Adobe's New Ebook DRM Will Leave Existing Users Out In the Cold Come July

good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

DRMed content deserves to die, as collateral damage of killing the DRM. If people stop buying it, eventually it goes away.

Re:good riddance by davecb · 2014-02-04 02:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

They're training customers to distrust them. Remember Amazon's "delete 1984" fiasco? This may be Adobe's.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:good riddance by Enry · 2014-02-04 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative

You don't remember the fiasco all that well.
Someone who didn't have the authority to do so uploaded the book to Amazon for publishing. Yes, Amazon could have handled the communication a bit better, but the book should have never been able to be available for Kindle from that publisher in the first place.
Re:good riddance by DeathToBill · 2014-02-04 02:53 · Score: 2

They're training customers to sue them.
FTFY

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Re:good riddance by Sponge+Bath · 2014-02-04 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

The point is Amazon can delete books you purchased from devices you own, for whatever reason, without your consent. That you think the deletion in this case was justified does not make people more trusting of this Orwellian ability to make publications disappear.
Re:good riddance by tbuddy · 2014-02-04 03:22 · Score: 2

It wasn't a secret at any point that Amazon could remove content. In this case they removed content that they didn't legitimately have a right to. If one purchased it and wanted to put in the effort to contact customer service they would get credit equal to an likely above their purchase. Amazon takes care of people.

I think many authors if they knew their work was being sold on Amazon by a third party would try to get that corrected. It's pretty apples and oranges the difference between that and other bookstores being shut out is pretty obvious. If nothing else Adobe is shooting itself and smaller publishers in the foot in the middle of a race that Amazon and Apple are already winning.
Re:good riddance by gnasher719 · 2014-02-04 03:36 · Score: 2

The point is Amazon can delete books you purchased from devices you own, for whatever reason, without your consent. That you think the deletion in this case was justified does not make people more trusting of this Orwellian ability to make publications disappear.
Apple can do the same thing. In a similar situation they didn't delete any books from users' devices but paid a fine of over $100,000 to the copyright owners. (Some poster here used that in an FSF vs. Apple thread to make claims how evil Apple is, by allowing itself being tricked by criminals, and then facing the cost instead of making the customers pay).

I'd expect them to delete software from my device if they reasonably know that the software will hurt _me_.
Re:good riddance by tlhIngan · 2014-02-04 04:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Apple can do the same thing. In a similar situation they didn't delete any books from users' devices but paid a fine of over $100,000 to the copyright owners. (Some poster here used that in an FSF vs. Apple thread to make claims how evil Apple is, by allowing itself being tricked by criminals, and then facing the cost instead of making the customers pay).
I'd expect them to delete software from my device if they reasonably know that the software will hurt _me_.
Strangely enough, Apple is probably the only company that HASN'T removed content from users. Content has been removed, and if no local copy exists, that content is gone, but if a local copy is available, it still works.
The only known ability is Apple can disable an app through CoreLocation (i.e., the app uses location services), but they haven't demonstrated that ability, either.
Google, Valve (Steam), Amazon, etc., have shown they can remove apps and content from user's devices and computers.
It's strange, really. You'd think Apple would've pulled the trigger by now. Google has, many times.
Re:good riddance by rts008 · 2014-02-04 04:20 · Score: 2

Yes, we do remember that fiasco well, and the point still stands.
Do you think that the people that had '1984' deleted from their Kindle were aware of your little fact?
I don't think so. To those persons, what they saw was this:
Hey 1984...cool! pay for it(in good faith), jump through Amazon's hoops, have it deleted...WTF?
I would say you had a point if everyone that had bought and downloaded the book KNEW that it was improper beforehand, but they didn't know.
They purchased '1984' in good faith, jumping through Amazon's hoops like expected of them, then had the system bite them in the backside out of the clear blue.
That's why I only buy ebooks without DRM (Baen Books, primarily), and put them on my book reader("Augen:the Book") I paid $50.00 US for, new, and won't own a Kindle.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:good riddance by Enry · 2014-02-04 04:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Purchasing stolen goods is a crime and the purchaser is required by law to return the stolen goods, even if they didn't know it was stolen. The users impacted by this got their money refunded and got a legal copy of the book.
Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 04:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

