Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
...and if the publisher had listened to the request of the rights holder and removed the watermarks in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.
|
Since I don't know the details of the contract, can I assume it was industry-standard, and Swartz and his estate are not actually the rights holder?
And if against all odds the Swartz estate was actually the rights holder, and thus had the right to open their mouth on the subject, then they should have left that publisher and found one which was more amenable to their desires.
I call bullshit. They wanted to release watermark-removing tools, and they found a handy
excuse.
Quote:
I agree with you that watermarks are the most acceptable DRM. I also understand why this was done.
In my mind, this is similar to when the Tor author pointed his readers to Alf's tools when he found out that some stores were still selling his books with DRM. (Sorry, I can't remember the author's name right now) The only difference is that the Tor author didn't have to crack the DRM himself.
Shari
|
No. Tor was contracted to sell without
DRM encryption, and it was a technical/communications error with distributors that got in the way of that.
Tor was okay with that, because they didn't want the
DRM encryption in the first place.
It is the most incomparable comparison I can think of. (Although actually it could be worse, I could compare that situation to a banana. But that's cheating.)
...
Additionally,
DRM encryption infringes on the user's rights. Watermarking does not.
...
...
Next thing you know, they will be filing the serial number off of, well, everything that has one.