Joseph Esposito began his article with a narrative of three choices; $14 print, $12 electronic, and free electronic. His conclusion was that the user would always choose $0.
Esposito's little narrative incorrectly assumes they both come from reliable sources therefore malware free - he must never have downloaded from Adobe or C-Net. Esposito uses this to argue for the necessity of DRM.
The reality is that free comes at a great cost. You can't or don't get free from reliable sources, that is true with an eBook or print book. Any reliable source would be shut down, DRM or not, for selling a product they owned no rights to.
Esposito has it backwards. DRM is not the effect of the free, pirated eBook, but the other way around. It is because the DRM eBook limits certain functionality that users are willing to take great risk for a free copy without those limitations.
Ironically, DRM which producers assume protects their content, devalues it. Users don't go for the pirated version because it is free, but rather because it has more value than the DRMed version. A user risks much more going to Pirate Bay downloading an eBook for a summer read, than paying Amazon $2.99 for a DRMed version. They make that risk not for the saved $2.99 but to "own" the eBook.
Esposito's assumption is that DRM is warranted because users will always choose $0 over some higher amount. That assumption is tested on an ongoing basis by Humble Bundle. All of their content is DRM free with usera setting the price. The assumption is the content may not have the same value for all users, some will read all the books whereas others just one.
A recent Humble Bundle included 10 books If you met the average purchase of $10.91. Interestingly Windows users tended to pay about $10 whereas Linux and Mac users closer to $12.50. The top 10 contributors ranged from $100-$250. The most popular eBooks Little Brother by Cory Doctorow and Just a Geek by Wil Wheaton could have been purchased along with 3 others for $.01. If Exposito's assumption were to hold the average should have been far lower than $10.91.
No comments:
Post a Comment