Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pdurrant
You have acknowledged my point at last. The present of DRM or not on the digital files that are sold does not affect the amount of unauthorised copying to any significant extent.
|
Well I acknowledge that you CLAIMED that. The evidence of the music industry is quite the contrary. Hell, the strudy that YOU cite says grudgingly admits that piracy is responsible for 20 % of the decline. The music industry claims an even larger percentage. |
Good grief! I was wrong. You haven't understood my point at all.
Read what you quoted again. I'll repeat it here with some
emphasis added (I see I have a minor typo - retained above, fixed below):
The presence of DRM or not on the digital files that are sold does not affect the amount of unauthorised copying to any significant extent.
Let me go over it slowly.
Before the music industry sold digital music, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.
When the music industry sold digital music with DRM, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.
When the music industry sold digital music with no DRM, unauthorised copying of digital music was widespread.
I am
not saying that unauthorised copying has no effect on sales.
I
am saying that DRM on files for sale has no significant effect on unauthorised copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Let's see you answer a question. How do you know that sales of nonDRM books wouldn't have been even greater than they were had they had DRM?
|
I
think sales would not have been greater, because DRM on files doesn't seem to affect the amount of unauthorised copying, and because removing DRM from digital music for sale didn't seem to affect the growth curve of sales digital music files.
No-one can
know what would have happened if something had been done differently in the past.