Slashdot Mirror
Old-Fashioned DRM Protects Harry Potter Book
RMX writes "The Telegraph has a nice article
about the steps that Scholastic is taking to
protect the content of the print version of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. They're delivering 10.8 million copies and need to ensure that this content isn't accessable by anyone before midnight. Technology includes high-tech (GPS to monitor delivery trucks progress and check that they did not deviate or stop.), low-tech (steel boxes & locks), social engineering notes (crates stacked up in the warehouses of delivery companies across America are marked: Please Do Not Open Before Midnight), and legal threats (As a final layer of security, booksellers have been forced to sign legal forms acknowledging that if they break the embargo, they will never again be supplied with a book by Scholastic). Think how much cheaper and easier it would be if they just used an E-book s with DRM.
I'm all for Harry Potter protecting his rights; but it seems we keep getting closer and closer to the world described in
Stallman's visionary The Right To Read article."
If the publisher wants to save money, they can simply distribute the book like any other book. No one is forcing them to have an embargo until an exact time; they have chosen to do that on their own initiative. So if it costs them lots of money to enforce it, that's their own problem. Why would you want to encourage the publisher to use DRM? How do you think it benefits you as a reader? Or do you have some other hidden agenda?
I'm baffled. If you don't want that world, why are you suggesting that the publisher should use DRM? To prevent it, you should not ask publishers to use DRM, and avoid buying DRM'd products. If DRM'd products sell poorly compared to non-DRM'd products, the publisher's decision as to whether to use DRM will be easy.This isn't Digital Rights Management
There is no "Digital" in PRINT books.
ARGGGGHHH! Please Mr. Submitter, know the terms you are using. Yes DRM is bad, but the first DRM I am aware of is floppy disks with copy protection. That's the oldest there is, everything else before that was just "rights management".
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I'm all for Harry Potter protecting his rights; but it seems we keep getting closer and closer to the world described in Stallman's visionary The Right To Read article.
What exactly is wrong with protecting your product? In a world of rip-offs and general immorality it's not very uncommon for products to be ripped off before release, or stolen from trucks/docks/etc
I myself know of workers who admit to stealing the cargo they're supposed to be loading.
There's a lot planned around the time release of the product, and realistically while they are securing to get the biggest "bang" for their own bucks, the publisher is also making things more fair for the distributers by ensuring that everyone gets the same release date, and thus no one store can steal the business from others early
I read that essay and this has nothing to do with it--and everything to do with a company trying to keep up the suspense of a massive bestseller right until the publishing date. And then after that all the locks go off and this will be distributed just like any other book.
The Cheese Stands Alone.
This is a joke.
First, DRM of course means "DIGITAL", this is anything but digital.
Second, this has nothing to do with "rights". You have no right to a harry potter book. You have no right to a harry potter book before it's supposed to be released. You have no right to read a wrongly acquired book so you dont have to wait a few days.
Third, this type of crap dilutes the idea of a "right". You DO have the right to free speach, to freely assemble, to seek a redress of your grievances. You DO NOT have the right to steal someone elses physcial and yes intellectual property by getting a Harry Potter book (a) without paying for it and (b) against the express wishes of the author and publisher.
GROW UP.
Without a doubt the dumbest summary I have ever read on Slashdot. So many half baked connections and FUD, I can only think it boils down to this : Someone in Slashdot editorial wanted to put up a Harry Potter story to sync up with the building media hype around the release, and this was the best they could come up with.
Shameful.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
The reason you have release dates is so that ALL dealers have a chance to sell the book. Otherwise the stores with better distribution systems would get it in stock first, while the others would have to wait.
Then the publisher would have to worry about which store to ship to first, because the first store who receives it has a massive sales boost.
Eventually, every small bookstore goes out of business.
This whole submission makes no sense. It has nothing to do with DRM.
Christ, its a bloody childen's book not freaking gold bars
I think that the author JK Rowlings would beg to differ with you.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Why exactly are they doing this? If the book slips out a few hours early it's not like it will be ripped and reprinted in illegal copies before the real version officially goes on sale. I just don't see the point of this much security.
Are parents really going to line up at midnight to buy a kids book? Why bother? the kid should be in bed at that time anyways.
You're kidding, right? For the last few books' midnight release dates, the lines have looked like the childrens' version of all of the l00sers lining up for Windows 95 oh-so-many years ago.
