What kind of Idiot thought changing the text was OK ?

(Reaction to the "brand new idea" http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/06/13/new-drm-promises-to-ruin-a-good-ebook-in-the-name-of-protecting-it/ for watermarking ebooks by changes in the text)

There's DRM and DRM.

First one, you usually find out at Amazon's, Apple's and othere places is "Encryption based DRM", meaning, the reader needs a key of some sort to read. Usually this key is hidden inside of the readong platform.

Secondly, there's "Social DRM", where the ebook's content is changed to add information about the customer who purchased it, without locking anything. The ebook can be transferred, transformed, trans-formatted, without losing the personal identification.

Social DRM (aka Watermarking) schemes exist for a long time, some of them complicated and difficult to get rid of, other much more simple.
And hackers have so far NOT widely published solutions to bypass them as they did for encryption based DRMs.

Why ? because when they talk about DRM being bad, almost all of them are talking about Encryption based DRMs.

If you go and look at the major "anti-DRM tools" provider, you'll find out that they explicitely CHOOSE not to remove personally information, as they provide the tools for Personal use of the books and not for widespread dissemination. They EXPLICITELY don't touch the personal information already contained in the Encryption based Kindle DRMs...

All I'm saying is "Social DRM" doesn't have the same rejection as Encryption DRM has.
(http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192138)
And solutions already exist for Watermark. with I guess the same (if not lower) cost as Encryption based DRMs.

Just, big resellers don't use them. (some small ones DO).

What is proposed in the new scheme, is a new way to hide the personal information. While clever, it has NO respect for the authors.and readers (readers are accustomed to that though... DRM are widely used after all), and it adds NO additional value to existing schemes (such as http://www.booxtream.com/  (not afiliated in any way) or simply "home made" watermarks).

My only (and paranoïd) fear is that this IS published as a way to paint Social DRMs with a black mark and have authors/publishers flock towards encryption based DRMs again...

Who's asking for DRMs ?

I reported a few days ago about the hurdles the Chief Editor of a Webzine had to jump over before reading an ebook the way he wanted (in fact, he can't, except by bypassing the DRMs). Someone commented that the DRMs were often asked by the authors or their agents. That's right, I've sometimes seen author specifically choose DRMs, but it's not (by far) the majority. It probably comes from a distinct sampling, mine being more self/indie published centered.

However, it is easy for everyone to point at authors, even when communication comes from top-management (Arnaud Noury, CEO of Hachette Books). One could say that by having this posture, Arnaud Noury is protecting his authors by taking responsibility of their wishes. But in that case, how can you explain the kind of strong-arming which Cory Doctorow reported a few weeks ago, in which the Publisher forces authors to use DRMs even against their wishes ?

Sure, if publishers explain authors how DRMs are better (billy club in hand), no wonder they agree to ask for them.
And when I write about publishers, editors, agents, authors, I don't speak of individuals, who in their majority are against DRMs, but as the resulting outcome : majority is outvoted by the fewer DRM proponents, with a clear result of having DRMs on most of the ebooks. That's not only too bad, but also counterproductive, hinders cultural progress (short, and long term), but also (I think) creates copyright infringement habits.

But all the onus is not on publishers, agents or authors... ebooksellers have their part too.  They could for example put some pressure on publishers, or reach a little bit midway by implementing Watermarking solutions as an additional option, alternative to full-scale DRMs. Publishers, if you're against DRMs, but don't feel like cutting all copyright protection, why don't you ask for it, like J.K.Rowling (among others) did ?
Watermarks are not perfect, sure, but it is way more customers respectful, and will have less backlash and long term negative effect.

(Water)Markings ? the "French" alternative ?

In one of my precedent blog post (In French) http://readingandraytracing.blogspot.com/2011/12/drm-lexception-culturelle-francaise.html , I evocated about marking as an alternative to DRMs, but didn't say much more than that, so here are some details about what this term covers when I talk about it. Please note that some call these "Social DRMs".

For me, and in THIS precise context, "Marking" is a technical mean allowing, through modification of a digital ebook, to add non-intrusive data, relative to the selling circuit, up-to (and including) the final "sell" to the customer, this information beeing non-trivial to delete. The goal for the retailer and the publisher to deter "piracy" and illegal redistribution.

A few points of interest :

Visibility:

Marking can be made visible, or invisible. The solution used by Immateriel (the most used in France) is to at least show parts of the marks, which has at least one benefit : it clearly shows the customer that the "copy" that he received was given to him personally, and not to an indeterminate community. However, this choice can have detrimental effects on the reading experience, as is the case when the visible indications appear at the start/end of each chapter, especially if they create incorrect formatting.

I would personaly be in favor of a smaller visibility, restricted to the start/end of the book. This would not, of course, go against invisible markis inside of the text. In all cases, the visible part would have the "dissuasive" effect, while the invisible part allows "tracking" a leak's source if necessary.

Technical : 
First point : DRM are in fact already watermarks, as they already closely tie the content with personal data. 
And the "most available tools" that get rid of DRMs, clean the files from the encryption only, not necessarily the entirety of the personal linkings. So if you're happy with DRMs, why whine with Watermarks ?

As all DRMs, marking is fallible, which is why I stated the goal was not necessarily for it to be tamper resistant, but non trivial to suppress. One can note though that since they are less intrusive than DRMs, hackers will have less motivation to crack them, and they should stand better the test of time.

An other more technical point is that while DRMs are defectuous by design (as you need to give at the same time the product and the key to read it), the reseller can keep slightly more data secret, which is slightly better.

Unintentional divulgation :
Here is for me the sticking point : in the case where the work is distributed, either inadvertently, or badly ckecked,  the reader could have problems for things that are not of his fault. For example if he looses his ereader, he won't necessarily think about going to the police with a list of the works that were on it whereas this would be the only "good faith" proof if the works where distributed...

Once again, Watermarks are DRM-lite, and while not widely known, this would already be the case with standard DRMed books.

Not available at big distributors:
This intermediary level protection measure is not widely used (and not among the "big" resellers"). So if you prefer them to full size DRMs, please ask for them in replacement ! Also, since the big-resellers don't DO watermarks, they almost always "upgrade" them to full-scale DRMs... Not really the best for readers, is it ?

Edit 2012/07/06 : I think the "watermark" version of protection is gaining traction, for example J.K.Rowling uses it for her Harry Potter books at Pottermore. But until the major resellers (Amazon/Apple) don't support them...