As for libraries, they actually might be one market where you could try SDRM. The idea is to discourage patrons from sharing books with the rest of the world. If need be, to allow for the risks and a reduced market for revenue from other means, publishers could charge libraries more for e-books with SDRM than for books with encryption. Patrons might have quotas on SDRM checkouts. Besides, the average library patron lacks the skills to remove SDRM-related text or hidden watermarks. He/she doesn’t want to lose library privileges. Oh, and along the way, you might reduce support costs and make Adobe books more attractive for libraries to use. Think of the .epub push. It took years for Adobe to advocate a reflowable format, but as you can see, much good has happened. Same concept applies here for SDRM. Bill needs t olisten to the inner Bill and, Adobe permitting, act out his gut instincts just as he did with .epub.

I also wonder—and I know this is heresy—about some bold libraries experimenting carefully with ad-supported books, from which revenue would go to publishers. This would mean a business model somewhat like Wowio’s. I can also see certain book-sellers, too, by the way, using a mix of traditional and ad-supported models. Not all libraries and bookstores would plunge into it, but I suspect enough would to justify SDRM experiments.

Back to Wowio. Keep in mind that its Adobe-format, SDRMed content is legally available only in the States, probably due to agreements with oversea publishers. So even in Wowio’s case, despite a business model relying on maximum domestic exposure of e-books, harm could result from leakage. And yet Wowio’s fine experiment goes on.

Correctly you broach the issue of publishers’ consent, in terms of maximum content being available. But Wowio certainly has gotten some outstanding houses–big and small–to participate in its program. Adobe could, too, especially since many small publishers view traditional DRM as a threat to their revenue because the technology makes e-books harder to use. You don’t have to start with Random House and the other giants, although I hope that they, too, will experiment with SDRM, at least for nonbestsellers—-in both library and retail markets.

Get some sincere, heartfelt efforts going with SDRM and I can guarantee you I’ll sing praises of the experiment, not just here but also in my Publishers Weekly blog. I’ll even see if I can’t get your pioneering work written up in the print version of PW (no promises–this is for others to decide!). Some for other e-book-related companies undertaking SDRM initiatives. No favoritism here.

For the good of the book industry, I want to do everything I can to talk up Bill’s excellent idea (actually a larger-scale version of the approach of Pragmatic Programmers). If I had my druthers, even SDRM wouldn’t be used, but it is indeed rather promising as compromise. Once again: the results just might startle you on the upside! The real risk is in NOT experimenting. As opposed as I am to the complexities of traditional DRM, whether from Adobe or Mobi or anyone else, I’ll be solidly supportive of an Adobe SDRM initiative.

Thanks again, Peter!

David

Thank you for this post. Frank discussion of the DRM is very important. In the end everyone benefits when the middle ground is reached - this is especially true for DRM where this middle ground is especially hard to find.

First, let me state what the DRM is for, as I see it. The primary goal of the DRM technology is to make the content available. The more content we can make available, the better our DRM is. “Social DRM” has its place, but is it the best way to make as much as possible content available? I don’t think so.

One good example of DRM use is libraries. Libraries in many cases are responsible to make sure that the content that they lend is not used by more than certain number of people and not used after it expires.

You write “if [Adobe] insists on DRM” - Adobe actually does not insist on DRM. We do not ask publishers to use DRM, it’s the other way around. Yet we have to listen to publishers, since they provide the content. There is nothing that prevents publishers either from not using DRM at all or using some sort of social DRM. We certainly can facilitate that by experimenting with new approaches and we will, but our first priority must be to make sure that people who are ready to buy books today (or use an eLibrary) can stop worrying about their ability to read them and people who are ready to sell or lend them have happy customers.

Regarding the number of activations - we cannot simply make it unlimited. If we could, we would, as that would be much simpler for us. Remember that how DRM works, especially for existing content, is not just up to us to decide.