View Single Post
Old 06-17-2013, 10:37 PM   #36
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,513
Karma: 45060394
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by david8866 View Post
What can publishers do when they track down the "leaker"?
This at least hints at one of the problems with a watermarking scheme. You'd need not only the publisher, but also the retailer, to simultaneously decide that the negative publicity from suing a customer is worth it. AFAIK Amazon won't even give the New York Times the names of their subscribers. They're probably just as unwilling to give up these names.

Quote:
Even banks can not secure their system, can publishers really pursuit consumers over one book?
There must be people in prison despite their lawyers arguing that bank records, put in evidence by the prosecution, are unreliable. And a few may be actually innocent!

While the book industry could try to go after customers, it wouldn't be pleasant. One beauty of DRM is that you can deter some of the privacy without having to feel bad for the customers you jail or bankrupt. I know some here think publishing executives are a cold-hearted group who would sell their mothers in return for agency pricing at Amazon. If so, you'll find this paragraph implausible.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote