Thanks for your responses, Xenophon, pdurrant and all. Almost you have persauded me, but I'm not convinced just yet. I think one thing is clear:
Quote:
|
repeat: The hard data are inadequate to give a conclusive answer
|
NOw everyone else on this thread thinks the anti DRM argument is a slam dunk. I think its 50/50 at best. A lot depends on where you put the burden of proof. If you think DRM is morally wrong, then you want 100 per cent proof that it would hurt the book industry-evidence that's not available beforehand. The publishers, of course, want 100 per cent proof that it WON'T cost 10/50 per cent losses. Of course, there is no certainty in the business world. But the authors and publishers, who are betting their livelihoods on this, would say (correctly) in my view, that they would need clear and convincing evidence that going no DRM would not cause the kind of big losses we saw in the music industry. Put it this way, if the publishing industry goes no DRM and revenue falls 50 per cent, the folks here will just say , "Oops! Guess I was wrong" and go on with their lives. Folks in the publishing biz won't have that luxury.