Slashdot Mirror
Lulu Introduces DRM
An anonymous reader writes "Print-on-demand publisher Lulu recently announced that they're offering 'eBooks.' Since they've always offered downloadable books as PDFs, that takes some decoding to figure out what part is new: it turns out that it means now they're handling more formats, they've significantly increased the share they take out of the purchase price ... and for an additional fee, they now offer DRM. I have a few items published through Lulu myself; nothing forces me to buy the DRM, but I'm considering taking my business elsewhere on principle. This isn't what I expected from the people who, when I first signed up with them, were solidly endorsing Creative Commons."
Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of "just because company A, whom you do business with, starts to do something B that you find objectionable doesn't mean you should inconvenience yourself, especially if B doesn't directly affect your business dealing with them." It quite frankly baffles me.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
Obviously—I hope—refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves, even if the products you would be interested in aren't, would be a reasonable action. It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they don't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and don't thing you should either, and not that they actually think their argument really applies. In which case, they should really stop making the "boycotting is hard so don't do it" argument.
I actually kinda like that Lulu is offering it. I don't expect it, but I hope that the sales numbers illustrate authors getting a solid f'ing black eye by opting for DRM. Then perhaps it could serve as a lesson to them... hate on your customers and they'll hate on you right back.
Consoles come to mind for DRM that does work. PS3s have yet to be cracked. Other platforms might be moddable, but when hopping on a network, the changes are usually detected and the modchipped console insta banned forever.
Windows Media also comes to mind. It was cracked in 2006, but MS patched it twice and now no utility is able to even touch it. Well, unless you use something that plays songs through an audio card to analog hole stuff, but then you get a lot of artifacts and quality loss due to the transcoding.
Apple's FairPlay DRM-ed video. Only real way to bypass it is to analog hole it via some utility.
Blu-Ray. HDCP has been out for almost half a decade, no cracks. No cracks for newer Blu-Ray movies either.
Satellite. There has yet to be a single occurrence of someone able to decrypt HD video. Maybe in the past people could use fake cards, but that was long since stomped out.
Lots of other examples of DRM which has stood the test of time for unbreakability.
No. I was not. Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company's support of DRM was flawed, by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently.
I don't think they are in any sane way comparable. I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was "this doesn't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself" and not "you shouldn't boycott if it inconveniences you" as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly.
I really don't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason. My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used.
Lulu in it self is a whole bad business idea. Not really the business idea behind it, but the company. Why? Because they're dishonest. They sell books but they say they have no responsability in what happens to them during transport. Then, the book misteriously disappears during shipping, even before the end of timeframe they say it takes for them to ship it and appears on that same day for sale on Amazon at twice the price, by some strange company. Then, we contact them to ask for explanations and they say they have no responsability.
Onda Technology Institute
Oh, please. Booksurge (CreateSpace) and Lulu do the same thing. They charge a publishing fee (base + page count), and add after that. Perhaps you could give a side by side comparison instead of a rant?
The book I have in my signature is an example. Written by a friend, he kept a specific track of all the copies sold. The company didn't buy the book to resell. The company appeared on Amazon selling a book that wasn't bought. My friend was one copy short and the company that showed up on Amazon had a copy that appeared to come out of nowhere.
Onda Technology Institute
Here is why I'm likely to boycott Lulu, and recommend against them whenever asked. I've already cleaned up my storefront to only indicate this removal of support.
First I offer http://www.flora.ca/own for what I consider DRM to be, given there isn't a universal meaning for this acronym. It is also an explanation for less technical people about how DRM works, rather than the unscientific "magic" that some people believe it to be.
I believe that authors imposing technology brands on audiences (DRM on content) is even less legitimate/moral than audiences imposing prices on authors (IE: copyright infringement). I don't condone either, but consider DRM to be worse.
I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights. I consider this a form of "theft" that should be made clearly illegal -- not encouraged (through locks on content), legalised or legally protected.
In the case of Lulu the blog article was clearly encouraging authors to put DRM on their content, making false (but common) claims that DRM would reduce infringement. DRM on content then imposes/encourages specific brands of technology, specifically technology that is locked down against the interests of their owners.
Lulu is and should also be held to a higher standard. This is a company founded by Bob Young who knows better when it comes to the harms of DRM. If this were an old-economy publisher adding DRM-free digital distribution to an existing DRM-only system, this would be seen as a step in a positive direction. In this case this is a theoretically new-economy publisher adding and promoting DRM in addition to a long-standing DRM-free system, clearly a step in a negative direction.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Exactly. That's why when all those investment banks gambled massively, and lost, the whole nation shrugged it's shoulders and life went on.
Well, the socialists deliberately derailed the economy so that they can get elected, and it worked. Kudos to you for a job well done!
Let's map it out. You will bring down the free market economy. We will bring down the government, to even the score, and the anarchists will win.
This is my sig.