Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[jdrakeh]

We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.

That's probably the best bit of reason to come out of this thread, actually.

. . . or possibly some kind of PDF with self-contained computer code that either permits or denies copying.

Like DRM, maybe?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not quite- I'm talking about something a bit more sophisticated.

The code I'm envisioning lets you copy the PDF. Just how many times is determined by the PDF's creator- one only, one a month, whatever up to an unlimited number or. Once that number is reached, the PDFf can no longer be copied...unless you purchase a renewal code.

The code might also include a virus that destroys unauthorized electronic copies of itself- kind of like the exploding dye packets you used to see in clothing retailers. As a security feature for the purchaser, each PDF would have a purchase code delivered as a seperate file- if your PDF was incorrectly destroyed, you call the PDF issuer, tell them what happened and give them your code to recieve a new PDF (and security code).

Or some such- I'm no programmer, but I know several. Such things are possible.

Of course, such measures would only be a skirmish in the battle of IP protection vs IP infringement...other measures would eventually replace the above.

 

[JustinA]

The code might also include a virus that destroys unauthorized electronic copies of itself- kind of like the exploding dye packets you used to see in clothing retailers. As a security feature for the purchaser, each PDF would have a purchase code delivered as a seperate file- if your PDF was incorrectly destroyed, you call the PDF issuer, tell them what happened and give them your code to recieve a new PDF (and security code).

That's still DRM, it's just even more obnoxious. (But only slightly. Sony, after all, managed to release a DRM method for its CDs that opened your computer up for hackers.)

Here are the facts about DRM:

(1) If the goal is to actually prevent pirating, it doesn't work. Period. End of story. The most draconian of DRM methods have not deterred the pirates in the slightest. They have scarcely slowed them down.

(2) If the goal is to piss off your legitimate customers, it works just fine. Not only does DRM strip away the consumer's legal rights, it frequently debilitates the utility of the product the consumer has purchased; opens the consumers equipment to exploits and hacks; and degrades performance of the consumer's equipment.

(3) DRM's biggest sin is that it makes your ability to continue using the product that you paid money for completely dependent on the continued existence of the company your purchased it from. This is absurd. This is saying that Shakespeare's plays should no longer be read once the Lord Chamberlain's Men ceased to exit. More pertinently, look around the RPG industry: How many companies have ceased to exist?

Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[jdrakeh]

Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.

That's not a very spiritual way to present your view, though I am forced to agree with the sentiment. DRM sounds great, but in practice all it does is drive consumers away in droves (I recall seeing some seriously scary number comparions between an e-book retailer that required DRM and one that didn't) and, thus, drive publishers who use it into the poor house. Nobody likes paying for crippled software.

Asking somebody to pay for a DRM PDF is like asking somebody to pay full retail price for a piece of demo software that quits working after 30 days. There's a reason that Drive-Thru RPG dropped their DRM-only model (and seriously, whoever thought of that ought to have been fired). You should have seen the forums here when that format was announced. Pay near full cover price for a crippled e-book?

Yeah, that was real attractive

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(1) If the goal is to actually prevent pirating, it doesn't work. Period. End of story. The most draconian of DRM methods have not deterred the pirates in the slightest. They have scarcely slowed them down.

Not entirely true. I have owned several programs that, if copied illegally, self destruct- either completely or lose significant functionality.

Such protection schemes are rare, however.

Not only does DRM strip away the consumer's legal rights, it frequently debilitates the utility of the product the consumer has purchased; opens the consumers equipment to exploits and hacks; and degrades performance of the consumer's equipment.

How does the method I described strip away a consumer's rights? It actively permits copying, but not in amounts or at rates that would devalue the IP. The only person adversely affected is someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not legitimate consumers.

My understanding of DRM is that the problems you describe here were the result of some truly shoddy programming- not an inherent flaw in the theory of this style of protection.

(3) DRM's biggest sin is that it makes your ability to continue using the product that you paid money for completely dependent on the continued existence of the company your purchased it from.<snip>

What I described doesn't. What I described has no effect on your ability to use the product, only on your ability to copy it.

Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.

I most respectfully disagree with the statement on its face and its tone.

 

[JustinA]

Not entirely true. I have owned several programs that, if copied illegally, self destruct- either completely or lose significant functionality.

Really? Name them. I can virtually guarantee you that pirated editions can be trivially found online.

How does the method I described strip away a consumer's rights? It actively permits copying, but not in amounts or at rates that would devalue the IP.

Let me translate what you just said: "How does the method I describe strip away a consumer's rights? It actively permits copying, but then it strips away their rights."

You do understand that copyright law gives the consumer an unlimited right to make copies for personal use, right? And that when you limit that right you are, by definition, limiting that right?

The only person adversely affected is someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not legitimate consumers.

Or anyone who likes to regularly perform backups. Or anyone who uses a particular book frequently and copies out portions of it as needed.

My understanding of DRM is that the problems you describe here were the result of some truly shoddy programming- not an inherent flaw in the theory of this style of protection.

Fundamentally DRM requires that the material be authorized by the publisher. That problem can't be worked around in any way, shape, or form and still have it be DRM. By definition.

In addition, DRM when applied to computer programs BY DEFINITION degrades performance. (Unless you've managed to perform the miraculous task of designing a program which doesn't reside in memory and never uses the CPU.)

What I described doesn't. What I described has no effect on your ability to use the product, only on your ability to copy it.

You described it as a virus. (And you were not wrong to do so.) Anyone attempting to defend a program which installs a VIRUS on my computer is either clueless or malicious. Which are you?

I most respectfully disagree with the statement on its face and its tone.

That's nice. Nonetheless, you are seriously supporting WotC's right to send armed goons to your house on a periodic basis to verify your receipts for the books you've purchased from them and, if you're unable to produce those receipts, to burn the books to make sure you weren't devaluing their IP.

If a goons make a mistake, of course, you can call WotC and explain the situation to them and WotC would provide you with a new copy of any books accidentally destroyed. Of course, you would have to verify that you hadn't made one too many copies of the character sheet in the back of the book.

I mean, the only person who would be adversely affected by that would be someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not a legitimate consumer. So you'd be perfectly okay with it, right?

...

There's really no way to describe someone who suggests such a thing except as clueless, malicious, or suicidal.

And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about physical books or electronic data. The principle is the same.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[S'mon]

There's really no way to describe someone who suggests such a thing except as clueless, malicious, or suicidal.

Please leave out the ad hominem attacks.

Even on Danny.

 

[D.Shaffer]

You do understand that copyright law gives the consumer an unlimited right to make copies for personal use, right? And that when you limit that right you are, by definition, limiting that right?

You do understand you're trying to argue law with an actual lawyer, right?

 

[werk]

I'd love to. I live in a pretty rural area and Staples is the only thing I got. Closest is Office Max at 25 miles away. I don't even know of a Kinko's closer then Philly...

http://www.pricewatch.com/printers/

$200 or less for a color laser printer, 17 pages per minute.

 

[SteveC]

Here we go again. Let's just get out the usual platitudes:

DRM is still bad, mkay? Put DRM in your product and I'm not going to buy it. Period. And I'm not alone.

Piracy is still bad, mkay? Pirating PDFs hurts the very people in our industry we want to keep producing cool stuff.

Now onto the new topic: printing. I suggest that PDF publishers and sellers should get on this right away and solve the problem for their customers. Not being able to print a product I've purchased reduces the value of that product considerably. Less value to me means it is less likely (far less likely in some cases) that I'll pick up your product

So fix the issue.

For the record, though, I've never had a problem printing a PDF, since the Office Max near where I work actually has an extremely knowledgeable and friendly staff, and are actually gamer friendly.

EDIT
Oh, and on the posts talking about how cheap a color laser printer is, be VERY careful. Many of those printers cost more to refill the cartridges than the printer itself. Oh, and the cartridges they ship with the printer might be less than half full.

--Steve