Originally Posted by Catlady
But the casual sharers wouldn't be stopped at all by watermarking, so, again, what's the point?
I think (but it may be wishful thinking) that among those casual sharers, the majority of them do share casually because of miscomprehension, and that the visible part of the watermark would give them pause enough to think it over and maybe get informed on the subject... and if that fails, I think fear of an hypothetical (but I grant you highly unlikely) tracing through the invisible watermark will.
If indeed that IS wishful thinking and watermarking proves as ineffective against "piracy" as crypto-DRMs, it still can be pushed as a better alternative to publishers, notably for its better Customers Acceptance Factor, with the net positive result of increasing the reader's freedom to store, convert, reuse... and society long term benefit of cultural conservation.
I mention a better Customers Acceptance Factor for Publisher, but an other point is also a lessened e-retailers dependency, as it would allow "Kindle" buyers to go and buy elsewhere without losing their purchased content.
For Publishers who claim that Amazon is the GREAT EVIL, I think it can work.