I daresay, but IME (which is largely of SF writers) it's from a purely practical standpoint. "400 copies, 200 paid" is better than "100 copies, all paid" is better than "400 copies, 50 paid" is better than "100 copies, 12 paid"; the question becomes whether no-DRM will give you scenario 1 or 3 and whether DRM will give you scenario 2 or 4 (or indeed 1 or 3, if it just doesn't work at all). The idea that 2 might be preferable to 1 because a higher _proportion_ of copies were paid for just doesn't enter into it; what matters is the absolute amount of cash to be had, with extra unpaid copies being somewhere between harmless and a slight egoboo.
Fortunately we had a writer on the panel who was enthusiastically saying these things and furthermore that DRM just doesn't work at all, which put a neat stop to the rest of us running into the "Oh, you're only saying that because you're a pirate" well-poisoning argument.
I'm deeply suspicious of the "author has a right to be paid" argument - it's an appeal to emotion, it sets copyright up as a fundamental right rather than an expedient way to incentivise creation, it's purely a matter of opinion, and furthermore (if you are in the DRM discussion) "the author has a right to be paid => we must use DRM" is missing an important logical step.
"Does DRM actually result in more sales" is a question which is not purely a matter of opinion; one can look objectively at the outcome for DRM and no-DRM operations. In SF publishing, for example, it's fairly clear that it's massively counterproductive; Baen's DRM-free ebooks are enormously more profitable than anyone else's.
This hasn't got much to do with the OP, I've just got all this stuff in my head after carefully not saying it because I was meant to be keeping the panel off this topic. :-)
no subject
Fortunately we had a writer on the panel who was enthusiastically saying these things and furthermore that DRM just doesn't work at all, which put a neat stop to the rest of us running into the "Oh, you're only saying that because you're a pirate" well-poisoning argument.
I'm deeply suspicious of the "author has a right to be paid" argument - it's an appeal to emotion, it sets copyright up as a fundamental right rather than an expedient way to incentivise creation, it's purely a matter of opinion, and furthermore (if you are in the DRM discussion) "the author has a right to be paid => we must use DRM" is missing an important logical step.
"Does DRM actually result in more sales" is a question which is not purely a matter of opinion; one can look objectively at the outcome for DRM and no-DRM operations. In SF publishing, for example, it's fairly clear that it's massively counterproductive; Baen's DRM-free ebooks are enormously more profitable than anyone else's.
This hasn't got much to do with the OP, I've just got all this stuff in my head after carefully not saying it because I was meant to be keeping the panel off this topic. :-)