PDFs: Why are people anti-watermark?

[Jim Hague]

Agreed. But I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to members of the EN World community.

I cast no aspersions here, merely assert that like some other sorts of tools that are readily available, it's a case of 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' when the legitimacy of the tools in question is brought up.

FWIW, I'm pretty much in Phil's camp on this - watermark is intended as a deterrent, but it's weak; hence why I don't use it. I prefer to simply ask that people not freely distribute my PDFs on filesharing networks, with the exception of the free demos PZP has out; hand those to all'a your friends, please. That's what they're there for.

 

[Sigurd]

I dont share and I dont like watermarks

Speaking only for myself,

I don't like watermarks on literature for political and ethical reasons.

Yes file theft is a problem. I don't contribute to it but I also don't like publishers making it my problem. Software publishers have elaborate, sometimes suspect, rules for calculating their company losses. I don't give away my pdf's but I'd hate to think that someone stole a pdf from me and after it hit the internet somebody would knock on my door for damages. Equally plausible I don't want to make it so easy for someone to put my name, or other innocents name, on stuff that is floating around.

I also think that what I read should be anonymous. Signed PDF's are politically unacceptable to me. While D&D is a wonderful hobby, it is not universally revered. That is not a battle I choose to fight professionally.

I dont want to make a category of 'anonymous literature' - that should be all literature.
political comment removed by moderator

Honour is the final arbiter - no other element will have as big an impact. I won't give away the pdf's I've purchased but neither will I deal with a company that assumes they need to tie my wrists.


Sigurd

 

[Vigilance]

I cast no aspersions here, merely assert that like some other sorts of tools that are readily available, it's a case of 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' when the legitimacy of the tools in question is brought up.

FWIW, I'm pretty much in Phil's camp on this - watermark is intended as a deterrent, but it's weak; hence why I don't use it. I prefer to simply ask that people not freely distribute my PDFs on filesharing networks, with the exception of the free demos PZP has out; hand those to all'a your friends, please. That's what they're there for.

Most door locks can be easily kicked in too. Detterents are a good thing.

If a watermark makes someone think twice about sharing files, it's a good thing.

If it doesn't, well it's not intruding on the experience of the honest customer.

In other words, there's no potential detriment, but a potential (minor) benefit.

 

[Vigilance]

Honour is the final arbiter - no other element will have as big an impact. I won't give away the pdf's I've purchased but neither will I deal with a company that assumes they need to tie my wrists.


Sigurd

So, since "honor is the final arbiter", I suppose you aren't in favor of door locks or security cameras in stores?

 

[Sigurd]

How does a watermark make it "your problem".

One file = $25.00 (for sake of argument)
One file with my name added to it, or my file taken from me, is downloaded 25,000 times on some network somewhere. 'My purchase' is set as the root of the whole mess and someone starts talking figures of $625,000 ($25x25,000) of lost revenue + court costs. Companies never justify their formula for calculating lost revenues and there is no firm equation. A judge would probably reduce things a lot but it's still a heck of a lot more liability than my original $25. Its not a liability I want. Keep your product.

So, since "honor is the final arbiter", I suppose you aren't in favor of door locks or security cameras in stores?

I'd love a world that didn't need these things but I realize we do. These things save lives. I dont remember saying anything about them though.

 

[Vigilance]

I'd love a world that didn't need these things but I realize we do. These things save lives. I dont remember saying anything about them though.

But Honor is the final arbiter right? So surely you don't lock your doors.

At some point security has to get mild enough to be tolerable.

A watermark is just a deterrent. That's it. It's a simple door lock.

No one is going to be sued. There's no potential liability.

It's just a deterrent. And don't we at least have the right to try and deter people from stealing?

A watermark isnt even as intrusive as a store security tag or video camera.

It's the equivalent of a "please don't shoplift" sign.

 

[jaerdaph]

Sigurd, that has got to be the weakest argument against watermarking I have heard yet, and I'm a left wing, ACLU card-carrying, New York City liberal.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't like watermarking just because...well, I don't. I get all the reasons why publishers do it, but I find it somewhat annoying that they're scribbling my name on every single page of a PDF so they can be reasonably assured that I won't share it. While I don't personally find it insulting, I can see why some people would be miffed about that.

As a side issue, watermarking is virtually no guarantee against sharing at all. Because watermarking uses the name of your account at the online store, and not the name on your credit card, anyone can make a dummy account under the name "John Doe" (or anything else) and buy it under that name, and thus be completely unconcerned about sharing it.

 

[Vigilance]

I don't like watermarking just because...well, I don't. I get all the reasons why publishers do it, but I find it somewhat annoying that they're scribbling my name on every single page of a PDF so they can be reasonably assured that I won't share it. While I don't personally find it insulting, I can see why some people would be miffed about that.

As a side issue, watermarking is virtually no guarantee against sharing at all. Because watermarking uses the name of your account at the online store, and not the name on your credit card, anyone can make a dummy account under the name "John Doe" (or anything else) and buy it under that name, and thus be completely unconcerned about sharing it.

Ahh but RPGNow can match up a credit card # to account name. So your real name is still on file somewhere.

Sure. Just like I can kick down the door of most locked houses, or take a crowbar to the window of a locked car and have it started (without a key) in seconds.

But of course, this doesn't mean that locking the door to my house is a bad idea. It just makes someone think twice about coming inside.

Sigurd want to make sure his freedom isn't impinged and I'm all for that. But creators have freedom too and at some point don't OUR freedoms have to be respected too?

I mean, having a store tag reader beep when you walk through and having security check your receipt against the bag is infringing on your freedom too.

But the store has a right to a reasonable amount of security.

I never supported a DRM scheme other than watermarking because I want the customer's experience and use of the product to be as full as possible.

But now people are complaining even about watermarks.

I mean, at some point, don't I have a right or two?

 

[jaerdaph]

A judge would probably reduce things a lot but it's still a heck of a lot more liability than my original $25. Its not a liability I want. Keep your product.

Okay - not wanting the liability. Now THIS makes sense to me. Sigurd, you've redeemed yourself!

If someone steals your computer or gains illegal access to your hard drive, what is your liability on the (off) chance the watermarked files appear on a file sharing site later on?