We have reached the final stage of the neoliberal fever dream. From housing, to media, to printers, to everything else. Get ready to own nothing; pay rent on everything.
From housing, to media, to printers, to everything else. Get ready to own nothing; pay rent on everything.
A lot of this boils down to the tragedy of the commons - what you said about book DRM is a textbook example of that.
And usually the tragedy of the commons needs to be solved through agreement or arbitration. But agreement across a huge number of people is almost impossible; and arbitration would likely need to rely on governments - but governments exist primarily to defend the interest of the power-holders, not of their citizens.
I saw your comment 3 months late 😄 In the blog post I actually mention the tragedy of the commons. The problem with the theory is that it is only applicable in fixed empirical settings. For this reason, I think it is quite dangerous to apply this theory generally. It is actually a key ingredient in neoliberal economics, where it is argued that privatization of commons is necessary, because they are tragic. I had to unlearn this notion myself. I recommend the book ‘Governing the Commons’ by Elinor Ostrom on the topic, it’s a collection of case studies which shows that commons are only tragic under certain preconditions.
Does this mean that I need to wait until September to reply? /jk
I believe that the problem with the neolibs in this case is not the descriptive model (tragedy of the commons) that they’re using to predict a potential issue; it’s instead the “magical” solution that they prescribe for that potential issue, that “happens” to align with their economical ideology, while avoiding to address that:
in plenty cases privatisation worsens the erosion of the common resource, due to the introduction of competition;
the model applies specially well to businesses, that behave more like the mythical “rational agent” than individuals do;
what you need to solve the issue is simply “agreement”. Going from “agreement” to “privatise it!!!1one” is an insane jump of logic from their part.
And while all models break if you look too hard at them, I don’t think that it does in this case - it explains well why individuals are buying DRM-stained e-books, even if this ultimately hurts them as a collective, by reducing the availability of DRM-free books.
(And it isn’t like you can privatise it, as the neolibs would eagerly propose; it is a private market already.)
I’m reading the book that you recommended (thanks for the rec, by the way!). Under a quick glance, it seems to propose self-organisation as a way to solve issues concerning common pool resources; it might work in plenty cases but certainly not here, as there’s no way to self-organise people who buy e-books.
And frankly, I don’t know a solution either. Perhaps piracy might play an important and positive role? It increases the desirability of DRM-free books (you can’t share the DRM-stained ones), and puts a check on the amount of obnoxiousness and rug-pulling that corporations can submit you to.
Sorry, I missed that this thread started on the topic of ebooks. To be honest, I don’t fully understand the connection you are making to the tragedy of the commons when it comes to DRM. I think I understand what you mean, if you are arguing on top of DRM, but DRM is itself already a tool of enclosure. So the problem is not really consumer choice, but rather that DRM is allowed in its current form. But I admit that this is a different discussion, I guess in the end we are talking about the same and I agree with you. I think the self organizing part here would be for authors to publish independently, and for people to support independent publishing. But as you implied, that market is already captured to a point where people don’t even know about independent publishers/markets. I wouldn’t look at that as a tragedy of the commons, where people “selfishly” choose DRM and degrade the underlying resource, rather they are simply consumers of an almost fully enclosed resource.
Glad you find it interesting enough to start reading. The book doesn’t necessarily “propose self organizing”, although that may be a conclusion one can draw. Rather it showcases different case studies where common pool resources have degraded, and others where they have flourished, and tries to compare the different situations through a few parameters. What I took from it is, that it is pretty safe to say that neither privatization, nor central planning are good “solutions” when it comes to common pool resources, also that it seems important to have some form of rule monitoring and enforcement where actors directly affected by rule-breaking are part of the monitoring. But I should probably read through my highlights again some time, to freshen up my memory :)
Think on the available e-books as a common pool, from the point of view of the people buying them: that pool is in perfect condition if all books there are DRM-free, or ruined if all books are infested with DRM.
When someone buys a book with DRM, they’re degrading that pool, as they’re telling sellers “we buy books with DRM just fine”. And yet people keep doing it, because:
They had an easier time finding the copy with DRM than a DRM-free one.
The copy with DRM might be cheaper.
The copy with DRM is bought through services that they’re already used to, and registering to another service is a bother.
If copy with DRM stops working, that might be fine, if the buyer only needed the book in the short term.
Sharing is not a concern if the person isn’t willing to share on first place.
They might not even know what’s the deal, so they don’t perceive the malus of DRM-infested books.
So in a lot of situations, buyers beeline towards the copy with DRM, as it’s individually more convenient, even if ruining the pool for everyone in the process. That’s why I said that it’s a tragedy of the commons.
As you correctly highlighted that model relies on the idea that the buyer is selfish; as in, they won’t care about the overall impact of their actions on the others, only on themself. That is a simplification and needs to be taken with a grain of salt, however note that people are more prone to act selfishly if being selfless takes too much effort out of them. And those businesses selling you DRM-infested copies know it - that’s why they enclose you, because leaving that enclosure to support DRM-free publishers takes effort.
I guess in the end we are talking about the same
I also think so. I’m mostly trying to dig further into the subject.
