Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
I didn't respond because Elfmark did it as well or better than I could. I'll just quote her again:
In other words, your DRM scheme would be less effective than the current scheme for publishers. Authors and publishers are interested in a DRM scheme that prevents casual sharers from easily violating an author's copyright: your scheme would do nothing to prevent this. Someone who got their free copy of an ebook forwarded from your relative would just look at the info and say " Wow, Piper originally bought this. Good to know" and just continue reading their free book. And do publishers want the liability hassle of including a book buyer's bank account number on a file that can be passed around the Internet? I think they'll stick with the present scheme, thank you.
|
Thank you. That is just what I expected and
said would be the reason from the beginning.
The problem is that it contradicts all your previous assertions that all you want to stop is "
heavy" and "large scale" casual sharing, citing people putting their books up for "hundreds" to share on Facebook and the like.
If that were true, then our method would be enough. No, it wouldn't prevent pirates or anyone else who wants to just strip it, but neither does yours.
All our method would allow that yours doesn't is multi-device compatibility and sharing between trusted friends and family, which you said was not the big concern.
Of course, it also would mean people wouldn't have to pay for another copy of an ebook - what you kindly call a "stupid tax" - if they don't have or always buy DRM-compatible devices.
(The bank account scare you used is just desperation speaking. There's no need for that info to be in there. :P)