[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You're making an enormous assumption here that those of us who buy from the mainstream publishers do so because of a marketing campaign.

You know those books *exist* because of a marketing campaign.

Gee, maybe I buy from them because I like the authors and books they publish. Maybe I was reading their books in paper and now I am simply continuing to read them in digital form. Maybe I like reading a book that meets certain minimal standards of competence.

Unless you intend your future reading to be entirely limited to authors you already know, you're basing your reading choices on their advertising skills. "Certain minimal standards of competence" is fine--but plenty of non-DRM'd and self-pubbed books have standards just as high as any DRM-using publisher, and some of them are higher.

Of course, there's no nice simple list of those authors and publishers. So there's also a possibility of "I can't be bothered to seek out the few self-pubbed works that are great in the midst of all the crapola slush, and I know the works published by DRM-using publishers are at least competently edited."

I have NO problem admitting that the vast majority of self-pub work is garbage. For myself, I'm often entertained by it, and I enjoy some of the more "experimental" styles. I don't blame others for not wanting to waste their time wading through all that--but don't pretend it's because "all the best books are released with DRM." I'd prefer people be honest and admit that their time is more valuable than their opposition to DRM.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't like DRM but it's not important enough to me to limit my reading to works without it."

Pretty harsh, don't you think? I read for enjoyment, not to make some grand statement about the future of literature or publishing. You complain about the big publishers dictating what we should read, yet you yourself are letting them do exactly that--you're refusing to read their books simply because they are DRMed.

I'm not complaining about publishers dictating what we should read. (Well, not in this thread; that's a philosophical argument that has nothing to do with DRM.) I'm complaining about DRM limiting how I read books... and have decided I won't pay to support those limitations, no matter what quality of literature is hiding behind the lock.

Are you "competent to discuss the value or quality of literature" when you summarily dismiss all books with DRM?

I'm not saying those books aren't quality books; I'm saying they don't fit with my reading habits. I am saying that anybody who insists "all the books I would enjoy reading are released with DRM" has pathetic and limited tastes in literature--which is *not* the same as "it's not worth it to me to find books without DRM that I'd enjoy."

If you honestly believe that books released by mainstream DRM publishers are the only ones you would like, your tastes are very limited. If you just don't care to spend the time wading through the digital slushpile to find the indie releases that are of similar quality levels in genres and styles you'd like--that's a very reasonable choice to make.

DRM in itself does not affect the quality of the writing, so aren't you shutting off a whole world of wonderful books by your dogmatic stand?

I am indeed. I am saying that the marketing choice of DRM is more important to me than the quality of the individual book; I do not support titles released with DRM no matter how good those book are.

Am I missing out on some good books? Undoubtedly. However, the world is full of good books I don't have time or inclination to read; I'm not shorting myself on fun or educational reading material. There are more books than I have time for; authors who want my time--and my money--can find ways to get me books in formats I'm willing to pay for.

Don't know what your point about time is. Buying from the major publishers means I spend extra time to strip the DRM, but I'd rather do that than avoid a good book for something as silly as DRM.

I don't consider DRM to be "silly;" I consider it an insult to my integrity. By offering me a book only with DRM, the publisher is saying that I cannot be trusted to act ethically or within the law without technological restraints. I try to avoid doing business with people who insult me.

If you're willing to pay to be be called a potential thief in order to read a good book, this may not matter to you. Might depend on how much you want to read the book, or how personally you take an insult aimed at thousands of customers. Shrug.

See above. I put up with the inconvenience of DRM in order to read what I want, in the way I want. And that is exactly what I will continue to do.

I consider the inconvenience of seeking DRM-free quality works to be less troublesome than supporting an insulting practice I find unethical, at least in this case. I have nothing against people who decide in the other direction; I *do* object to people who won't admit they're supporting the DRM-based market when they purchase those books, and to people who insist that "all the good books have DRM."