My hypothesis is that DRM is bad for the publishing business, and hence the publishing business should ditch DRM for that reason. The people who are actually studying the impacts of DRM vs no-DRM – O’Reilly and Brian O’Leary leading the charge – seem to suggest that hypothesis is correct. For now, anyway. My read of the evidence in other media industries suggests the same.
If it turns out, based on solid evidence, that DRM is better for the business of publishing, I’ll change my mind (though I will grumble about it).
But right now the debate around DRM is couched in moral rhetoric (DRM is fascist!! vs. You are all thieves!!!), and sensationalized balderdash (piracy = $3 billion in lost sales!!! gasp!), and I look forward to the day when that is behind us.
Darwin has decreed that eventually it’ll all shake out: those who choose the “right” business models will survive; those that don’t will fail.
And that’s why I think it’s important to look at good evidence when making these decisions: it’s critical for survival.
If all goes well, there will be more and more good evidence out there in the next year or two, so that publishers and other businesses can make informed decisions.
Right now I’m confident in my own hypothesis, because of the evidence out there, as well as certain moral leanings. We’ll see how it all plays out; and I will gladly change my mind when compelling evidence suggests I should.
But I’ll bet you any DRM-free ebook you care to choose that my hypothesis is right.
7 Comments
Having just listened to the debate on a recent SPOS podcast, I am completely with you on the DRM debate. Not only is it bad for the industry (publishers), it’s bad for consumer and writers.
Publishers need to accept that the world of publishing is changing and that writers are getting closer to their consumers. Trying to control the flow of content through DRM only increases consumers’ frustration with the publishing industry.
As a consumer of eBooks, I have held back on purchasing any particular reader as I don’t want to to be limited to only being able to read an eBook on a particular reader. If I purchase an eBook, I want to be able to read it on a Kindle/SonyReader/Nook AND my pc/laptop AND my iphone/Blackberry. Being dictated to by the publisher as to which device I can use is like being told where I can read my paperback. DRM here is just illogical.
And, finally, it’s not good for the Writers. Being married to a best-selling author (who just happens to have retained all electronic writes to her titles), it’s unbelievably frustrating to have to create multiple versions of an eBook to satisfy the electronic publishers and then to have to explain to consumers why an eBook is available on one platform through a certain outlet and not on another. DRM just doesn’t make sense to consumers who want to be able to download and read an eBook to any device that they have from anywhere in the world.
If there was a petition to sign today to get overly powerful publishers to drop DRM and stop trying to control a market place that would be better serviced through an open-source approach, I’d sign it today.
In the meantime, I’ll watch the debate with interest.
Andy
I tend to agree with you on your hypothesis. My only fear is that convincing the major publishers might take years, and by then, it’ll be too late. I mean, look at their standard response to ebooks (delaying the release of ebooks by 6 weeks because of a fear on how it might impact hardcover book sales — that’s OLD WORLD THINKING and evidence that publishing hasn’t paid attention to what happened in the music industry)
@Andy I don’t think it’s so much powerful publishers – as it is terrified publishers. It’s a pretty scary transition they’re about to go through, and answering this question: “how do we keep paying editors and writers enough that they can keep editing and writing” … is what keeps most people in the business awake at night. DRM is sold to them as a kind of solution; I happen to think its a counterproductive one … so the more data we can see about this the better.
@mark a bunch of people (like me) writing on the web isn’t going to convince them; what will convince them is successful business models, and data-based decision-making.
really?
you make your decision based on
what’s best for _business_?
seriously?
that’s a shame, hugh. a real shame.
i think you — and everybody else –
should make the decision based on
what’s best for _society_…
you act like this is not a moral question.
it _is_. it goes to the _foundation_ of
our moral grounding, the pure _bedrock_.
every single one of us has benefitted –
greatly! — from the fact that knowledge
has been freely obtainable from books…
the rich world we live in is a product
– a direct product — of the _sharing_
of knowledge that has given full spur to
our collective intelligence and well-being.
now some overly-privileged few of us
are trying to put padlocks on books so
they can then charge a toll on access to
knowledge so as to line their pockets…
it’s shameful. it’s downright _shameful_.
the battle lines have been drawn, clearly,
and — quite unfortunately, hugh — you
have placed yourself on the wrong side.
-bowerbird
@bowerbird: yes, I think businesses should make decisisons based on good business. that’s what they are for. I think legislators should make decisions based on what is good for society. And smart business recognize that healthy society means good business.
i agree that DRM *is* a moral issue. But arguing it as such means that the arguments are divorced from how and why businesses make their decisions.
fyi, here are some of my moral/societal thoughts on DRM, wrt Canada’s proposed then killed update to our Copyright Act:
http://hughmcguire.net/2008/06/23/open-letter-to-ministers-re-bill-c-61/
Hugh,
I just replied to one of your earlier posts, but this one is even better:-) I published eBooks with DRM for a few years, but stopped when Amazon dropped my distributor (Lightning Source). After a couple years of selling paper books only, I went back to selling eBooks, unprotected PDF files direct from my website using eJunkie with PayPal for fulfillment and credit card processing. Wrote up the last two years for one title’s sales as a case study this morning:
http://www.fonerbooks.com/2010/01/ebook-case-study-and-experience-selling.html
I avoid telling publishers what to do and try to lead by example through sharing my sales data. Although my titles are heavily pirated, it doesn’t impact my sales in any way that I can measure, but that may be because my titles are not household names. Since the vast majority of my customers learn about my eBooks on my website, it seems to me that the ones who choose to download them from a file sharing network rather than paying me weren’t potential customers in any case.
Morris
hugh said:
> i agree that DRM *is* a moral issue.
then that’s how we need to talk about it.
to do anything less is to lose our moral center.
> But arguing it as such means that
> the arguments are divorced from
> how and why businesses make their decisions.
so?
who cares?
i’m tired of businessmen (and rightwingers)
telling us that all discussions have to be held
in their language and on their dimensions…
_especially_ when it comes to moral issues.
that’s how we’ve let them trick us into this
amoral mess in which we now find ourselves,
where we are giving them even _more_ money.
it’s time for us to tell the businessmen that
their wallets do _not_ trump other concerns.
and i can’t think of a better issue to stand ground
than the matter of universal access to knowledge.
it’s time to instruct them — quite firmly — that
they cannot place a toll-bridge on information,
no matter how good it might be for business…
you can’t have it both ways, hugh. you must decide.
-bowerbird