Quote:
You would have every right to pursue legal action against anyone uploading a copy of
your property, and bringing the theft to the attention of law enforcement. The use of
totally ineffective preemptive measures that restrict the use of your product, after the
sale, must be for another, hidden purpose.
|
Actually DRM is effective to deterring casual sharing by the nontech consumer. What theauthor and publisher is rightly afraid of is some teenager buying a copy of the latest vampire bestseller and forwarding it to her peeps on Facebook, who will then forward it to THEIR peeps on Facebook, etc. Mike Shatzkin puts it best:
Quote:
Because casual sharing of unprotected files would have none of the
limitations that your mother and her friends find true with printed books.
Each book could be read by as many people at one time as wanted to, not just
one person at a time. The books would never wear out. The friends could send
the same file to other friends outside the circle of regular sharers.
|
Anyone who doesnt think large scale casual sharing does not pose a serious threat to the revenues of authors and publishers is either indifferent to the rights of authors and publishers hasn't really thought the problem through.
The other legal remedies that you mention are far less effective than DRM for protecting sales and would cause even greater resentment among consumers. Again, this is well known . You might as well be just advising authors and publishers to give up on the idea of protecting their IP rights-which again, some explicitly say they should do. Not surprisingly, authors haven't opted for unconditional surrender .