Also, thanks for the kind words (from Emily as well as Kassia) on the reaction to the P2P research presentation at TOC – Frankfurt. I tend to look at the response as much better than no reaction at all – it’s at least the start of a conversation. You’re creating a similar conversation through these posts. Thanks for that.

DRM is an attempt by the creator and his agents, the media industry, to overrule the public’s right to limited free use, also known as fair use. It is a unilateral rewrite of the basis for copyright law, to the benefit of the creator and the loss of the public.

If we want to renegotiate the deal, fine – let’s renegotiate the WHOLE deal. How about full DRM protection for the product for one year? Or three years. You want more time for the creator? Well, that’s what fair use is all about, and the creator has rejected it by permitting publishers and resellers to put DRM on the product.

Piracy is the theft of economic benefits fairly due to the creator. When the creator starts by reneging on the deal, he forfeits the right to those benefits. Under the current application of DRM, the creator has no claim against the user of the product, because it is the creator who has violated the contract in the first place.

If I were ever sitting on a jury involving claims of copyright violation and DRM, I’d never convict.

As well as being an ardent follower of ebooks, my family is a devoted to mp3 music. We copied our extensive CD library into digital format early on, and have struggled with the complex licensing of digital music purchases ever since. We have strict rules about not downloading or uploading music, movies or other content in violation of copyright law. We have a simplistic understanding of copyright law as consumers, being “if you didn’t buy it and pay the publisher for it you don’t have the right to use it.

What I don’t understand in all of this discussion is the morality of DRM for the consumer. It seems that some consumers would like DRM to favour them so they can, simply put, steal the content. Whether they want to steal the content to resell it or give it away isn’t the point. They want to steal it. They didn’t write the work, didn’t publish the work, but somehow think that in the amorphous world of the internet, it is okay to steal content. The question to be put then isn’t what publishers can do to prevent this, or what media forms can inhibit this practice, but why consumers think it is okay to rip off their favourite artists and steal their product. Where have all the morals gone? What are we teaching kids in school in the “I’m okay, you’re okay and anything you do can be understood in a subjective context” world?

In the last year, we’ve learned we should be teaching our kids about the fundamentals of finances if we want them to have a healthy financial future and avoid the pitfalls of consumer debt and risky real estate. It appears we should also be teaching children about the basics of morality, the code that allows humans to live together in society in ways that do not harm one another. Once upon a time there were moral institutions who did this (and I have no idea of churches even touch upon the immorality of stealing web content), but increasingly in the western world of the twenty-first century, there is a vacuum in this area. The internet is young; we learn as it develops, and in DRM we are learning that consumers could ensure the continuance of this media with a little moral fibre applied.

Copyright won’t be maintained by trying to tie up DRM in legal conundrums that ultimately will do little to stem the tide of content theft. It should become socially abhorrent to pirate content. The idea of uploading, downloading or violating copyrights should repel users.. Children need to learn the basics of publishing economics and find pride in legally purchasing content from their favourite artists. The internet didn’t develop to further e-commerce, it developed to bring users together in a world without limits. DRM won’t succeed for this reason as the internet is inherently resistant to containment. In the final analysis, users control this battle and users will define the outcome.

Content creators need to start asking, “If I enable my customers to do what they want with my content, can I still earn a living from it?”

In many cases, the answer to this question is “Yes”. In no cases does this involve DRM.

(And thank you for mentioning the drawbacks of the pirated content — I always think it’s more trouble than it’s worth. One of my core beliefs is that publishers need to make piracy the least attractive option to readers. It’s really not that hard.)

Hope to see you at TOC!

1. “I know DRM doesn’t really stop serious piracy, but we just want to make it harder for the average user.” Since I run a web-based reading system these conversations have run the gamut from asking us to turn all our pages into images, turn off right click functionality, and a battery of other crippling approaches. We’re a web company – we can’t unmake the web or how it was built. (And we chose to be a web company because the web is the best system for creating digital communities…but I digress). We can require people to log in, we can chunk content, we can let publishers decide whether they want to offer a downloadable backup copy. The average consumer isn’t going to steal it because it’s so much easier just to buy and use it. But you almost can’t get through the door unless you answer yes to the DRM question.

2. “Our lawyers insist on it.” Right. I get it. But who’s in charge? Business decisions should be a bit broader than that.

Publishers need to want to engage and solve the problem for it to really be solved. We’re not there yet.

And I don’t think it’s just a question of honesty. Going out and searching for pirated copies, reading things sloppily scanned or that might crash your reader half way through is more of a pain than it’s worth for most readers.

Meanwhile, I have also begun offering free extracts of my books for customers to peruse before buying, which they can download directly from my site. I have taken pains to offer them in a format which most people can access, and have prepared the extracts in such a way that they are not easy to print. In this way I hope to honor the historical habit of leafing through the book for the online reader, the best way I can make my site like the typical bookstore.

Even with DRM, however, there is no guarantee that pirates will not make off with the book. And yes, there are many young people who think that all content should be accessible for nothing. But their habits are also teaching the publishing community to relax a little. It’s fine to give away a free sample, but ultimately the customer will have to buy the whole product to get it.

Think of the baker who gives away a donut or two in order to sell a dozen. That’s how it should work.

This puts the burden on parents to educate their children, and again, that’s a real challenge. I don’t know the answer, but I do know that these conversations have to happen on many levels. It’s hard to explain to kids (and many adults) why radio is free but the music on the Internet isn’t, but it can be done.

I am, for the moment, setting aside the issue of youth versus experience, though I think it does play into this discussion: young people, who generally have more limited means and less understanding of value, embrace free, shifting toward pay models as they become more active participants in the economy. And, perhaps, the challenge we face as a society is making sure “free” doesn’t carry forward as these kids become adults.

(As to the Free issue, I think, like the long tail, the basic principles were lost in the surrounding rhetoric. The fact that Anderson did not give his book away was a tip-off that “free” is part of a strategic business plan, not a model unto itself.)