself). For the sake of this argument, let's assume it's a CD-ROM.

I receive a lawfully acquired copy of a literary work, which the law defines as that physical portion of the CD on which the data is carried; and probably would, for practical purposes, include the entirety of the CD (since a copy of a book is generally considered to be not just those physical portions of paper with ink on them, but the entirety of the pages).

Note that in this sense, the "copy" as defined by law is NOT the PDF file itself; it is the actual physical CD, as I am able to perceive the work with the aid of a device (in this case, a computer).

Perhaps a PDF is not a "literary work" but instead a "computer program." If it is, I should then have the protections granted by and implied by Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1)

that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2)

that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. -

Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

====
Part (a) says I have the right to make archival copies (plural, not singular) provided that I have come into the possession of a lawful copy, and if I part ways with the lawful copy I must destroy the archival copies OR per part (b) sell, lease, or otherwise transfer them along with the lawful copy with consent of the copyright owner.

It should be noted that Part (b) implies that I do possess the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer my copy - the Right of First Sale. Again, it is conceivable that the "first copy" could be contained on a CD, an external hard drive, a Jump Drive, or any similar device. It is not necessarily on my hard drive.

So, while a good lawyer could argue that it should and thereby does still apply, as far as the government is concerned it simply doesn't. Which in turn makes any argument about restricting these right a very moot point. Bottom line is that the DMCA pretty much trumps the older laws and it takes a very good lawyer to prove otherwise.

IANAL. I've parsed the DMCA and have found no language to contradict the above... that what constitutes a copy is the CD itself, not the "PDF file" in the eyes of the law. The language seems pretty clear to me... that I *do* have the Right of First Sale either way ("literary work" or "computer program")... and that it's not necessarily "attached to the hip" to my hard drive.

Whether my reading is correct or not, I don't think it's very nice to try to play semantics games to try to "tie the file to my hard drive" by saying, "that's where the first lawful copy was made and you're stuck with it there." Yes, it's in the interest of the copyright holder to do that to prevent himself from being estopped. But I'd prefer silence on the matter than nothing at all.

It means I can't, for example, under the "attached at the him" interpretation, legally buy a copy for my gaming buddy as a birthday present.

And, as Umbran (I think it was) has mentioned, it's not very nice to "tie the books to the bookshelf." It may be technically legally correct in this instance... but it's not very good customer PR. And as I mentioned, the assumption that the lawful (initial) copy is going to a hard drive may well be false, making the conclusion ("well, you can give away your hard drive") false as well.

EDIT: I just noticed something else with regard to computer programs - the clause that an owner can "make an adaptation" for archival purposes. I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of this one - absent the DMCA, I think it would imply that an owner could strip DRM from a PDF. But I could be wrong on that count.

--The Sigil

 

[RangerWickett]

This is my first step into this discussion.

It seems to me that the main draw of this DRM is that it reduces 'casual piracy'. The sort of thing where a DM sends a copy of a pdf to a player, so the player can use the information in it. Heck, I'll admit that I did that with Monte Cook's Mindscapes -- one of the players wanted a psion, I didn't feel like printing out the whole book, so I sent my friend a copy. The next day he bought his own copy. Good man, my friend.

This is also similar to my freshman year of college, when I used Napster to download all the mp3s of songs I had on CDs back home, that I'd forgotten. I also used Napster to get copies of songs on CDs my brother owned. I mean, I love U2, but I wasn't going to buy my own copy of all of the music while I was still living in the same house as my brother. Now, though, that I have a job, I intend to get all the music that I used to listen to all the time. I think this was technically illegal, and if not for Napster I probably would've bought the U2 CDs myself. In this instance, casual piracy did cost the record company money.

DRM also stops what I'll call 'active amateur piracy.' This is like my freshman year of college, when I used Napster to get the All You Can't Leave Behind music from U2's new album, and when I collected various greatest hits that I'd always heard on the radio, and when I got the entire BBC radio play of Lord of the Rings to refresh myself in preparation of the rumored movie. This was illegal, and if Napster hadn't been around, I would not have worried. I wouldn't have cared enough about this stuff to pay any money for it. In this instance, my active amateur piracy didn't hurt the record company. I was just sampling, getting a few things I already knew I liked, but that I wasn't gung-ho about enough to actually pay for.

DRM does not stop 'active professional piracy.' This is like my acquaintance Arick, who, even though he's rich and becoming a doctor, he likes making money on the side from piracy. He started out just selling fansubbed copies of anime that had not yet been released in the US, but then he moved up to selling DVDs of the Lord of the Rings (copied from review material that had been sent to Oscar academy judges), burning copies of X-Box games, and getting a collection of pretty much every movie that came out in the past 3 years the moment they hit DVD. He was able to get most of this stuff off the internet easily, but even without filesharing networks, he could've just as easily found other methods of getting what he wanted. It would probably be VHS's instead of DVDs, or he might've had to find special warez-esque sites, but he'd still be pirating. He doesn't respect artists, and just wants stuff, so he'll take what he wants, even if it's a little harder.

DRM also seems like it's a pain for people who aren't completely wired into the internet.

From the looks of it, compared to normal pdfs, DRM does nothing except annoy legitimate consumers and provide false comfort for producers. The only actual benefit I see is that it discourages casual copying and sharing among friends, but this could be discouraged just as easily by having the digital store having a clear reminder policy of what is fair use. Heck, if we consider that most gaming groups will have a PHB for each player, but that each other book is just owned by the DM and shared, really, DRM is less useful than both pdfs and normal books.

What's the appeal, if someone could remind me, please?