Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
There is only one problem with applying this idea to electronic files, and that is web anonymity.
People don't steal at a produce stand, because of the concern of being identified and caught (either immediately, or the next time you're out in public). Most theft is headed off by showing the potential thief that they are not anonymous.
On the web as it is designed today, users can (mostly) establish anonymity, so they can steal and have no fear of being identified and caught. This creates more of a casually dishonest atmosphere on the web, and changes the business dynamic radically. Losses (not price, the proportion of stolen goods to sold goods) are higher, and a business must decide whether it needs to take steps to mitigate the larger amount of loss.
|
First, a point on which I beg to differ: I don't think the concern of being identified and caught is the only or even the main reason people do not steal from produce stands.
I may be a more trusting soul than some.
Second, I'm not questioning the idea that when a business sees increased losses it must take steps to mitigate those losses.
I'm questioning the idea that DRM, at least when applied to e-books, is in any way a viable method of mitigation. My contention is that rather than mitigating these losses the only effect it has is to increase losses due to illicit downloads if it has any effect on losses at all.
Why should the publisher waste money on something that annoys a significant proportion of their customers without producing the result they're looking for?