Or so says the KindleReviewer here:
http://ireaderreview.com/2011/03/16/...y-10/#comments
I know there are a whole lot of people here who regard DRM as the spawn of Satan, but he does make forceful arguments. Money quote:
Quote:
Again, we look at our 10% who have an overbearing sense of entitlement.
Their argument will be – We only want to pay for books after we know they are good. They will read 10 books and find only 1 that’s good enough to pay for.
They will find other arguments -
Just me, one single reader, not paying won’t make a difference.
Authors should be doing it for the art of it.
eBooks cost nothing – the incremental cost of producing the file that I read is zero.
Information wants to be free.
Most of the money goes to people who don’t deserve it anyways. All the author is losing is 5% of what I would have paid.
It’s very easy to find a rationalization to justify bad behavior if that behavior benefits you. You remove DRM and you make it really easy for the Naughty 10% to steal.
You also send a message to everyone else – While you good customers/readers are the ones paying for books, we are doing things for the freeloaders. We are rewarding them for stealing books by making it even easier to steal books.
|
HE also opposes unrestricted lending of books. He says both these impractical proposals are based on an unrealistic "perfect world full of perfect reader" scenarios. How right is he?
