Well, at first the article seems to be talking about how publishers fear piracy, then about how customers will be expecting the right to copy at will, then there is a paragraph that is simply untrue (look at iTunes's success. people were very willing to buy DRM-ed materials):
Quote:
|
Consumers simply wouldn’t buy “secured” music (read: copy-protected) or worse, they would often break the protection and go on to share it in peer-to-peer networks simply because it was originally blocked. Companies were eventually forced into selling files void of protection, “unsecured”. Since then, sales have been steadily going up. The BCB’s folks are aware of this, to the point of Farinha citing iTunes as success case.
|
Sure, they're now selling unDRMed materials, but it's not as though the iTunes MS was unsuccessful before.
Then a passage about how publishers can abuse DRM to 'steal' your purchases from you.
Then a passage that confuses "DRM-free" with "creative commons" (i.e. no copyright whatever) and "free speech".
Then a passage about DRM and vendor lock-in again, and then a passage about how "thing will magically improve". What's missing is mostly a realistic suggestion about an alternative source of income for the authors, about the new role of those publishers, etc.
Basically what I don't understand is how they feel they will be different from the others, and more arguments about how that will work, rather than about how "the others aren't getting the new world order".