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."
Actually, "Information wants to be free" is from an essay and it's only half the idea. The basic concept is: * Information wants to be free, because it's hard to keep a secret (or as the old saying goes, two can keep a secret if one is dead) * Information wants to be expressive because knowledge is power * The next century will be a struggle between these two forces.
This is still true and will likely always be true.
This struggle appears within all people. Even the strongest proponent of "information wants to be
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
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.
Just because a book appears for sale on Amazon, doesn't mean a physical copy exists. For all anyone knows, someone automated system has scraped titles off Lulu and is selling them through Amazon for a markup. A person orders the book from Amazon, office_bookshelf trots on over to Lulu and orders a copy and has mailed it straight to the customer. At no time has an additional physical copy of the book even existed.
As you say, you don't have to use the DRM at all. I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do). If people want the rope for whatever reason, just shake your head and let them buy it.
Free market in this case. The company is trying to appeal to the largest number of people at a time. If they can support Creative Commons *and* DRM users... then good for them. I'd suspect that the raising of Lulu's take would be more upsetting. (Again free market will bear out if that was a smart move or not.)
The free market only has problems when: 1) People are allowed to do unethical things 2) Monopolies or oligopolies are created 3) There's a moral hazard
None of these conditions exist here. The difference is a product with DRM vs. a product without it. It's like the difference between cereal with new, poor tasting marshmallows or without them. No one is being forced into anything, there's no monopoly, etc.
Lets look at what it stands for: Digital Rights Management. It it is attempt to digitaly enforce the rights you buy when you enter into a contract. Whenever you buy a copyrighted work you are usually buying a single user licence to that work, sometimes it is transferable to another person, sometimes not.
Personally I have no problem with a licence being non-transferable if that is made clear to me at the start. If I have willingly accepted a non-transferable licence I have no issue with DRM
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.
And yet you buy from adidas, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, DaimlerChrysler, Nestlé, Procter&Gamble and Siemens although they profit from torture, slavery, illegal medication trials on humans, political and social discrimination, destruction of resources and the environment. And you do not actually want to hear that.
I don't generally. It's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them. I'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies.
Eh? If they want to supply suicide sticks to others, that's fine with me.
Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.
Maybe they just don't believe you. Me, I figure they're both made with slave labor, and the Fair Trade schtick is just a way to get suckers to pay the slavemasters more, but I'm a wee bit cynical.
I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life. There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths. Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.
We like to think that a totally logically consistent pattern of behavior will yield better results, but it won't, for two basic reasons:
1) This idea is inherited from religious/magical thought and is, as far as I am concerned anyway, a crock of horseshit already, because it doesn't scale. You end up with fundamentalist Muslims killing people with rocks over petty shit, or evangelicals who believe that Jesus erases all their sins and that, therefore, even the most offensive crimes against humanity can be fixed with prayer and Kleenex.
2) This is actually part of the first reason, but these patterns don't exist in any objective way. They are applied after the fact by humans as shorthand. Religions made up simple rules to get people's minds off the big things so they could improve everyday life, and the cracks only start to really show when life is so good that we can take another look at those rules. Math doesn't exist. Numbers don't exist. Grammar doesn't exist (don't tell Chomsky). Ideas and meaning don't exist. They are all just tools to make our monkey lives better. We can't be frustrated when people's behavior is not logically consistent. It really shouldn't be.
So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM. But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.
That being said, if you are living in the developed world (and if you're reading this, you probably are), guess what? Virtually every product you enjoy has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere. You can't live high on the hog without slavery. We've just gotten very good at hiding it so we can feel superior. There's always a slave. Always.
And that doesn't bother me. I don't like it, but I don't think it can be avoided, and to try to do so would make my life incredibly inconvenient.
Saying that consistent behavior isn't a good thing because people go to war in the name of religion doesn't make sense. I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you". All these religious wars are done by people acting AGAINST critical portions of their own religion. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal and yet people are killing each other in the name of religion. That's not consistent behavior.
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".
There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible. Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai. (Exodus 32). Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.
Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites. After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and chi
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.
Ooo good. I love bad analogies. They're fun. Can I have a go too?
What if the objectionable thing B was manufacturing blue M&Ms, a colour you dislike - even if you don't purchase M&Ms. 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 someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday November 08, @01:45AM (#30019666)
So... a publishing company is giving authors the *Option* of using DRM? I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with that. If the Authors are silly enough to want that, then it's in Lulu's best interest to offer their clients what they want.
Especially as the DRM version costs more. If I published any books via Lulu I would make both the DRM-free and DRM-encumbered versions available and charge a few dollars more for the one with DRM.
This move has nothing to do with DRM. Lulu figures that by adding a new option for authors that says it will "protect" their book from theft online, for a "small fee" that they will get an increase in profit, for no real added cost to themselves. In reality, if you are publishing through Lulu, I think DRM and book theft is the last thing you need to worry about.