Any parent whose kid is THAT eager to read a book--any book--should be encouraged, even if it's staying up late on a summer night. Beats the hell out of them staying home playing GTA or something else equally mind-numbing.
Why not just, I don't know, make the book available as soon as it is ready instead of keeping to an artificial release date.
They're trying to prevent two things:
1) Price gouging..."yeah, you can buy it 3 days early, it'll only cost you 10 extra dollars!"
2) Retailers who get the books earlier from having an unreasonable advantage over those that don't. This often translates to large retailers versus small retailers...Target already has an advantage on price, now imagine if they also had it on the shelves 2 or 3 days early.
Street dates are nothing new, and certainly not a bad thing. This has been an accepted practice on movies, music, and books for quite some time, long before Harry Potter was ever concieved. When you're releasing something like a book or a movie to thousands upon thousands or retailers, it's impossible to get it to all of them the same day...street dates are established so the item appears on everybody's shelves at the same time, thus promoting fair competition.
We do like fair competition here, right?
None of these things really impede on our consumer rights.
The point of the embargo is so that if store A gets the book three days before store B they don't mark it up by 200 percent.
Now eBooks, more importantly DRM ebooks - there is some serious erosion of rights.
With the physical book I can read it, then I can give it to others to read. It is really a hell of an investment. What $25 - $30 and the usefulness is unlimited when you consider that once it is bought there is no limit to the number of individuals that can read it.
But the entire point of DRM eBooks is to force the public to purchase one book per reader.
I stand behind Scholastic on this one.
Besides, you are talking bad about Harry Potter. Rowling deserves a medal. She has written a series of books that CHILDREN WANT TO READ. That is so cool.
Think how much cheaper and easier it would be if they just used an E-book s with DRM.
Think how much cheaper and easier it would be if they just shipped it out like other books and didn't fucking worry about it.
Naww, crazy idea, don't know what came over me!
it seems we keep getting closer and closer to the world described in Stallman's visionary The Right To Read article.
No, they want a big release. Since when has building up a little anticipation been a crime? Scholastic is enforcing this in a fine fashion. They are stepping on nobody's rights, all they said is "if you mess this up for us, we're not doing business with you again.".
A new Harry Potter book is a big event for young people. Young being 9-15 years old. In my city the huge local bookstore stays open on a Harry Potter release night until about 2am. Children and young people show up by the hundreds; dressed up as their favorite Potter character. They actually convince their parents to bring them downtown and let them stay up until 1am when they fall asleep in car on the way home with their new Harry Potter book in their hands.
A new Windows release midnight sale is just a dud fest for insomniac nerds. But a new Harry Potter release is a big event for young people, bigger than Christmas. For most suburban 12 year olds, it's the first time being at public gathering late at night outside their home. They probably won't be downtown again after midnight until they're old enough to sneak into clubs with fake ID.
This story has nothing to do with DRM or the "right to read". It concerns a publisher protecting it's assets before they go on sale. If you think a publisher shouldn't be able to decide when to start selling it's books, you're out of your fucking mind.
After you buy the book, your rights are the same as with any other book.
Your rights are not being infringed upon.
There is nothing to see here.
Have a nice day.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Why does this even matter? It's their book, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's not harming anyone. I say, let those idiots waste their money and squander their profits on such ridiculous security measures.
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
Yeah, except that e-books are only used by a small and to my mind somewhat confused micro-minority, and for good reason -- you are not going to sell 500 trillion of them, or whatever the number is they are aiming for this Harry Potter (full disclosure: I have the whole series, too). E-books are a pain to read in the sun, are a risk to read in the bathtub, can't be dog-eared (my book, my rules), won't survive having your backpack thrown in your locker, writing a note on the second page when you give them to your kid sister is sort of hard, and you can't include them in your Delicious Library, just to name a few real-life problems. In other words: E-books are good for the publishing company, but not for the customer.
I would like to predict they are going to die like web push technology. But unfortunately, capitalism in the 21th Century is not about what the customer wants, it is about what big multinationals can get away with. When you buy an e-book, you are helping them screw you. If you want a tech toy to look cool, get a frigging iPod, that's what they are there for. But please don't support the attempt to kill something that has served the human mind for more than 2000 years.