|
In the article, Glaskowsky says:
I think the disconnect in this case lies with the philosophical positions some people have taken against DRM, positions that generally date back to well before commercial electronic publishing was well established. Now that electronic publishing--with DRM--is achieving significant success and user acceptance, these people need to rethink their positions.
I found that comment both offensive and naive.
I'm aware of the issues around DRM and I'm opposed to it. I refuse to use formats in any media or document that are not open and available on multiple devices and operating systems. The imposition of DRM on end users inevitably restricts these choices.
Being told that I "need to rethink my position" is quite offensive.
For most people, ebooks are a new thing; people haven't yet experienced for themselves what happens when DRM rights are removed through circumstances outside of their control.
It will be interesting to see how widely accepted DRM on (for example) Sony's books will be if they just decided that they were no longer interested in ebook devices and just stopped making them.
To write in a somewhat cavalier manner (as Glaskowsky does) that DRM is achieving "success" and "acceptance" and that it must therefore be a good thing is unbelievably naive.
The "success" of DRM for the publisher is that it fragments the market and ties customers to their products.
The "acceptance" from the customer is because in general people aren't even aware that DRM exists or that things could be different to how they are. The customer just wants convenience; this may be provided by DRM managed documents and devices, but doesn't mandate them.
|