As evil as that is, there is one factor that can mitigate it, in my opinion: cheap.
If books cost me $2.50 or less, and the DRM is not intrusive, then I simply don't care that they could, in theory be taken away. In practice, it happens with such rarity as to simply not be an issue. So, in the extremely unlikely case, I lose a couple of bucks. I don't care.
I will not, however pay $10 for a book that I cannot share or resell, that perpetually requires me to prove I bought it, and that can be arbitrarily taken away from me. For that price or above, I will buy the physical copy just to protect my investment.
Incidentally, I buy games from steam when-and-only-when they are at or under the $2.50 price range, for this same reason, and this happens so frequently that I have a large backlog of purchased games that I haven't even played yet.
Yes, I am willing to surrender control in return for trivially cheap, but in no other case.
Re:good riddance by taustin · 2014-02-04 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative

You don't remember the fiasco all that well, either. The books (there were two, not one) was uploaded legally in the country in which it was uploaded (Canada, IIRC), as it was in the public domain there. It was offered for sale in the US (where it was still under copyright) by mistake - whose mistake, nobody knows - and deleted when the US copyright holder objected.
The real point is that Amazon initially responded to criticism about Kindles being a book rental system, not a purchase system, by saying that they couldn't delete stuff remotely without your permission, then demonstrated that simply wasn't true by deleting stuff remotely without permission.
This is, of course, a completely different situation, since this will apparently not affect books already bought on existing devices. What it will do, if this editorial rant is accurate, and we don't know that it is, is kill ebook sales until publishers agree to either go DRM free or switch to something else. And they will, when someone like Barnes & Noble says, "You know, we don't really make any money off of ebook sales anyway, so we'll just stop selling anything with DRM on it and rely on brick & mortar sales instead. That's where our profits are anyway."
Re:good riddance by spire3661 · 2014-02-04 05:32 · Score: 2

If you are going to spout law, at least get your terms straight. Improperly applied licenses is not stealing in any sense of the word.

--
Good-bye
Re:good riddance by Mister_Stoopid · 2014-02-04 06:32 · Score: 2

It wasn't a secret, but it's still bad.

Amazon can't delete "content" from my kindle, because it has never seen an internet connection. It has never seen an internet connection because I don't like the idea that amazon can delete my books. As a side effect, I can't buy ebooks from Amazon.

To get me back into their ebook ecosystem, Amazon would have to modify the kindle such that they are technologically incapable of deleting my books, even if compelled to do so by law.
Re:good riddance by Darinbob · 2014-02-04 09:21 · Score: 2

However if this had been a mistakenly published paper book, then Amazon never have resorted to sending out strong-arm goons to yank back the books out of children's hands, instead they would have had to suck up the cost and learned a valuable lesson. Instead with DRM Amazon just pushes the "reload from last saved game" button and undoes their mistake at no cost. The fact that they could do this is a very bad thing, it does not matter if the books were incorrectly licensed or not, the ability to yank the books back remotely is something that should not be possible for a purchased product.
Now if Amazon offered only a book rental service, ala the public library, then having ability to read the book only with permission from a remote authority makes slightly more sense.

RMS called this one... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

There couldn't be a clearer example of why DRM on books is a bad f***ing idea.

In other words... by Noryungi · 2014-02-04 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Hate him or love him: Richard Stallman was right! Read it and weep: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

The whole thing was written in 1997, for pete sake - when ebooks where still pretty much prototypes.

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:In other words... by gmuslera · 2014-02-04 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Project Guttenberg is around since 1971. Ebooks (and in particular, public ones) didn't started with Kindle.
Re:In other words... by TWiTfan · 2014-02-04 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, but using them is. Thanks, DMCA.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re: In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Here is the source : Cohen, J. (1996). A Right to Read Anonymously, Connecticut Law Review 28, 981

*Shrug* by magic+maverick+ · 2014-02-04 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't buy DRMed shit. I do buy titles from Baen Books and Tor, but they aren't infested with digital restrictions management. If I want a title, and I can't find it from a publisher that doesn't use DRM, I just pop over to my favorite torrent website. And normally I'll find what I'm looking for. (If I don't, I'll find it at my second favorite torrent site, easy.)

I.e. DRM doesn't work. Moreover, it has the opposite effect, rather than preventing copying, it encourages more copying!

