PDFs: Why are people anti-watermark?

[Aus_Snow]

Hm.

Well, I don't like them.

I buy PDFs, and I don't share them. It seems just a bit odd to me, I guess. And it is irritating. If someone had a really convincing argument for their existence, I'd listen. But until then, I'm against watermarked PDFs. I suppose I'm sorry (?) if that offends anyone, at random, but that's not my intention. I wonder if there are any publishers who don't like them either. . .

 

[Cergorach]

Vigilence a more apt anology would be that i put locks on your door. The store security is also a bad exaple, because those items are still the stores. The moment i buy them, the store doesn't keep track of the items i now own. The water mark does.

The tools to remove watermarks are actually just Acrobat Pro. The tools that recover a pw are used by admins in large companies, employees tend to forget the passwords they put on the files in the first place....

 

[Rel]

Plenty of productive discussion can be had on this topic without further political commentary. Thanks.

 

[lmpjr007]

Well since I have been reading this little topic I have become moved by some people's attitudes on water makering. With that, any person who has purchased any Louis Porter Jr. Design or Devil's Workshop PDF if you wish to recieve a NON-watermarked copy send me a copy of your reciept to LMPjr007@aol.com, and I will send you directly from my SECRET VALUE of LPJDesign PDFs an NON-watermarked version.

I hope that makes you worried about watermarking happy.

 

[jezter6]

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.

Vig, you know I love you man, but I can't believe I see you throwing straw man tactics. A watermark is nowhere NEAR similar to a door lock. Both are there to protect from theft, but the door lock is so much more. Nobody has ever been killed (as far as I know) because someone broke through the PDF security. Unfortunately, people die every day because people defeat the door lock security.

Not a good analogy at all.

 

[Vigilance]

Vig, you know I love you man, but I can't believe I see you throwing straw man tactics. A watermark is nowhere NEAR similar to a door lock. Both are there to protect from theft, but the door lock is so much more. Nobody has ever been killed (as far as I know) because someone broke through the PDF security. Unfortunately, people die every day because people defeat the door lock security.

Not a good analogy at all.

So how about software security then? How's that for an analogy? Most professional software is registered.

My copy of Windows XP has my name on it. My copy of Acrobat is registered to me personally. And Windows is going to make everyone in the future register (if you want updates anyway).

 

[Angel Tarragon]

It doesn't bother me. The only thing that irks me is security settings. I at least want to be able to copy and paste text.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, I really do not mind having my name in the watermarked PDFs. The first thing that I do after I buy a gaming book is put my name in at least two places. Watermarking does that for me.

As for it being a weak deterrent, enough crooks have been caught by their own stupidity that I have no problem picturing Ima Crooke putting it into her file sharing folder without removing the watermark. Most people are lazy enough to not bother looking for how to remove something that really does not cause any problems for them.

The Auld Grump

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

It assumes guild because the seller puts your name (snip)

(he was only joking with you because you said "guild" instead of "guilt.")

 

[Voadam]

Okay, I completely understand why people are unhappy with DRM-protected PDFs. I don't buy them either.

But now I'm seeing people starting to say they won't buy watermarked PDFs. Honestly, I just don't get it. Why? It doesn't make any reasonable sense to me why people are against watermarking other than support of piracy.

Enlighten me. What do people have against watermarks?

I vaguely remember reading on rpgnow when they merged that if a watermark file with your name is found on the sharing networks they will cancel your account.

I don't put up the files I buy to share. I have virus protection and a firewall. I think the risk of stuff getting put out (through my computer or rpgnow being hacked or whatever) is very low. Probably insignificantly low. But not zero.

I buy a ton of pdfs. Every month. I like getting updates and downloading them whenever I want. And continuing to buy more.

The increased ink usage and file space are probably insignificant as well, but again not zero.

I prefer not to have my name and e-mail on my printouts.

I have a ton of pdfs I want to buy. Probably enough for my monthly budget of pdf materials to keep going for more than 20 years without getting everything I'd potentially want.

Given a choice between a watermark version and a straight pdf I find myself going for the straight one.

I have bought watermarked pdfs when they were not available in any other format (Malhavok, SSS, FFG, etc.) or when they provide a better price (free DTRPG stuff, Paizo older edition WotC stuff).

Of the last 50 or so pdfs I've bought at rpgnow.com since they merged and now offer watermarked ones, only one has been a watermarked pdf.

I find my slight preference is enough for me to look at the vast number of non watermarked pdfs I want first. And I don't see running out of buyiong options of those in the foreseeable future.