If you want to know why someone does something, follow the money.
Actually for Lulu the costs are very real and add up quickly:
1) Assume they need a DRM server, that must have 99.9% availability. 2) Need to test DRM to ensure it actually works 3) Need support staff to deal with authors and developers not understanding why they cannot access content.
I'm assuming they put a lot of thought into this, there must be a pretty compelling business case or else they would not incur this burden.
To be perfectly honest, why use LuLu in the first place? There are plenty of cheaper "Print on Demand" (POD) publishers, including Amazon's Booksurge, which lists books on Amazon. I can't see why authors would accept traditional publisher & distributor markups (typically >40% of the retail price) and then add a retailer markup, all for the privilege of selling a book electronically or via POD on LuLu! Find a cheaper POD publisher and sell it yourself, or if a sales page and distributor access are vi
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?
Is there a DRM that DOES WORK? I've found that anything a person could ever want is available on the web, already stripped of any restrictive code. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. Maybe there are some schemes that really work. But, it has often times been pointed out that DRM only frustrates legal users.
The Kindle DRM works about as well as any can (for eBooks).
By that I mean, from the users point of view it doesn't get in the way, and from the authors point of view it's hard enough to strip that it appears to offer some protection.
Also from the policy side, Kindle books are actually very user friendly - if you purchased a book but decide you want to "return" it, you can. Yes there was that whole mess with 1984, but even there at least the people got refunds. Personally I am still very reluctant to buy any book with DRM whereas I have and will buy PDF's without much of a qualm. I still mentally consider any DRM purchase merely a rental, no matter how long the digital version might be owned by me I live knowing it could go away any time for a variety of technical reasons.
So if I buy one, but have two or more Kindles, I can read it on all of them?
After I'm finished reading, I can indefinitely lend a Kindle book to a friend of mine in Brazil who also owns a Kindle by sending him something over the net?
After I'm finished reading, I can sell my Kindle book back to a used Kindle bookstore?
I can print out a chapter of a Kindle book to take to read at the beach?
I doubt this (well, maybe the first one is doable, I don't have any Kin
Maybe they would like to say: "Look, you can put DRM on your books to try to protect your copies, you don't need to go elsewhere. But be aware that that make some legitimate users unhappy -- as it did with music -- and they will opt to non-DRM... making you lose money." If they wouldn't offer the option, they wouldn't be able to let publishers try out.
It's like threatening to not let a dealership sell your line of cars because they offer LoJack as an option on other models.
DRM is not the devil. It is a tool. The sooner we stop crying about buzz words and instead actually do something about how they are used, the better off we will all be.
DRM is nothing more than an attempt make digital media more like physical media. For example, you can't easily copy a book to give to a friend. You can, however, easily give a copy of an ebook to a friend. DRM makes it so you cannot easily give a copy of an ebook to a friend.
DRM, when done right, is fine with me. But we rarely seen it done right, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what it would look like.
Yes, it's a tool to shut people out of using what they bought. Supposedly it prevents criminal copyright infringement but there is always collateral damage on legitimate use. That damage doesn't stop with the current owner either. In the future there will be entire groups of historians specialising in breaking ancient copyright to get an incite on our culture.
The sooner we stop crying about buzz words
DRM isn't a buzzword. It describes an intent to restrict the use of a resource. If you ask me we're not crying loud enough. The boiling frog analogy may not be scientifically correct but it's as good an analogy as any.
Dude, try a substitution - "the police" are a tool to punish innocent people who annoyed those in power. Supposedly they prevent crime as well but there's always collateral damage on legitimate behavior.
DRM is only necessary because piracy is so widespread that it's impossible for humans to police it. If piracy was as rare as murder, then it'd be possible to have humans investigate every case and make a nuanced decision on whether it was legitimate and beneficial or criminal. This is an extremely sad state of affairs, but it's the reality in which we live.
No, not LoJack, it's more like you're buying a 2005 SUV especially because you know it has an OnStar system on board, and then a few months later, GM decides to change the format on you, and you basically have no recourse [yahoo.com] (and no one willing to buy that truck from you, because by now everybody knows about the discontinuation).
First generation Zune owners and Walmart DRM music customers should know basically what I'm talking about. You don't own the music you buy, and if you want
The best way to show this is to not buy anything with DRM in it.
No, that is not enough. You have to tell the shop "I would buy that if it hadn't DRM in it." Same with mp3-players. Shops and companies will never know people would like ogg support (although it would be trivial to add). Create demand.
Opposing DRM is not some kind of religion, it is not even a moral position,
Opposing DRM is most definitely a moral position, on any number of grounds, starting with the ones you don't want to acknowledge down to the less obvious ones, such as opposing anything that makes life more difficult without providing any benefit or opposing the conflation of 'buy' with 'rent', as you never actually buy anything with DRM, you simply rent it.
Feel free to pretend you aren't doing anything wrong when you say there's nothing wrong with DRM. Just be aware that that's exactly what you're doing -- pretending.