(I might buy DRM infested titles, if Adobe made their software work on */Linux. But probably not. But considering I don't run anything else, there is no point in my forking over money for something I can't read or use.)

Oh, and ignoring all the above: why should I have to update the firmware or software on my ebook reader? It's an appliance. I don't expect to update the firmware on my TV, microwave or rice cooker. Why should I? It works now.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!

Re:*Shrug* by RabidReindeer · 2014-02-04 01:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I buy DRM-infested titles, but that's because the current DRM scheme can be decrypted if the provider goes belly-up or does an Amazon-style "1984" on them. I'm not interested in piracy, but I AM interested in protecting my investment.
I don't but into the "rental" concept of book "purchases". If my bookseller starts using a DRM scheme that does not meet the criteria I just listed, they can expect me to stop buying ebooks.
Re:*Shrug* by SJHillman · 2014-02-04 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the part that's always bugged me. The big cost in publishing is the printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution of the dead trees (that's not even counting more costs if you sell through a brick and mortar store). If you double sales, all of the overhead doubles. Ebooks have almost negligible costs to do all that - which gets even closer to zero if you share resources (e.g sell through Amazon).
I buy two or three ebooks in a given year and about the same number of books in print because books are damned expensive. If you priced ebooks downward to have similar (or slightly greater) profit margins as print books, I'd probably end up spending twice the money on them overall because I would be getting much more value for my individual dollars, and the companies would end up with more profits overall. Ebooks are largely stuck due to using a similar profit model to music and movies.
Re:*Shrug* by Walterk · 2014-02-04 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

It would be useful if there was a list of retailers that sell these DRM books, so they can go on my boycott list.

--

"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
Re:*Shrug* by dargaud · 2014-02-04 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Calibre can easily strip the DRM off your Kindle books. Yes, it's a Linux app.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:*Shrug* by Chaos+Incarnate · 2014-02-04 01:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Calibre can't do it out of the box; you need to go find certain addons for it.

--
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Re:*Shrug* by SJHillman · 2014-02-04 02:06 · Score: 2

The costs are still significantly lower than print books. If a print book costs $20, I would expect the ebook version to cost $10 or less. The cost discrepancy is enough that the publisher would probably still end up with as much or more profits than the print book, and it would possibly increase sales. Although it's not as bad as a few cases where I've seen the ebook cost up to 25% more than the print book. Ebooks are also a format in which a publisher could much more easily sell it themselves rather than going through a retailer, because it doesn't have all of that other overhead. I'm fairly sure the only reason they keep ebook prices as high as they are is to prevent them from killing the dead tree market.
Re:*Shrug* by afxgrin · 2014-02-04 02:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Calibre is a god send piece of open source software. I don't really use it for stripping DRM, most documents I read don't have any DRM. But for converting between formats especially when the default formatting is crap for ebooks - fuck yes this is the shit.
Main website and for the sourceforge page in case you're are too lazy to Google search it yourself. Apparently this guy is hosting DeDRM the DRM stripping tool. I've never had to use it.
Re:*Shrug* by Bradmont · 2014-02-04 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can also get the paper books far cheaper if you buy them used. You can also sell them after you're done with them. It's called ownership, and it's becoming less and less accepted by the copyright industry.
Re:*Shrug* by RabidReindeer · 2014-02-04 02:59 · Score: 2

It would be useful if there was a list of retailers that sell these DRM books, so they can go on my boycott list.
There isn't one because it's usually the publisher who mandates it, not the retailer.
Barnes and Noble sells ebooks from many publishers. Some, like HarperCollins-we-want-ebooks-to-wear-out are real jerks. Some, like Baen, have been DRM-free from the get-go.
B&N generally notes on the purchase information when a publisher has requested DRM-free format. So far, however, they've not felt obliged to list whose/what DRM format the other books are in.
Re:*Shrug* by fustakrakich · 2014-02-04 03:15 · Score: 2

It's called ownership, and it's becoming less and less accepted by the copyright industry.
Just the opposite. They want to own everything.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:*Shrug* by Pembers · 2014-02-04 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The big cost in publishing is the printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution of the dead trees
Actually, no. That accounts for between 15% and 20% of the retail price. Most books don't make a profit for the publisher, so the costs are dominated by the overheads - the author's advance and the cost of employing everyone who's involved in making the book ready to be sold. It doesn't seem to have occurred to the major publishers that if they lowered the prices of ebooks, more titles might sell enough to make a profit. (Indie authors and smaller publishers figured it out a long time ago.)

--
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
Re:*Shrug* by taustin · 2014-02-04 04:56 · Score: 4, Informative

The big cost in publishing is the printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution of the dead trees
That isn't really all that true, actually. Charlie Stross has written quite a bit about the subject.
The executive summary is that the cost of putting ink on paper and shipping it to the store isn't much of the final retail price, and if you expect to buy ebooks for more than about 10% less than paper books, you expect lower quality.
Re:*Shrug* by mcgrew · 2014-02-04 05:46 · Score: 2

That's what I used to think until I tried publishing my own book. The expensive part is marketing; since buying ISBNs I've been contacted by marketers wanting to market it, no way can I afford to gamble that much cash. So sales are going to continue to be tiny.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:*Shrug* by RabidReindeer · 2014-02-05 05:38 · Score: 2

...can be decrypted if the provider goes belly-up or does an Amazon-style "1984" on them.
Don't wait, do it now. Download calibre and some plugin tools, and deDRM is just a drag'n'drop operation. There is no need to use it to manage your books if you don't want to, you can just use it as a "storage shed" for your uncrippled books.
Actually, I bypass the middleman and decrypt directly.
I know I'm the odd one out, but I never could get excited about Calibre. I have other tools, and they may not be drag-drop-drool simple, but they're easy enough and allow me to do just about anything I want to any format I want.
Incidentally, I just read that Adobe has dropped the "drop dead" deadline, although they're still pushing the new DRM scheme for the long term.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by AmiMoJo · 2014-02-04 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comments like this from victims are pretty common (from TFA):

had a bunch of books on my laptop & yesterday ADE wouldnâ(TM)t let me access them. I purchased them 7 years ago. So NOT happy.

People are slowly learning that anything with DRM wasn't a "purchase", it was a "rental".

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

And... by wbr1 · 2014-02-04 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The new 'hardened' DRM will be broken quickly and be of little use. If it is not broken, those who wish to pirate will get the material through other channels.

Meanwhile, customers get alienated, pissed off, pissed on, anally probed, and money taken from them. Those that get tired of it will add to the masses that go to pirate.

Models like Netflix, Steam, and iTunes show that light or zero DRM can work, and it allows customers easy access to products they want. You make it painful, difficult and costly, potential customers turn to other avenues. That may be forgoing that entertainment and going elsewhere, it may be pirating. The HBO/Game of Thrones model is a good example.

I have money in my wallet. I am willing to spend it, if the price is fair, and I do not have to get butthurt for it. Provide me that opportunity and you have my money. Do not, and you will not. There will always be a portion who steal or pirate, either because they are broke, or because they can. No amount of DRM will stop that. Instead you make yourself a target for those who politically do not like your methods, break your protection/racketeering schemes then provide it to everyone.

However here on /. I am largely preaching to the choir, so while my rant here may do little, remember this slash kiddies. Vote with your wallet, do your best NOT to support companies that do these things. Explain it to your family and peers. Even if they disagree, maybe you sparked a seed of thought that was not there before.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:And... by TWiTfan · 2014-02-04 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Models like Netflix, Steam, and iTunes show that light or zero DRM can work
Netflix doesn't really apply here, as they're quite up-front about the fact that their streaming service is only all-you-can eat rental and that their content can disappear at any time (and frequently does). There is a big difference between that and companies that claim to sell you content that you presumably "own" into perpetuity--only for you to find out later that you were actually just renting it long-term.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:And... by umafuckit · 2014-02-04 02:28 · Score: 2

Please tell me how the DRM on my Kindle is more cumbersome to me the user than that of Netflix or Steam...
Personally I find it is. With Netflix, all I have to do to watch is sign into my account and be on-line. If I'm abroad, it switches to the local content. That's not intrusive. The steam experience is pretty similar, TBH. I have just one gaming machine and I don't even notice Steam. Books, OTH, are different. I read on my phone, tablet, e-reader, and computer (Linux or OS X). I want to be able to get my books onto the device of my choosing reliably. To do this, I've stripped the DRM from every book I've bought. Some are MOBI books that I've converted to epub. It wouldn't be possible for me to use my books in this way if they were still DRMed (it would be much harder, anyway). It certainly wouldn't be possible if the supplier I purchased them from went bust.