So the problem is not really consumer choice, but rather that DRM is allowed in its current form. But I admit that this is a different discussion
Even being a different discussion, I think that one leads to another.
Legislating against DRM might be an option, but easier said than done - governments are specially unruly, and they’d rather support corporations than populations.
Another option, as weird as it might sound, might be to promote that “if buying is not owning, pirating is not stealing” discourse. It tips the scale from the business’ PoV: if people would rather pirate than buy books with DRM, might as well offer them DRM-free to increase sales.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
A lot of this boils down to the tragedy of the commons - what you said about book DRM is a textbook example of that.
And usually the tragedy of the commons needs to be solved through agreement or arbitration. But agreement across a huge number of people is almost impossible; and arbitration would likely need to rely on governments - but governments exist primarily to defend the interest of the power-holders, not of their citizens.
I saw your comment 3 months late 😄 In the blog post I actually mention the tragedy of the commons. The problem with the theory is that it is only applicable in fixed empirical settings. For this reason, I think it is quite dangerous to apply this theory generally. It is actually a key ingredient in neoliberal economics, where it is argued that privatization of commons is necessary, because they are tragic. I had to unlearn this notion myself. I recommend the book ‘Governing the Commons’ by Elinor Ostrom on the topic, it’s a collection of case studies which shows that commons are only tragic under certain preconditions.
Does this mean that I need to wait until September to reply? /jk
I believe that the problem with the neolibs in this case is not the descriptive model (tragedy of the commons) that they’re using to predict a potential issue; it’s instead the “magical” solution that they prescribe for that potential issue, that “happens” to align with their economical ideology, while avoiding to address that:
And while all models break if you look too hard at them, I don’t think that it does in this case - it explains well why individuals are buying DRM-stained e-books, even if this ultimately hurts them as a collective, by reducing the availability of DRM-free books.
(And it isn’t like you can privatise it, as the neolibs would eagerly propose; it is a private market already.)
I’m reading the book that you recommended (thanks for the rec, by the way!). Under a quick glance, it seems to propose self-organisation as a way to solve issues concerning common pool resources; it might work in plenty cases but certainly not here, as there’s no way to self-organise people who buy e-books.
And frankly, I don’t know a solution either. Perhaps piracy might play an important and positive role? It increases the desirability of DRM-free books (you can’t share the DRM-stained ones), and puts a check on the amount of obnoxiousness and rug-pulling that corporations can submit you to.
Sorry, I missed that this thread started on the topic of ebooks. To be honest, I don’t fully understand the connection you are making to the tragedy of the commons when it comes to DRM. I think I understand what you mean, if you are arguing on top of DRM, but DRM is itself already a tool of enclosure. So the problem is not really consumer choice, but rather that DRM is allowed in its current form. But I admit that this is a different discussion, I guess in the end we are talking about the same and I agree with you. I think the self organizing part here would be for authors to publish independently, and for people to support independent publishing. But as you implied, that market is already captured to a point where people don’t even know about independent publishers/markets. I wouldn’t look at that as a tragedy of the commons, where people “selfishly” choose DRM and degrade the underlying resource, rather they are simply consumers of an almost fully enclosed resource.
Glad you find it interesting enough to start reading. The book doesn’t necessarily “propose self organizing”, although that may be a conclusion one can draw. Rather it showcases different case studies where common pool resources have degraded, and others where they have flourished, and tries to compare the different situations through a few parameters. What I took from it is, that it is pretty safe to say that neither privatization, nor central planning are good “solutions” when it comes to common pool resources, also that it seems important to have some form of rule monitoring and enforcement where actors directly affected by rule-breaking are part of the monitoring. But I should probably read through my highlights again some time, to freshen up my memory :)
Really appreciated your insight.
Think on the available e-books as a common pool, from the point of view of the people buying them: that pool is in perfect condition if all books there are DRM-free, or ruined if all books are infested with DRM.
When someone buys a book with DRM, they’re degrading that pool, as they’re telling sellers “we buy books with DRM just fine”. And yet people keep doing it, because:
So in a lot of situations, buyers beeline towards the copy with DRM, as it’s individually more convenient, even if ruining the pool for everyone in the process. That’s why I said that it’s a tragedy of the commons.
As you correctly highlighted that model relies on the idea that the buyer is selfish; as in, they won’t care about the overall impact of their actions on the others, only on themself. That is a simplification and needs to be taken with a grain of salt, however note that people are more prone to act selfishly if being selfless takes too much effort out of them. And those businesses selling you DRM-infested copies know it - that’s why they enclose you, because leaving that enclosure to support DRM-free publishers takes effort.
I also think so. I’m mostly trying to dig further into the subject.
Even being a different discussion, I think that one leads to another.
Legislating against DRM might be an option, but easier said than done - governments are specially unruly, and they’d rather support corporations than populations.
Another option, as weird as it might sound, might be to promote that “if buying is not owning, pirating is not stealing” discourse. It tips the scale from the business’ PoV: if people would rather pirate than buy books with DRM, might as well offer them DRM-free to increase sales.