E-book DRM among Federal Trade Commission’s targets? And how about Adobe in particular?
Will e-book DRM—that is, possibly misleading statements or sheer lack of information in ads—be among the targets of the Federal Trade Commission in the future?
Check out an article by Nate Anderson in Ars Technica: “FTC: We’ll take on spyware, spam, and unlabled DRM.”
We know about sleazy make-money-fast books loaded with spyware, and about mailing lists that so-called “publishers” use for spamming. But DRM is the real angle of interest to me. Take a look at some source material, in PDF, from the Federal Trade Commission. What do you think, gang?
As Nate notes, “the FTC recognizes that consumers want interoperability, and they therefore tend not to like DRM. While the FTC doesn’t see its job as making sure that products are interoperable, it will work to ‘ensure that consumers are provided sufficient information prior to purchase so that they understand any inherent limitations on the use of the products they buy.’”
Adobe among leading offenders?
Hello, Adobe? Might the FTC’s interest in DRM eventually affect you and your business partners in particular? Consumers complain at times of Mobipocket and Microsoft Reader DRM, and even the gentler eReader, not to mention the Kindle and Sony Reader. But Adobe’s name comes up most frequently in DRM-related gripes, not just because PDF is so common but because the “protection” is so onerous.
I dread seeing library books listed as being in Adobe format; the damn DRM is just too much of a hassle for me to mess with for reading on my PDA. What a time-waster! Furthermore, I can’t recall the last occasion when I actually bought an Adobe-DRMed book, especially since the company’s DRM schemes are not necessarily permanent and I want to own books for real. But what about e-book newbies who aren’t wise to Adobe’s ways? I’d welcome Adobe’s response to Dear Santa: Please make Harlequin FEEL customers’ pain, try ’social DRM’ and push harder for e-book standards—in which Adobe DRM unfortunately plays a starring role and inspires an e-book novice to write a post headlined Ugh…e-books.
Rooting for a solution for Adobe and others
No flaming intended. I’m rooting for Adobe and the rest of the industry to arrive at a satisfactory solution, and I applaud Bill McCoy, an Adobe e-booker on the board of the International Digital Publishing Forum, for having suggested social DRM as one possibility.
Meanwhile, however, more than a few consumers are feeling misled, such as the TeleBlog visitor who mistakenly thought that his PDF-capable Sony reader could read the encrypted flavor of the format. Yes, in this case, I’d assign the real blame to Sony.
Friendly suggestion to Adobe and business partners: Why not come up with a well-lawyered statement outlining the limits of Adobe DRM in plain English? And then have bookstores link to the statement—which could clearly explain the situation for different Adobe products? Better to be upfront. If you’re worried that the statements will scare off e-book buyers, how about a better solution: no DRM or social DRM?
The Euro angle: I know certain European governments have been somewhat more consumer-minded on DRM issues than the FTC and the rest of Washington. I’d welcome local updates from members of the TeleRead community outside the States—on efforts to require DRM-related companies to level with customers.
Excerpt from the FTC report: I’ll reproduce one DRM-related passage, from page 17, minus footnotes.
“As new, proprietary technologies are introduced, consumers will be faced with noninteroperable products. Despite consumers’ general preference for interoperability, which provides the greatest flexibility and range of use for products they buy, such a goal may be elusive in a competitive marketplace where businesses seek to provide unique and innovative products. The challenge for the FTC, then, is not to ensure that products are interoperable, but rather to ensure that consumers are provided sufficient information prior to purchase so that they understand any inherent limitations on the use of the products they buy. For example, analysts suggest that if consumers are unaware of the limits that DRM can impose on the uses of content or technologies, they may believe they have been misled. Indeed, in one case, the Commission alleged deception in Sony BMG’s failure to disclose to consumers that the CDs they were buying contained software that limited the devices on which the music could be played and restricted the number of copies that could be made. The agency will continue to monitor marketplace developments and product claims to ensure that sellers are making truthful, non-misleading claims about the features and limits of their products.”
Of course—this is David speaking—we know how far the proprietary approach has gotten the e-book industry, whether the issue is DRM directly or eBabel in general. People care more about books they can keep than out some clueless MBA’s dream of a “unique and innovative” product that will make it impossible to enjoy already-purchased books five years from now. If a company won’t commit to nonproprietary standards such as ASCII, HTML or ePUB, maybe the FCC should even require it to say so. Remember, people usually don’t buy books while thinking they’re actually just renting them.
A disclaimer—just in case this isn’t already obvious: I am not necessarily accusing Adobe or any other companies of FTC-related violations of rules or laws. That is for investigators and lawyers to determine.
(Thanks to Joseph Gray for the Ars Technica pointer. I read AT most of the time, but can’t see everything immediately.)
Leave a Reply