--
soylentnews.org

Disturbing lack of imagination... by geogob · 2014-02-04 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm having a hard time following the train of though behind such moves. What do they expect the people will do once they are not able to buy ebooks and read them on their device. Worse, what do they expect people will do once they actually buy ebooks and then notice they can't read them on their device due to DRM?

It almost feels like dark scheme to push people towards piracy and undermine the profit of the compagnies. It somewhat reminded me of how Garmin handles its customer with its mapping product. I had a map installed on a handeld device and on old car device. After I bought a brand new device from that exact same company, I couldn't install the map on that new device as it was already installed on two device, one being the old car GPS replaced by the new one. The officiel support answer was "sorry, we can't help you. You can buy a new copy of the map _here_". With such a policy, they lost a good customer that was happy up to that point. I expect the ebook users to experience about the same kind of feeling being put in the situation that lays before them.

Re:print is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Good news! That printed book you purchased was printed in disappearing ink.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is why you should buy hardcopy books over DRMed ebooks. You get to keep it beyond the commercial lifecycle of a software platform.

Re:Adobe by Pi1grim · 2014-02-04 01:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think open ebook community should thank Adobe for demonstating (at the cost of their reputation and revenues) to everyone who ever did something as stupid as buying a book with Adobe's DRM, what't it's all about and all the dangers of having someone else manage your access to the content you bought right to access. Only through these actions will people learn, as they only listen when they've been hit in their wallet. Luckily, ebook reader (hardware) manufacurers will also learn the hard way, that implementing an obscure DRM scheme is more expensive in the long run (and more damaging to the brand and sales) than partnering up with a shop that not only allows you to buy the books, but even keep them after it changes the technolgy (or goes down in flames) without taking all the books with them.

All that aside - those who suffer from it, deserve it. Hopefully this lesson will be painful enough to remember not to mess with DRMed content any more.

Re:Now wait until we are required by law by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't forget to require DRM by law on all copies of the New Testament. Christians everywhere will rightfully denounce DRM as the Mark Of The Beast.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by SJHillman · 2014-02-04 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's one argument. A better argument, in my opinion, is to only buy from vendors that offer DRM-free formats (eg.g: O'Reilly) and pirate DRM-free versions from those that don't. I've seen a lot of people choosing to buy older games from GOG instead of spending those dollars on games they might want more on Steam for this very reason.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or just pirate your books. If you feel bad about that, then buy the books, but use pirated copies.

Re:What devices does it affect? by magic+maverick+ · 2014-02-04 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Adobe Digital Editions and Adobe DRM is used by virtually all publishers (that actually use DRM) and device makers except Amazon. I.e. it is everywhere (sort of like how ePub is used by virtually everyone except Amazon). But, you don't have to use it. No device that I know of requires that an ePub file has DRM.

Two publishers in the SF/F field that don't use any DRM at all are Tor and Baen Books. Baen Books is excellent for other reasons, including their Free Library (you can download and read the first book in most of their series'). Tor is just part of one of the Big Six, and so otherwise has nothing to distinguish them from any other publisher.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!

Re:Adobe sold ebooks? by SJHillman · 2014-02-04 01:46 · Score: 2

Did you read the summary? At all? Adobe is the company that came up with PDF. The article is about how they're changing PDF DRM and expect ebooks that use Adobe's DRM to comply with the new one. Many iPad and Android books are affected, as well as (possibly) B&N ebooks, which uses a variant of it. Kindle books should not be affected. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Re:Use Project Gutenberg for your ebooks by Chrisq · 2014-02-04 01:51 · Score: 2

For all your non-DRM, out of copyright (mostly, some creative commons material as well) ebook needs: http://www.gutenberg.org/

Also check out the proof reading project where material for Project Gutenberg is produced, http://www.pgdp.net/

Unfortunately this is no longer a growing domain. The length of copyright extends before anything can become "out of copyright".

1.8 million different ebooks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Unless this effects the Kindle or Nook, how many books could this even be? I wasn't even aware that Adobe HAD an ebook format. Realistically, how many books does this expiring DRM even effect, a few thousand, maybe?

Adobe's ebook DRM is used by OverDrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OverDrive,_Inc. to let more than 27,000 public libraries and schools lend ebooks to citizens and students. They make than 1.8 million different ebooks from over 1000 publishers available to libraries and schools using this scheme.

Adobe's termination of the existing DRM mechanism means that those thousands of schools and libraries will have to buy new ereader hardware and the students and citizens who borrow ebooks from them will have to buy new ereader hardware. So Adobe's termination of the existing DRM mechanism is going to cost American tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions).

Working Just the Way it was Supposed to... by avgjoe62 · 2014-02-04 01:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

...that's going to leave many readers unable to buy DRMed ebooks.

Oh no, it won't. They'll be able to buy all the DRMed books they want, just with the new DRM. And they'll have to, because they won't be able to use the old ones they purchased from a company that no longer exists. Do you think this isn't what they had in mind? You insisted on buying a copy instead of a license to use the content for a set time, so the publishers have found a way to make you pay again...

--

How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

Adobe DRM isn't PDF, it's everything except Kindle by xenoc_1 · 2014-02-04 02:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's not just PDF, nor even primarily PDF. It's reflowable standard EPUB. EPUB with Adobe DRM is the standard commercial ebook format for the "rest of the world that isn't Amazon". Barnes & Noble Nook (now mostly Microsoft Nook). Kobo, which is number 2 in much of the world. Google Play Books. eReaders from Kobo, B&N, iRiver, white-box Chinese brands affordable in emerging markets, even iBooks own Appleized format, have Adobe DRM inside. eReading apps from third parties like the well-respected Aldiko Reader and Bluefire reader use Adobe DRM. Only Kindle doesn't use it.

I've got Google Play Books and Kobo books on my Nook Color early-gen ereading tablet, because of Adobe DRM being near-universal. Have Google Play books on my Kobo WiFi e-ink eReader and on my newer Kobo AuraHD e-ink eReader. On my Android phone, whitebox cheap 10" tablet, and Kobo Arc (Android tablet with Kobo's shell but full open Google Play Store Jellybean tablet), I have the Aldiko app so that I can combine my Kobo and my Google Play books into a single library rather than reading in separate apps per bookstore. (Nooks can sideload and read standard EPUB/AdobeDRM but Nook books can't be read outside of Nook hardware or apps due to B&N weird variant AdobeDRM).

Adobe is breaking all this relatively open ecosystem. Sure, it's DRM, but it's an "anything except Kindle" open system. Adobe is screwing over all the people who bought into the non-Kindle commercial ebook ecosystem over the past half-decade or so.

I'm writing from the perspective of a normal human, not a /. geek. Normals don't break DRM because they don't know how, they don't even know it's a thing. They don't buy only non-DRM books, because they want to buy books from their favorite authors, not obscure corners of the web. Even many self-published books, if distributed through "normal channels" carry Adobe DRM (or Amazon DRM). They might, if they read the very simple info on the Kobo, Google Play, and other ecosystem-member web pages, have realized they can buy a book from Google and read it on their Sony eReader, buy a book from Kobo on sale and read it on their original Nook or Nook front-light newer e-ink reader. They may be all over Goodreads and ereader websites where there are lots of how-tos about just that, but they are nowhere near Slashdot. Nor near Linux. And O'Reilly tech books are irrelevant. As are, to most readers, Baen and Tor SF.

Hell, I don't want to deal with this myself, and I know how or can easily figure it out. Just going to the "Download Adobe DRM" link at Kobo or Google Play, getting the .ACSM (Adobe Content Server Mechanism) license file, double-clicking on the download and having previously-installed Adobe Digital Editions get the DRM-unlocked-to-my-ID content was simple. Bang, read it on my PC in Adobe Digital Editions, or tether my Android phone/tablet to drag into Aldiko or Bluefire, tether my Kobo eReaders (e-ink actual ereaders for readers) and drag it into their libraries, tether the Nook Color and drag it into its library.

Now I'd' have to go break DRM on all those files and future purchases. But that would be wrong...

