Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaden
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahse
DRM in general is necessary for eBooks and publishing to be viable.
No, it's not. J.K. Rowling proves otherwise.
I've still not read one argument proving that limiting readers to a certain device (or a range of devices, but not all) or locking them in with Amazon, iBooks, Adobe or B&N helps authors or publishers. I would not buy a 2nd version of the book I've already paid for if I wanted to, say, switch from a Kindle to a Sony. If you don't want me to read your book, fine with me. I will not buy more of your books then, because I'll never know if you are any good.
Watermarking is a okay, if I can read my book on any device, download it (once I've paid for it) in different versions, should I ever switch devices - or be able to convert the book myself.
Knowing that the book could be tracked back to the original buyer will much better protect from casual sharing than DRM ever will - unless it can be removed equally easy. Then it's as useless in that regard as DRM.
An even more restrictive form of DRM will surely result in less ebook sales (and not necessarily in more pbook sales, either, because those you can easily share or buy used).
|
I am kind of missing the point of J. K. Rowling proving otherwise.
I thought that she had only recently entered the ebook market and was a very successful author already.
I think people who are Harry Potter fans would have bought her books regardless of the method used.
The fact that she made a decision for Watermark does not, IMO, make it any better or worse than any other DRM for authors in general.
Helen