Responses to Questions about the DI

[Halivar]

I totally disagree.

DRM places arbitrary restrictions on what you can do with your bits. Watermarking just adds a few extra bits, without arbitrarily restricting you in any way. All it does is provide a method of tracing leaks in case someone does abuse the freedom given them.

I think what you have problems with is copy-protection "hard" locks, which are preventative in nature. But it's just a small subset of the DRM options available to companies.

Watermarks are DRM in the sense that they help companies with "digital rights management" in a more forensic nature instead of preventative. Both work toward lessening the incentive to copy.

Other forms of "non-invasive" DRM techniques include serial #'s, password protection, quizzes requiring hard-copy manuals (a la old computer games; not used anymore).

 

[Delta]

I'll just say watermarking is in my definition of DRM.

Well, keep in mind that whenever you publicly say "DRM", informed customers will take that to mean technical access controls (i.e., active and ongoing "management"), not watermarking.

For example, common usage is for Steve Jobs at Apple to recently announce that iTunes will be selling DRM-free music, even though customer information is digitally embedded in the file.
http://www.digimusic.org/entry/apple-selling-drm-free-music-still-demands-customer-information/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

Mike Goodman, a Yankee Group Research analyst, argued that watermarking is "certainly better than digital rights management".
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6188337.html

FIY.

 

[sjmiller]

Not to beat anyone with the +2 Cudgel of Obvious Truth, but I was simply pointing out that, yes, our Online Digital Initiative is in fact aimed at people who have Online access.

Mike, thank you for responding to the deluge of questions that people have. I think I can explain why people keep bringing up the topic of exclusion. Dragon and Dungeon magazines were a support product that everyone could get. You plop down some cash and you can take it home (or have it delivered!). If you had online access or not, it didn't matter. That support is going away. What replaces this? Why, it's product support that only some people can get. You have to be at a computer (most likely with a fast connection) and you have to sit there and read it. Or you have to print it out, which is an additional cost to what you already "purchased."

People who preferred the offline, take anywhere, type of support want to know what they are getting to replace the support that is going away. You and Scott have both said, in so many words, that there's still going to be books. The books were there before the demise of the magazines, so it's not like you are adding anything. What people like me want to know is, what are you going to offer those of us who do not want to use the "oh-so-cool" Digital Initiatve? What am I going to get to replace the magazine I could read while lounging in my hammock?

 

[Scott_Rouse]

I totally disagree.

DRM places arbitrary restrictions on what you can do with your bits. Watermarking just adds a few extra bits, without arbitrarily restricting you in any way. All it does is provide a method of tracing leaks in case someone does abuse the freedom given them.

Speaking as someone who has major problems with DRM, I am perfectly fine with watermarking. I definitely don't consider them the same, except possibly in the broadest terms possible (i.e. they're both ways of making content publishers get warm fuzzies which ultimately only serve to keep honest customers honest and don't affect pirates at all-- security theater, as Bruce Schneier might say). DRM prevents you from doing everything you should be able to do with content you own, while watermarking does not.

How they choose to implement their DRM, even more so than the price, is the major factor for me. I have no doubt that the price will be within the range of justifiable-- what they do as far as DRM goes will determine whether I'll subscribe or not.

It's my definition so you don't have to agree with me. Guess it may not be up with the industry Jargon but it is what is is and in this case helps to frame my thoughts on what a DRM (or anti-priracy) solution should try to acheive.

I beleive that 99.9% of our customer base is honest. Did they download some Metalica songs off Napster back in the day or once buy a bootleg of the Star Wars Christmas Special at GenCon? Maybe so, but generally speaking they are honest people who given the choice would rather buy official product from a publisher than get pirated stuff. When I think about protecting copyright (which is my main consideration when I think about DRM) I keep in mind that when given the opportunity most of our customers willingly give us their money for a product and no matter what I do I can't stop pirates and the people who buy priated copies.

But honest people sometime screw up. Today customer service emailed me a link to web site with dozens of D&D 3.5 and older PDFs on them. I would guess that the person who created this site is a mostly an honest, hard working, calls his mom every Sunday kind of person who thought it would be cool to create an online lending library of all his D&D books? In my opinion he can't do this and our lawyers will send him a note stating that. I can't say if these are purchased PDFs or scans. Scanning that many books is a lot of work but people do it (based on the fact they are all over share services like bit torrent). If they were purchased PDFs a watermark stating this is Joe Smith's book would likely have been enough of a "wait a minute moment" for this person to think twice about sharing with the rest of the world. I can't stop the scanners or other cheaters who want to "screw WOTC" by dumping files onto a share site so I don't worry about them (until I find them then I sick the lawyers on em). What I want is something that helps prevent the stupid, time wasting piracy, with a reasonable but not onerous solution that keep the honest people (mostly) honest.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Well, keep in mind that whenever you publicly say "DRM", informed customers will take that to mean technical access controls (i.e., active and ongoing "management"), not watermarking.