Re:Non-Drm'd? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Indeed. I can't log in on this machine right now (mcgrew here, sorry, I won't be able to see if you reply), I'll be glad when I'm retired. Anyway, a couple of things: IMO anyone who buys DRMed anything is a fool, and anyone who employes DRM in their content is equally foolish. DRM makes your content harder to sell, because it has less utility than a pirate copy. If I buy a DVD I have to sit through piracy warnings (after paying for it!) and sometimes even trailers for other films. Meanwhile, a TPB download you click "play" and the opening creduits start; no piracy warnings, no trailers, no menus... which is how disks should be made. Some are, a few movies play right away and the menu only comes up after it's over. I keep asking myself why anyone would pay for an inferior version of something that's free, then I remember Linux vs Windows and kind of get it. Marketing rules all.

Like has been said, you can't buy DRMed content, you can only rent it. But you don't buy a novel, you buy a book. The novel belongs to everyone (although the author has a "limited" time monopoly on publication).

I personally think electronic data should be free, which is why HTML, PDF and ePub versions of Nobots will be released for free download on my web site March 15th (or perhaps earlier, I'm thinking of moving it up).

The RIAA, IMO, really screwed the pooch with Napster, that was a really dumshit move on their part. They should have embraced P2P and advertised how superior CDs were to MP3s (and back then they really were vastly superior). P2P would have been additional, free advertising. I've found out with Nobots that word of mouth is crappy marketing, so along with owning terrestrial radio they have little to worry about from independants; they can bury any little guy.

Since registering the copyright and obtaining ISBNs I've been getting ads from marketers, Christ those guys are expensive! Writing a book is easy, getting anyone to read it is hard. So read it, it's free, both as in speech and beer. Only the hardcover costs (working on a paperback version, also working on getting The Paxil Diaries in print, I've been getting requests for ten years).

It will also have no DRM, I released an abridged PDF for free several years ago.

Looked into DRM at one time... by Chas · 2014-02-04 02:46 · Score: 4, Informative

My company puts out gaming materials (as in tabletop, pnp). When we initially looked at putting out an ebook format ten years ago, we did look at DRM as a form of content control. At the time, though, the requirements to implement such a platform were...to be frank, ridiculous.

So we decided to invest a little bit of trust in our community. We KNOW e-pub versions of our rulebooks and the like are shared amongst gaming groups. It's a given.
But we've had great interaction with our player communities over the years, and they understand that if we're seeing everything popping up on BitTorrent, we have less incentive to put up new material in a timely manner.

Now, we've had to issue a few takedown requests over the years. But only a few, and most of the stuff came down with nary a whimper. As such, we have pretty much ZERO impetus to move from standardized PDF distribution to DRM'ed versions. It's still a waste of time, effort and money. And it also would do damage to our relationship with our players.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:forward reverse forward reverse by stoploss · 2014-02-04 02:46 · Score: 2

This circus of layered tread marks is not shedding much light.

Good lord, *where* do you shop for your metaphors?!

Will this really anger customers? by hendrips · 2014-02-04 02:51 · Score: 2

I'm seeing quite a few comments about how this is really a good thing because will make customers angry about DRM, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that no-one in any of the following groups will be visibly affected:

-Anyone who buys e-books from Amazon - they don't use Adobe
-Anyone who uses buys books for a Nook, iDevice, Kobo, etc. using the official bookstores - they'll make sure they're in compliance because they have no choice
-Anyone with an objection to DRM - they're presumably only buying DRM free books anyway
-Pirates - they're pirates, so of course this isn't going to affect them

Is there a meaningful number of ebook consumers that don't fall into one of those categories? It seems to me like there's very little pushback against DRM in ebooks, because in practice it just doesn't affect enough customers. That's a different situation than we had 10-15 years ago, when DRM in music really did (temporarily) inconvenience a large segment of the buying public.

Re:forward reverse forward reverse by eam · 2014-02-04 02:53 · Score: 2

There was a better metaphor, but it is DRM'd & we can't use it anymore.

Re:Adobe by PetiePooo · 2014-02-04 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

This was my thought on reading the article as well. "Adobe is doing more to kill DRM with this move than anything they've done in the past." There's nothing like punishing the innocent to get people's attention.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by tompaulco · 2014-02-04 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Never, ever pirate anything. It spurs their belief that people really want their product, but just aren't willing to pay for it. Instead, avoid the product altogether and encourage others to avoid it.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by AJH16 · 2014-02-04 04:01 · Score: 2

In this case they are right though, people do want their content, just not their restrictions on the content. I do agree with you that piracy isn't the answer, but sadly, the majority of the world, including the self righteous pirate, actually do want the content more than the freedom.

