Quote:
Originally Posted by tirsales
Yes, they create a certain level of security. There is still a big amount of theft in shops. That is not the point. The point is: TOTAL security, no darknet, no more illegal downloads, etc - is NOT possible. Not without means far more serious then the one in pilotbob's example.
|
Check back through my comments--go ahead, I'll wait--and you'll notice I've
never said TOTAL security. I agree, that's not possible, and I have studiously avoided speaking in such absolute terms.
What is required is enough security to minimize losses to an
acceptable level below the amount it costs to maintain the security (the same theory a WalMart, or any other retailer, works on). Because there's no point in spending a thousand dollars to save a hundred in theft losses. But if you can spend $95 to save a hundred dollars in losses, you're ahead by $5 (or, at least, $5 less behind).
And if the amount of money you can spend on security will not save you a significant amount of losses, or is much more in cost than the losses you'll recoup, you consider shutting down your store before you lose your shirt. That's basic retailer math.
e-Publishers see losses through lower profit margins (if they sell e-books at consumer-friendly levels), and they see losses through theft, in the current system. Basic retailer math tells them to spend on security, but if it doesn't solve the problem to their satisfaction, take down the shingle.
Amazon and iTunes are using their connections, their market placement, DRM, and a registration/ease of use system that effectively satisfies and thereby locks-in most of their users, to satisfy this equation. For them, the copyright concerns seem to be mitigated. Can any other publisher pull that off in another way?