My perspective on buying books with DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Watermarks in music files I abhor, because even if the watermark is 'inaudible', it's still a change to the produce as used.

Watermarks in ebooks should not changed the displayed text. They are supposed to be entirely in the non-displayed coding of the book.

Although, as mentioned before, I'd be pleased to have a pretty 'Ex-Libris' visible 'watermark' page as well.

Many years ago, Fictionwise used to display the name of the purchaser on the initial page of the book for their "LIT" format books. Most of my Agatha Christie books were originally purchased from FW in LIT format, and I still have them, although they've gone through several format conversions since then!

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Watermarks in music files I abhor, because even if the watermark is 'inaudible', it's still a change to the produce as used.

Watermarks in ebooks should not changed the displayed text. They are supposed to be entirely in the non-displayed coding of the book.

Although, as mentioned before, I'd be pleased to have a pretty 'Ex-Libris' visible 'watermark' page as well.

We're on the same page here

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Watermarks in ebooks should not changed the displayed text. They are supposed to be entirely in the non-displayed coding of the book.

Why is that supposed? Adlibris in Sweden put visible watermarks in the book. In a couple of places when reading it says something like "this book is bought by... " and some number.

Are your point that is it wrong to call it a watermark then? But it is still a social drm.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is that supposed? Adlibris in Sweden put visible watermarks in the book. In a couple of places when reading it says something like "this book is bought by... " and some number.

Are your point that is it wrong to call it a watermark then? But it is still a social drm.

Perhaps I should have expanded on my interpretation of watermark.

IMO, a watermark in an ebook is invisible, and adding visible text to an ebook in the text pages is more than a watermark. I would not be happy with any ebook that did that, and I would not buy from anyone who added such visible text to my ebooks.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

Could we please disagree on certain subjects without reverting to personal insults of the "paranoid nuts" kind?

I m simply trying to imagine what kind of objection could possibly be made about watermarking. I haven't heard a convincing reason.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

You got it all wrong. I don't care about being possibility traced (the probability of that begin close to zero).
It's that watermarks, like adept protected book, reduce the value of the book for me. Even more, alf make it easier to remove adept protection than watermark.
It's that I have some lesser quality product because of some idiots. I don't want the usage of the product I paid for to be alerted / restricted

Please explain how something you cannot see and has absolutely no impact on your life or usage of the product, is reducing the value.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Please explain how something you cannot see and has absolutely no impact on your life or usage of the product, is reducing the value.

Learn to read for crying out loud !!!!

I'm speaking of the part you CAN see !!!

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Learn to read for crying out loud !!!!

I'm speaking of the part you CAN see !!!

... which is of course the absolute definition of a watermark....

I rejected that as a typo or freudian slip, as you previously claimed watermarks are inherently evil.
Since badly-made Ex Libris' are not an intrinsic part of the concept of "watermark", you cannot object to watermarking on the grounds of visible changes.

Nice try at obfuscation, but it didn't work.

If you really objected to just the visible shmutz, you would have said so in the first place, instead of throwing in all those red herrings about "watermarking".

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I m simply trying to imagine what kind of objection could possibly be made about watermarking. I haven't heard a convincing reason.

I'm simply saying that someone may consider watermarks to be, albeit minor and relatively harmless, parts of the ever-growing net of digital surveillance which is cast around us, without necessarily having to be psychotic and/or mentally retarded -- assumptions which we should voice about each other here only with some restraint?

[eschwartz]

Which is nevertheless paranoia, however much one might argue that paranoia is justified.

Correct, I think such people are (usually) paranoia nuts.
I don't see where mental retardation/psychotics enters into the matter though.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I m simply trying to imagine what kind of objection could possibly be made about watermarking. I haven't heard a convincing reason.

It costs money and those costs are being passed onto the consumer. I don't care if vendors wants to spread anti-DRM fairy dust on the ebooks as long as they don't make me pay for it. (I'd be happy if they bought the anti-DRM fairy dust from me).

If some of my watermarked ebooks are lost or stolen and eventually end up on a file sharing site, I could have idiots coming after me saying it's my fault. That makes a watermarked ebook less valuable to me.

Maybe your imagination is broken.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Which is nevertheless paranoia, however much one might argue that paranoia is justified.

Correct, I think such people are (usually) paranoia nuts.
I don't see where mental retardation/psychotics enters into the matter though.

Oh, some more insults.
You're not even trying to understand what're we're saying. You're asking for a valid reason ? What about finding a valid reason for the existence of DRM/watermarks ??
And as far as i'm concerned, discussion's over, don't bother answering me.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It costs money and those costs are being passed onto the consumer. I don't care if vendors wants to spread anti-DRM fairy dust on the ebooks as long as they don't make me pay for it. (I'd be happy if they bought the anti-DRM fairy dust from me).

If some of my watermarked ebooks are lost or stolen and eventually end up on a file sharing site, I could have idiots coming after me saying it's my fault. That makes a watermarked ebook less valuable to me.

Maybe your imagination is broken.

I concede the point on pointless cost.

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Oh, some more insults.
You're not even trying to understand what're we're saying. You're asking for a valid reason ? What about finding a valid reason for the existence of DRM/watermarks ??
And as far as i'm concerned, discussion's over, don't bother answering me.

I think I have done a very good job of understanding what you said. I simply disagreed on every claim you made.

For the record, I still maintain my original statement that a valid reason is the vendor's right to do what they deem necessary to protect their business interests, so long as it doesn't infringe on the consumer's rights.

I deny the far-fetched idea that your books will be stolen and distributed.
I deny the ludicrous idea that "watermarked" is logically equivalent to "visibly watermarked".

What am I missing?

P.S. regarding insults:

nut:

a : a foolish, eccentric, or crazy person
b : enthusiast

Take your pick, either one fits here. I am sorry if you feel insulted, that is of course your prerogative. @RobertDDL, you are projecting your own assumptions. Please stop that.

[PandathePanda]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I deny the far-fetched idea that your books will be stolen and distributed.

I've seen it happen where I live (south africa). If you take your computer in to be fixed you've got a 60-90% chance that your music/books/tv series/movies/games on your pc being copied, and that's with a repairer and not even a thief.

Piracy is so rife here that we missed the whole nes/snes/genesis era (70% of all psx games sold was pirate, 30-50% of all ps3/4 games are pirate).

Piracy in south africa is when you sell an unlicensed copy, giving my friend a copy of something I bought isn't. Microsoft came out a few years ago and stated it on national radio that, that is their view on piracy. We do have more stringent laws, but it's not really enforced.

[eschwartz]

If in certain parts of the world, such events are abnormally common, I stand corrected.

In that case, giving your computer to a repairman is gross negligence and anyone who does so is culpable for aiding and abetting piracy.