--
AJ Henderson

Re:Non-Drm'd? by Verio+Fryar · 2014-02-04 04:44 · Score: 2

When I buy a book with DRM I remove it just after the purchase. I don't buy books with a DRM that I can not remove.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by PsychoSlashDot · 2014-02-04 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Never, ever pirate anything. It spurs their belief that people really want their product, but just aren't willing to pay for it. Instead, avoid the product altogether and encourage others to avoid it.

You're missing that people do want their product. Avoiding the product altogether sends a false message that the product isn't wanted. What we don't want is the packaging.

The closest equivalent to buying a physical product and throwing its packaging away is buying a DRM product and pirating the content. Once I've paid for the content, it's mine morally, ethically, and logically. It's just the law that needs work.

Throw away the packaging and tell the manufacturer why.

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."

Re:Non-Drm'd? by Penguinisto · 2014-02-04 05:19 · Score: 2

Paper disintegrates over time, takes much longer, but still a rental.

Given the time periods involved, it may as well be considered ownership.

I have some books in my home library that are well over 150 years old. They're still perfectly legible, and as long as I care for them properly they'll likely outlast me.

Hell, there are books in some uni libraries that are well over 200-300 years old. Sure, you have to handle them with gloves and such, but honestly, 100+ years is plenty of time to make a backup copy of the thing.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:Netflix has light DRM? by flonker · 2014-02-04 06:19 · Score: 2

I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I don't find Netflix DRM unpalatable is because I didn't purchase the content. The "rental" is very explicit in the agreement between the Netflix and the consumer. If Netflix were to start to sell movies, I would find that objectionable. I do find Steam objectionable, as well as most DRM.

Re:Polar opposites..... by Enry · 2014-02-04 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're not understanding the issues here.

I don't like DRM. I use it in places (like my Kindle) because I have to. I don't rent videos online, I buy the DVD/BR and rip it so I can play it where I want to. That's my choice and I pay more for it ($10 for the BR vs. $1.99 or whatever to rent it). There's no requirement for you buy DRMs books, you can still buy a dead tree version, you're just going to pay more for it. In return for the lower price, you give up some of your rights to it. Music companies have figured out the proper balance between cost and piracy and things are pretty settled. Hopefully the movie and ebook industries follow suit at some point.

At the same time, content creators need to ensure they're properly compensated for their work. US copyright law has thrown this way out of skew, so until that gets fixed we're stuck in this situation for now. Either way, this doesn't give you the wholesale right to steal (pirate, borrow, whatever you want to call it) content from others. Neither side is talking about what should be a reasonable timeframe for length of a copyright. Should it be 20 years? 30? 50? 100? How long after content is made should the author (or heirs) continue to be paid for that work?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm at best being a devil's advocate to make you realize there's two sides to the DRM issue and by being deliberately obtuse about one instance of DRM use barely scratches the surface of the problems, companies, and ideas that are involved in producing digital forms of what was traditionally dead tree (or cellulose or vinyl) media.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by morgauxo · 2014-02-04 07:32 · Score: 2

Hmm... I think anyone who defines a person's loser/winner life status by what games they play most likely are pretty big losers themselves regardless of what games they posess.

Re:Non-Drm'd? by AJH16 · 2014-02-04 07:49 · Score: 2

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm not speaking in favor of the content creators. I'm stating that if you steal the content, it legitimately says you want their content badly. They are right to think that. Keep in mind that content was pirated before the start of obtrusive DRM. The way to stop DRM is to stop partaking of any content that is DRM protected in any way. This would show that it isn't that the DRM isn't working well enough, but rather than people actually object to the way they handle the content.

Civil rights protestors didn't go in to a restaurant and steal the food, they simply sat in and expected to be served. There is a difference between protesting that which you don't approve of and taking that which isn't yours because you simply don't like the conditions the owner of the content put on it.

--
AJ Henderson

Slashdot Mirror

Adobe's New Ebook DRM Will Leave Existing Users Out In the Cold Come July

67 of 304 comments (clear)