Originally Posted by mikij
If an author doesn't want a DRM, so who the heck is DRM protecting? Does it means also that the copyright is not to protect the authors, but the publishers instead? That's what I think.
In this case, it's not even protecting the publisher--the publisher is agreeing to not have DRM. It's encouraging consumer lock-in to the store.
The store doesn't want customers to be able to easily shop for the cheapest ebooks; they want to offer a few cheap books, and have customers *need* to buy from them because the software or hardware they have doesn't work on books from other stores. They don't want customers to have a mixed collection of books from many stores (and be able to compare metadata accuracy, filename usability, formatting details); they want customers to use THEIR software and buy from THEIR store only.
DRM does a lot more to create walled-garden shopping than it does to prevent piracy.