It'd be nice, if when someone asks a specific technical question, and admits that they know the action is controversial, they didn't have multiple replies landing in their inbox that tote the controversy and don't bother to consider the specific context.
Good: "If your authors are uneasy, here's a good resource for authors which explains the limitations of DRM." [Anyone got a good link? Something that covers "limitations" in the widest sense, e.g. including the failure to provide personal backups, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to allow large numbers of ebooks to spontaneously become unreadable. With multiple separate cases on Amazon,
including what must have been at least tens of different titles less than five years ago. An article-style forum-post would do, if posted as a new thread rather than a reply to ongoing discussion.]
Good: "You should say that the flip-side of these costs is that adding DRM may do less than they think. We know there's a publicly available crack for Kindle DRM which is convenient to run, well known, used by many for non-piracy purposes, and seems unlikely to be taken down any time soon. So the effect is that it only really deters casual sharing by email etc.; it doesn't stop the book being shared on well-known pirate sites."
What we get on MobileRead: DRM will only lower sales, because I said so. You should tell your authors I said that.
Well-meaning: "You've said that you know that some people are against DRM on principle. You should point out that if any of these happen to have bought the book, they will feel betrayed if they've recommended it to others, or if what they bought was the first book in a series. There's a risk that they'll leave a one-star review on the new version, which could put people off when they're looking at a list of books on Amazon."
Well-meaning, albeit hypothetical and unchecked: "In case we have to fix some problems we missed in the first version, we might not have a way to send corrected editions to the people who bought it without DRM."
What we get on MobileRead: An ambiguous post that either suggests people who bought the non-DRM version are somehow going to see it replaced with the DRM version. Or possibly that the author/publisher is somehow deciding to "get their own back" on the people who bought the non-DRM version. I probably meant something slightly different anyway, since neither of these makes sense, and I was in too much of a hurry to spell my swear words correctly. If you want to know what I actually meant, it's your responsibility to ask for clarification. Better be polite though, or I might take offence and just rush out a rebuttal with no connection to my earlier words.