<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;tor&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:42:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hachette Tells Authors And Tor To Use DRM Because It Is Awesome Or Something</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It has only been a bit over a month since <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml">Tor&#39;s DRM-free policy</a> went into full effect. At the time of the announcement, Tor&#39;s president stated that the policy change was made at the request of both authors and readers who felt that DRM was a hinderance to their enjoyment of ebooks. As we know, DRM is not an effective measure against piracy. More often than not, DRM is actually harmful to paying customers as they hit restrictions that do not exist in the physical realm. Even with all these reasons against the use of DRM, there are still some publishers out there that feel that DRM is an effective means of stopping piracy.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=aetherlev">Claire Ryan</a> writes in to tell us that Tor&#39;s anti-DRM policy is not making some other publishers happy. According to letters received by Cory Doctorow, Hachette UK is telling its stable of authors that they must use DRM, not just for the ebooks it publishes, but for all publishers distributing the same ebooks in other territories.&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<i>I&rsquo;ve just seen a letter sent to an author who has published books under Hachette&rsquo;s imprints in some territories and with Tor Books and its sister companies in other territories (Tor is part of Macmillan). The letter, signed by Little, Brown U.K. CEO Ursula Mackenzie, explains to the author that Hachette has &ldquo;acquired exclusive publication rights in our territories from you in good faith,&rdquo; but warns that in other territories, Tor&rsquo;s no-DRM policy &ldquo;will make it difficult for the rights granted to us to be properly protected.&rdquo; Hachette&rsquo;s proposed solution: that the author insist Tor use DRM on these titles. &ldquo;We look forward to hearing what action you propose taking.&rdquo;</i><br />
<br />
<i>The letter also contains language that will apparently be included in future Hachette imprint contracts, language that would require authors to &ldquo;ensure that any of his or her licensees of rights in territories not licensed under this agreement&rdquo; will use DRM.&nbsp;</i></blockquote>
Cory then goes on to describe just how useless such a policy is for Hachette. He points out that doing simple Google searches for certain Hachette published books turns up several DRM-free copies already in the wild. I will have to agree with Cory here when he says that this new demand by Hachette is not going to change that in any way. Those DRM-free ebooks will still be available, the tools to strip the DRM will still be available and paying customers will still be the only ones inconvenienced.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Even with this severe and detailed rebuttal of Hachette&#39;s new policy, it has taken notice and is still standing by its decision to use DRM. In a statement made to The Bookseller, Ursula Mackenzie, CEO of Hachette subsidiary Little, Brown, <a href="http://www.thebookseller.com/news/hachette-uk-drm-working-very-well.html" target="_blank">stated that such policies are the norm in publishing</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Many contracts from all quarters already contain some form of wording to ensure that the licensee publisher does apply DRM and also sees to it that their sub-licensees and e-tailers apply it too.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Our new wording is clearer and we will, as always, negotiate variations of that wording with the many parties with which we trade, nearly all of whom agree with the basic principles of our DRM policy.</i></blockquote>
Of course being a part of the "norm" in the industry is not what really matters. What matters is that publishers and those that represent the authors actually listen to the authors. That is what Tor did when it made its decision to abandon DRM. What Hachette is doing here is making the claim that it knows what&#39;s best for authors and readers. Of course, you can&#39;t let a little thing like the opinion of authors and readers get in the way of your high horse.
<blockquote>
<i>We are fully aware that DRM does not inhibit determined pirates or even those who are sufficiently sophisticated to download DRM removal software. The central point is that we are in favour of DRM because it inhibits file-sharing between the mainstream readers who are so valuable to us and our authors.</i></blockquote>
This statement by Mackenzie is even more mind boggling than the other. Here she pretty much states that DRM is not about stopping the hardcore pirates, but simply to stop people from doing things they would normally do with a physical book, such as lending it to friends and family. Of course even that much can be to the detriment of the reader and publisher, as Cory notes.
<blockquote>
<i>Readers aren&rsquo;t stupid. When they discover that paying for books results in locked, crippled editions, and downloading for free (simply by typing the title and &ldquo;free e-book&rdquo; into Google or Pirate Bay) gets them the same book, minus the offensive restrictions, they start to put two and two together. After all, DRM is not a selling point. There&rsquo;s no one who&rsquo;s ever bought a book because it had DRM. No one has ever clicked onto Amazon saying, &ldquo;I wonder if there&rsquo;s any way I can buy a book that offers less than the books I&rsquo;ve been buying all my life.&rdquo; People buy DRM e-books because they have no choice, or because they don&rsquo;t care about it, or because they don&rsquo;t know it&rsquo;s there. But DRM never leads to a sale.</i></blockquote>
For the reader, the DRM&#39;ed ebook is nothing but a headache. If you are not having your <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">book deleted</a> from your reader and account without your permission, you are locked into a specific reader with no way to transfer your legally bought books to another reader. Why would any publisher want to harm their readers in such a way? For the publisher, that means that in today&#39;s fast changing world of technology, readers will be less likely to buy an ebook if they know they cannot transfer it to a new phone or other device. That means fewer sales for the publisher.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
It gets even worse for Hachette specifically. According to Cory, at least one agency is taking a stand against its pro-DRM policy. He also warns authors who may consider Hachette as a publisher.
