Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks
JK Rowling just joins the chorus of folks who are proving that DRM does not matter -- Smashwords, Angry Robot, O'Reilly, Baen and on and on.
IMO, Rowling realized how much money she was losing out on by not having ebooks out (pirated ecopies of Deathly Hallows were on the torrents within what, 24 hours of the book coming out?).
She clearly realized that DRM is a speed bump to dedicated pirates and a huge annoyance and hassle to honest readers who just want to give her money and get their book.
I believe Charlie Stross is absolutely right on this -- the only hope for mainstream publishers is to abandon DRM. That's the only way they can dent Amazon's market control: "Buy from us and read on anything."
If they go DRM-free, the hardware the reader uses is irrelevant and you eliminate "platform lockin" where readers always buy from the vendor who sold them their reader. If they go DRM-free, the commodotize the ebook readers in the same way that a "PC is a PC," whether it's an HP, a Dell or generic white box. It's the content and software you use on the PC that matters.
|
Perhaps true. Did she make a statement somewhere in that direction?
My point was that her decision does not necessarily make it right for all authors and/or venders.
Again she could sell her books any way she wants to and just perhaps stayed away from ebooks, DRM or not, until she was assured that she could still sell a few books.
I just do not think she has been in the ebook market long enough to say her decison is correct or that she will stick to it long term. I especially don't think that the 2012 marketing decisions made her a success or will make anyone else a success because she did it. No-one says "ahh gee a watermark. I will buy this book because J. K Rowling has watermarks". Oops wrong again, there will be someone, perhaps even yourself, who will
Helen