Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
To tell me I can read a book on one ereader but not another is like saying, "We'll sell you this book, but you can only read it in the house in which you're currently living. If you wish to read it anywhere else, you'll need to buy another copy from another vendor." DRM has only one justification for existence: to prevent piracy (which it doesn't do very well). If I remove the DRM but don't pirate the book, no one is harmed. Conversely, if one day the DRM encoding ensures I can't access something I purchased legally, someone has been harmed—me! Companies have no right to tell me I can't protect my investment.
|
Your scenario is apt. But in my opinion the publishers would have long ago imposed similar control over published paper books had there been a way to actually implement it.
The rise of DRM is not signaling a change in publisher philosophy, simply a change in their ability to impose the philosophy on the consumer.