Trying to change a major publisher’s mind on DRM is a lost cause. That’s why even though I disagree with IDPF’s DRM efforts, I can only hope that their work will result in the wholesale adoption of a completely ineffective and useless DRM technique and bring us into a de facto DRM-free world.
(You could argue DRM isn’t a problem for existing consumers. That’s true, but only because we just buy from Amazon.)
What I hadn’t expected but has become abundantly obvious over the past year is that the publishing industry has a pathological preoccupation with controlling the reader’s actions. I had originally expected publishers to respond to reason, logic, and ruthless capitalistic ROI calculations (all of which weigh against DRM). But those who favour DRM do not respond to logic. When nailed on one argument they slip over to another:
—No no no, piracy isn’t a problem, it’s uncontrolled sharing
Po-tay-to po-tah-to. When it becomes hard to find evidence that piracy affects revenue the response is to rebrand it and claim that it’s still a problem.
I don’t quite know how to deal with an irrational obsession on that scale. Obviously, if piracy is cutting your revenue, that is a bad thing. But so much of the concerns around piracy are indistinct and vague—piracy worriers can’t articulate specific business consequences beyond ‘lost sales’ hand-waving with no data to back it up.
My own views on piracy, as a result of having worked in the software industry for a few years, is that, insofar that it’s an actual revenue drain, fighting it is largely a lost cause. As games developer and publisher Jeff Vogel has been fond of pointing out: if you’re selling a digital product, by definition everybody who decides to give you money is an honest person. The dishonest people will just pirate your product without a care or worry. Heavy-duty, iron-clad DRM can’t force the dishonest to buy and imposing it would have massive detrimental results both for the honest reader, the author, and the publisher (but not the dishonest reader). The dishonest would rather simply go without than pay. And even if you could force them, they’d be the customer from hell, overloading support channels and public forums with Olympic level whining.
So why worry about them? ‘Pirates’, even if you can prove they exist and affect revenue, which most publishers discover is hard, are a non-factor from a business perspective, about as relevant to your sales as Mac users are to a Windows developer. They simply aren’t a part of our market. This fact is also a big part of the reason why measuring piracy and the impact of piracy is so difficult. It’s like trying to measure the GDP impact of a Buddhist chanting. Non-participation isn’t measurable. Estimating the loss from non-participation is little more than science-fiction.
I wouldn’t mind talking about piracy to publishers if they discussed the issue in the same logical, matter-of-fact, manner that most indie software developers discuss it. But they don’t. What publishers mean when they say ‘piracy’ is more of a general worry about change and new technology and so most of them are extremely reluctant to discuss the details of what they believe and fear.
In publishing, the piracy concern is a superstition, magical thinking driven by a hope that the digital space is fundamentally inhospitable and the old times will be proven to be fundamentally superior to the new. The believers resist all attempts to empirically verify whether there is or isn’t a problem. Arguing with them is like arguing with a creationist. They don’t want proof, even if it is in their favour, because what they want is blind faith. What is worse is that many are using the fear of piracy as an excuse for not entering interesting new markets, which is a loss of opportunity, money, and revenue more certain than any threat that stems from piracy.
The real problem publishers have
Tracing the problem right down to its roots, it’s clear that the publishing industry’s behaviour towards readers (not their readers since we’re talking about the author’s readers not the publisher’s) comes from the same source as their behaviour towards authors.
Just as with authors, who they saddle with fundamentally unfair and insulting contracts, publishers simply have a disdain and fear for readers, preferring to let proxies like bookstores take care of all direct contact with them.
I see no other way to explain their behaviour. You just don’t do these things to people you like (readers or authors).
DRM is an extension of that disdain and fear. It is intrinsically hostile to the reader. It’s value isn’t supported by any evidence of substance. Publishers are willing to harm their authors’ readers just on the possibility that they might be doing something they disapprove of. There is no evidence of harm to the author or the publisher.
The question whether sharing or piracy actually takes place or whether it will affect publisher revenue is clearly irrelevant, otherwise they would have abandoned DRM years ago.
DRM will never be harmless even if it’s useless at preventing piracy or sharing
Do NOT install Adobe Digital Editions 3.0. Some DRM ebook licenses will then be incompatible with mobile devices. As in can't be ever read.
— Micah (@micahsb) January 27, 2014
Outside of the fundamental disrespect for the reader it represents, there is one major business reason why DRM is a very bad idea for publishers:
It involves inflicting a recurring technical, infrastructural, and administrative cost on all of their sales in perpetuity to solve a problem they can’t prove exists. By tying their entire catalogue, in perpetuity, to the fate and competence of a single external service provider (whoever provides the DRM solution) publishers are taking a business risk of unfathomable proportions. These are the kinds of risks that sink large companies.
That anybody would make this sort of decision without hard evidence to back it up is utterly mind-boggling.
I agree. I wrote a post a while back where I looked at it from my perspective in physical security. http://mishaburnett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/weighing-in-on-drm/
I agree completely. DRM is bad for readers and publishers. $0.22 from each sale is a hefty percentage to pay for something that doesn’t fix an insignificant problem.
When nailed on one argument they slip over to another
In almost everything, that’s a sure sign you’re dealing with matters of religion, not logic or science.
DRM is a waste of time. On the contrary, I hope the publishers finally do come up with an unbreakable DRM and find a way to bork everybody’s collections so they can’t access them — then there will be digital riots and the publishers and ebook distributors will be FORCED to go DRM free or face the Mother of All Class Action Lawsuits. This would give a huge opportunity to the authors and distributors who “get it” and sell DRM-free to show that their stories and products are as good (or better) than the mainstream publishers on top of having the right to download, backup and format shift as you desire.
What the publishers are failing to consider is the revenue from people like me who refuse to buy ANYTHING with DRM, who insist on being able to download and buy their books. I spend a lot of money at sites like Smashwords, RobotTradingCompany, BookViewCafe and Weightless, where I can just buy and download my books.
There are lots of progressive authors, publishers and distributors — what is just as important as revealing the evils of DRM is pointing readers to companies and authors who treat their customers with respect and encouraging readers to give the “good guys” a chance.