Tor, Forge to Drop DRM on Sci-Fi E-books

[Guest]

Hopefully, they increase DRM on Twilight.

Tor, Forge to Drop DRM on Sci-Fi E-books : Read more

 

[existencenow]

That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.

 

[Kamab]

Hard to see how a competitive move like this will result in higher prices for ebooks down the line.

 

[DroKing]

Now lets push that concept upon those greedy 3 big publishers for gaming scene =/

 

[Middleman]

Good. That's one less set of books I'll have to waste time stripping DRM from, in case my ebook reader comes from a company that didn't make the one I purchased them for originally. That was all kinds of fun when I bought a Nook touch to replace my stolen Kindle Graphite Wifi.

 

[gokanis]

Thats why Ive always purchased ebooks from baen. Multiple formats, no drm.

 

[Guest]

This has been the policy of Baen from the beginning, nice to see others joining the sanity.
Look at the following to see how Baen deals with digital piracy.

http/baencd.freedoors.org
http/baencd.thefifthimperium.com

 

[Pherule]

That's why I've always acquired ebooks from the Internet. Multiple formats, no drm.

 

[existencenow]

[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]That's why I've always acquired ebooks from the Internet. Multiple formats, no drm.[/citation]
And this is the perfect example of why DRM became a "necessity" in the eyes of content providers.

 

[Guest]

Interesting. One TOR big names currently, Brandon Sanderson, sent out feeler tweets for 'collectors editions' to the final Wheel of Time books. Sort of like video game companies do. I think he got a lot of positive feed back. These more expensive packages are the way to go to counter losses incurred by those that infringe on copy right. Not the DRM path everyone seems to be trying and failing at.

 

[badvok66]

While I wholly approve of the move away from DRM I do wish publications like yours would grow up and try to understand copyright law and artists rights. Comments like "A small price to pay if it means the things consumers purchase are actually considered their property." are quite simply stupid and inaccurate. When you buy a copy of a book, painting, album, track, movie, etc you are doing just that, buying a single COPY! You are NOT buying the work itself and therefore you DO NOT automatically have any rights to reproduce the work or even pass it on to someone else.

 

[shanky887614]

good idea removing drm, means you can easily buy books from other sources quite easily

i recently started reading some books by sara cannon


she has the perfect business model

write the books in 100 page increments

first is free then you pay for all after that, im only on 3rd and bought 5th


this kind of model works perfectly with ebooks and im surprised more people don't do it


if authors released the first 100pages free of charge, kind of like a demo


then im sure they would get more orders.


if they had the first 100 pages free people would just randomly download loads and loads and then end up buying a lot more and discover more authors as a result

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]badvok66[/nom]While I wholly approve of the move away from DRM I do wish publications like yours would grow up and try to understand copyright law and artists rights. Comments like "A small price to pay if it means the things consumers purchase are actually considered their property." are quite simply stupid and inaccurate. When you buy a copy of a book, painting, album, track, movie, etc you are doing just that, buying a single COPY! You are NOT buying the work itself and therefore you DO NOT automatically have any rights to reproduce the work or even pass it on to someone else.[/citation]

I highly doubt that the author was implying that we should be buying the works, and not a copy of the works... The point is that if I buy something, I should be able to resell it. IE, if I buy a CD and five years later i don't want it, I should be able to sell that CD. The same should apply to a single song. The same idea is that if I buy an eBook or a song for an Amazon Kindle Fire, I should be able to move them over to my iPad or Samsung Galaxy if I wanted to because it is my copy of that eBook or my copy of that song.

I should not be able to rip a CD/DVD/BRD and then burn it's contents to ten blank discs and sell them for wholesale value for the original and make a bunch of money by doing this. However, that is not what the author was saying we should be able to do. The author was saying that we should be able to do what is in my first paragraph.

 

[shanky887614]

people usually like to have copies spread out among there devices

for example, ill read on my kindle at home and traveling but carrying it around is not always practical so i read the books on my phone (kindle app, its nice cause it syncs)

i believe when you buy an ebook you should be allowed to have it on as many of your own devices as you like as long as you remove them before you sell/give away your device

i understand what the publishers are saying though, i agree there should be a limit and i think 5 devices is more than enough for everyone

 

[Kamab]

[citation][nom]badvok66[/nom]While I wholly approve of the move away from DRM I do wish publications like yours would grow up and try to understand copyright law and artists rights. Comments like "A small price to pay if it means the things consumers purchase are actually considered their property." are quite simply stupid and inaccurate. When you buy a copy of a book, painting, album, track, movie, etc you are doing just that, buying a single COPY! You are NOT buying the work itself and therefore you DO NOT automatically have any rights to reproduce the work or even pass it on to someone else.[/citation]

Go away, shill. Also, don't hide behind terms like "artists' rights". Everyone knows that publishers / record labels buttf*** artists harder than anyone else. These gatekeepers, who serve less and less function, increasingly have to rely on lobbying to expand "copyright law" way past the point that it was intended.

Copyright/Patent laws were created for the public domain. They weren't intended to preserve outdated, gatekeeper type business models.

And don't get me wrong, I 100% support the right for companies to use DRM and protect their content however they see fit. In some cases, it may even be the right move (not most, as it highly devalues your product). Don't expect me to sympathize when your "b-b-but piracy!!" whining begins.

 

[mrmike_49]

[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]Hard to see how a competitive move like this will result in higher prices for ebooks down the line.[/citation]

I hope prices finally start to DROP, especially with FTC suing Apple of ebook price fixing; but I'm not gonna hold my breath

 

[badvok66]

[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]Go away, shill. Also, don't hide behind terms like "artists' rights". Everyone knows that publishers / record labels buttf*** artists harder than anyone else.[/citation]Ah the classic "the publishers buttf*** the artists so I can too" excuse for piracy.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I highly doubt that the author was implying that we should be buying the works, and not a copy of the works... The point is that if I buy something, I should be able to resell it.[/citation]No the point is that you aren't buying something, you are simply paying a one-off license fee for the right to use someone's work. That right is not transferable without the owner's permission. I don't know if the same is true for physical media but it would be impossible to enforce anyway.

Unlike many other people I will always respect another person's rights and abide by the license terms I've agreed with them. But I would never buy DRM'd content, just the same as I would never buy a CD that only played on one make of player.

If you don't like Copyright or the licensing terms then lobby your favourite artists, get them to dump the big labels, get them to waive their rights to control how their work is used, or simply change their licensing terms.

A major publication like this should really understand the law that protects even them.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]badvok66[/nom]Ah the classic "the publishers buttf*** the artists so I can too" excuse for piracy.No the point is that you aren't buying something, you are simply paying a one-off license fee for the right to use someone's work. That right is not transferable without the owner's permission. I don't know if the same is true for physical media but it would be impossible to enforce anyway.Unlike many other people I will always respect another person's rights and abide by the license terms I've agreed with them. But I would never buy DRM'd content, just the same as I would never buy a CD that only played on one make of player.If you don't like Copyright or the licensing terms then lobby your favourite artists, get them to dump the big labels, get them to waive their rights to control how their work is used, or simply change their licensing terms.A major publication like this should really understand the law that protects even them.[/citation]

The USA courts ruled that the *license* that you buy (this was referring to digital music songs) is transferable. There was a news article about it in Tom's a few weeks ago or so.