For example, common usage is for Steve Jobs at Apple to recently announce that iTunes will be selling DRM-free music, even though customer information is digitally embedded in the file.
http://www.digimusic.org/entry/apple-selling-drm-free-music-still-demands-customer-information/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

Mike Goodman, a Yankee Group Research analyst, argued that watermarking is "certainly better than digital rights management".
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6188337.html

FIY.

Ok I need to use the right jargon so consider it my defintion of: priracy and copyright checks and balances for files in a digital medium while not hindering resonable personal usablity. Fair enough?

Edit: Actually after reading these articles it is not clear if embeded personal information (Watermarks) is part of the DRM definition or not. Some use it as inclusive to DRM, others don't. Mike Goodman seems to say watermarking is not DRM where the EFF seems to think it is. The digi music article gripes about i-tunes DRM free music has embeded material quoted here:

It is still controversial that what kind of DRM-free music Apple is offering because it is reportedly said that Apple still embeds your account information as well as your e-mail information in all songs sold on the store that also includes DRM-free music.
​

I say the jury on the definition is still out

 

[pedr]

I'd say that watermarks are digital rights protection, rather than 'management'. They don't do anything to help the rights owner manage their rights (i.e. technologically inhibit or prevent breaches of the rights) but they help to protect the rights in the same way that 'Neighbourhood Watch' or 'This car has a tracker' stickers help to protect property ownership rights by discouraging people from attempting to infringe them.

Of course that doesn't help you to use a single phrase to talk with both the business-minded people who want their IP rights protected and managed and the fans and customers who want the maximum possible flexibility to legally manipulate the content you are providing.

 

[Mike_Lescault]

People who preferred the offline, take anywhere, type of support want to know what they are getting to replace the support that is going away. You and Scott have both said, in so many words, that there's still going to be books. The books were there before the demise of the magazines, so it's not like you are adding anything.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not we're trying to keep score here. We're going to have a Digitial Initiative that's focused on providing a lot of different value to our community. We understand not everyone will be able to/want to access that. We'll also continue to provide our printed material. We understand that not everyone will be able to/want to take advantage of that as well. Those are the basic facts.

Our goal is to look at this holistically and see what we're doing for our community and brand as a whole. If you want to count the amount of pages of content available to various specific catergories of our customers, I guarentee you'll be able to identify one who is mathematically getting the short end of the stick with any decision or change we (or any company) makes.

But if that's the goal, then I agree with you. I can't promise you that there isn't anyone (including hammock-only readers, Mt Everest climbers, and diamond miners among others) who may not receive as much content post DI then they did before. But overall, I suspect the extremely vast majority of our customers will get much more overall value with this change.

 

[Nepenthe]

For example, common usage is for Steve Jobs at Apple to recently announce that iTunes will be selling DRM-free music, even though customer information is digitally embedded in the file.
http://www.digimusic.org/entry/apple-selling-drm-free-music-still-demands-customer-information/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

I thought the initial claims of embedded customer information were quickly disproved?

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Another minor contribution...

Specifically for Scott and Mike. The problem with this medium, as has been mentioned above, is that one's tone cannot be inferred by the typed word. So, very often, the most negative possible tone will be perceived regardless of what has actually been said or what the intent may have been.

With that in mind, may I offer a smidgeon of advice? The last couple of posts made by both of you have come off as somewhat adverserial or at least flippant. I'm sure that this isn't the intent, but the perception is there, at least on my part, nonetheless.

It has been mentioned over on the WotC boards, that the reason for the long absence of any sort of official presence from WotC online was due to the treatment they recieved, including threats, insults, flames, etc.

I must submit, that the tone you project, regardless of whether the tone is intentional or not, is a contributing factor to the type of responses you will get to your posts. Taking an adverserial tone will generate an adverserial response.

Thanks for being available.

 

[Kaodi]

What do you suppose the cost of printing out an entire " printer-friendly " version of you typical Dragon or Dungeon would be?