<blockquote>
<i>I know of at least one large agency that has told Hachette that it will not market books to them so long as this policy is in force. And Hachette&rsquo;s authors should pay attention because, in the end, it is they who will suffer from the effects of DRM. Readers probably won&rsquo;t remember who published the book that nuked itself due to a DRM misfire or was lost due to a platform switch. But they&rsquo;ll remember the writer whose book they paid for and to which they lost access.</i></blockquote>
As Hachette continues its push to force DRM on its authors and readers, it will lose business from both. How it expects to survive such a two pronged loss will be interesting to watch. DRM is losing favor in the music industry. It continues to lose ground in the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/05251816942/despite-being-pirated-45-millions-times-witcher-2-developer-refuses-to-annoy-paying-customers-with-drm.shtml">video game industry</a>. Publishing and movies seem to be the only real holdouts on the pro-DRM side of entertainment. With DRM losing favor with Tor and sparking this battle between publishers, we will most likely see more publishers joining the DRM-free side of the debate.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>publisher-is-always-right-except-Tor</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120814/06084420017</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tor Listens To Authors And Readers And Ditches DRM</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We have said quite a bit about the perils of DRM and how many in the entertainment industry still insist on its use despite the fact that it is pointless as a deterrent to piracy and only leads to frustration for paying customers. Recently, we spoke about how DRM is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120412/07212918466/another-reason-why-drm-is-bad-publishers.shtml">bad for book publishers</a> and that their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml">insistent use of DRM</a> was part of the reason they ended up in the DOJ's sights. Fortunately, it looks like some publishers are learning from these follies. Tor has just announced that it and all its sister companies' <a href="http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/04/torforge-e-book-titles-to-go-drm-free" target="_blank">books will be DRM free by July of this year</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Our authors and readers have been asking for this for a long time. They&rsquo;re a technically sophisticated bunch, and DRM is a constant annoyance to them. It prevents them from using legitimately-purchased e-books in perfectly legal ways, like moving them from one kind of e-reader to another. </i>
</blockquote>
This is an exciting move for anyone concerned about the future of ebooks. That ability for readers to transfer their books from one device to another will help as technology advances and becomes far better. It is also excellent to hear that not only are readers voicing their dislike of DRM, but authors as well. That is what is really great about this. It often seems like publishers care little about the opinions of authors when it comes to these types of decisions. This news shows that some publishers are listening. Let's hope that other publishers learn from Tor's example and begin to listen as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ears-wide-open</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120424/16405018636</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:23:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Author Puts Novel Online For Free... And Gets A Book Deal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/09452010191.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/09452010191.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ alex was the first of a few of you to send over the story of how author Marta Acosta posted her "young adult vampire novel" online for free <a href="http://www.scribd.com/The-Shadow-Girl-of-Birch-Grove-by-Marta-Acosta/d/29569907" target="_blank">at Scribd</a>, where it became a top download with tons of great reviews... and that <a href="http://io9.com/5585539/author-posts-her-vampire-novel-online-for-free--and-gets-an-awesome-book-deal" target="_blank">helped her get a book deal</a> with Tor, who will be publishing the book in hardcover shortly.  Once again, another example of how "obscurity" is a bigger problem than "piracy" for most content creators.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/09452010191.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/09452010191.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/09452010191.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-free-never-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100713/09452010191</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Publishers Jumping On The Free Book Bandwagon (Somewhat, But Not Fully)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/021233217.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/021233217.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many, many years, Sci-Fi publisher Baen Books has offered <a href="http://www.baen.com/library/">free downloadable</a> books, and has found it to be a good way to generate more interest and <i>sales</i> for its authors.  It appears that many others are starting to realize this as well.  We've recently seen <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080102/163225.shtml">unknown authors</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/08563359.shtml">best-selling authors</a> both embrace the concept, while pointing out that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their writing than piracy.  Now, it appears that other publishers are beginning to catch on.  Sci-Fi publisher Tor is <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/10/213221&#038;from=rss">giving away free e-books</a> (apparently with no DRM, either) and the NY Times is now reporting that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/business/media/11harper.html?ex=1360386000&#038;en=e2ee6ab327179d94&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">HarperCollins has decided to start posting free e-books on its website</a> (including a bunch by Paulo Coehlo, the best-selling author who encouraged people to download unauthorized versions of his books).  Unfortunately, these "free" e-books are ridiculously limited.  They'll only be online for a month -- and you can only view them with a web connection (no downloads allowed).  On top of that, the print functionality will be blocked.  This seems totally pointless.  For most books, it costs more to print out a copy yourself than to just buy the actual book.  It's nice to see some additional support for free books, but HarperCollins plans seem akin to the music industry's first forays into online music.  That is, they're designed so that the company can say "look, we're doing something!" but are so locked up that very few people will actually be interested.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/021233217.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/021233217.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/021233217.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-you-thought-free-was-evil...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080211/021233217</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>