|
I think that DRM is an accommodation to some of the various complex and competing
components of the publishing system. Some want it, some don't want it, many could
care less. I doubt the sales and marketing, distribution side of the business want it.
I would not be surprised if only those within the system with law degrees are really
calling for it. From the author's agent to the publisher's legal/contract dept., to the
distributor's procurement division/buyers. In Amazon's case there may have been an
added Machiavellian voice from the forces that launched the "Kindle" project.
I could see it as having developed where the e-book sales section of Amazon first
got sold the the idea that they could sell a lot more e-books if they only had some
good handheld readers out there, by the Kindle visionary. Part of the spiel for the
Kindle was probably the idea that it would lock-in e-book sales to Amazon.
Over time the Amazon e-book sales department probably came to argue that they
needed other platforms for their e-books to be read on, besides just the Kindle and
the other apps came on the scene.
I also suspect that when the initial DRM started to be widely circumvented the
Pro-DRM forces pushed for the adoption of the stricter "Topaz" DRM. Then they
encountered a drop in sales and an increase in complaints. So the sales dept.
became less than enthusiastic about the use of "Topaz" and may be somewhat
reluctant to support its use.
The thing is, everyone in the system thinks that all the others are out to get them,
or cheat them of what they are due. So it is easy to sell the idea that something
that is touted as providing "protection" for their rights is a good and needed thing.
The lawyers love this situation and the DRM, the merchants - not so much.
Just my opinion.
Luck;
Ken
|