Applying DRM (optional, eBooks only) adds $.99 to the base price to offset the fee charged by our DRM provider. To reiterate, authors never pay to publish, these fees are reflected in the list price and are only charged to the purchaser at purchase time.
What's wrong with charging extra for DRM? DRM costs money to create and passing that cost on to consumers directly seems like a very good way of highlighting exactly what is wrong with DRM. Get the book in DRM-encumbered form for $11 or DRM-free form for $10. Highlight the fact that the cost of the DRM is hidden in the purchase price when you buy something like a BluRay disk.
Unless, of course, the DRM restricted version is the only one that is available. Then you do not see a price difference for difference versions of the book, you see a price difference for different books -- pretty standard -- and do not feel the hurt of the restrictions until after the sale.
As has been said many times in this thread already, you don't HAVE to use DRM. I guess there are a lot of people who publish on Lulu who don't want a free-to-spread PDF of their work roaming around the world, diminishing the profits from their hard work. Now they have an extra option to offer people their work and get paid for it. Most people don't care about DRM at all, so what is the problem?
I'm with the people who don't think DRM is necessarily evil.
Remember: Lulu is a *print-on-demand* outfit. You want a non-DRM'd version of a book? buy the print version and do whatever you want with it. I don't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily. If you write technical manuals, software guides, that sort of thing... you're in a market where piracy is very, very strong, to the point you may never make any money on your book, while it may be pirated by thousands or tens of thousands of users. Just look a the book section on Pirate Bay.
Yes, I would have preferred if there was some global DRM scheme which was vendor-agnostic and internationally maintained by some non-affiliated organization, so we'd have some assurances our DRM'd media isn't going to just go away one day. But all the arguments I hear against DRM are about the specific implementation, not the idea in general. The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.
I've been using lulu for several years now. As with most long-term relationships, there are some things I like and others that drive me crazy. In general, however, their positive attitude toward free information is one of the big pluses. They were founded by a former Red Hat guy. They have always offered CC licenses as an explicit option in the menus when you set up your book in their web interface. Also, if you set your own royalty to zero, they do not take their usual cut. (This is what I do, because I'm a college professor, and I feel that taking a royalty raises uncomfortable conflict of interest issues, since I'm using my books in my own classes.) After reading TFA, I updated one of my books to see what the deal was. I have always had my books set so that people can buy printed copies (with zero royalty to me) or just download them for free in PDF format. When I updated my book I got a page like this:
Download Makes your content available as a download Sell My Download Base Price $ 1.49
The base price covers file hosting, bandwidth, and credit card transaction costs.
*
My Revenue $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99 Lulu $ 0.00
Lulu's commission (20% of the total profit) Learn more about the Lulu commission
*
Price $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99 Give My Download Away For Free To account for hosting and transaction costs, we had to add a base price of $1.49 if you collect a creator revenue. However, if you want to give your download away for free, Lulu will waive this base price.
If you look way down at the bottom under "Give My Download Away For Free," you'll see that they are not going to charge money unless I do. Here [lulu.com] is the book, as updated today. You can still download it without paying any money.
I do feel that DRM is evil. I'm not happy that lulu is supporting it. However, their over-all support for free information seems to me to be a lot better than you'd expect from Random Corporation, Inc.
For the record, here are the things I like and dislike about lulu:
Likes: They are the only POD or vanity publisher I know of that will let you set up and sell your book with zero initial cost. They handle all of the shipping and order processing, which was a huge hassle for me when I was doing it myself. They are relatively friendly toward free information.
Dislikes: They have a business model sort of similar to Paypal, i.e., it is absolutely impossible to get a Lulu employee to talk to you on the phone, and very difficult to communicate with one in any other way, either. I have had repeated technical issues with them before, where the printer they subcontracted out to couldn't output a book that had outputted successfully for a long time before with other subcontractors; lulu wasn't willing/able to help me figure out a workaround, although I eventually figured it out myself. College bookstores have reported problems to me where lulu sent them bogus bills ($700 for books that FedEx tracking showed were shipped to someone's house in a different state), and made it an incredible hassle to straighten out the problem.
Philosophy versus reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Amusing to see what happens when "information wants to be free" collides with "your bills are past due".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, "Information wants to be free" is from an essay and it's only half the idea.
The basic concept is:
* Information wants to be free, because it's hard to keep a secret (or as the old saying goes, two can keep a secret if one is dead)
* Information wants to be expressive because knowledge is power
* The next century will be a struggle between these two forces.
This is still true and will likely always be true.
This struggle appears within all people. Even the strongest proponent of "information wants to be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Philosophy versus reality (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why complain about choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say, you don't have to use the DRM at all. I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do). If people want the rope for whatever reason, just shake your head and let them buy it.
Re:Why complain about choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market only has problems when:
1) People are allowed to do unethical things
2) Monopolies or oligopolies are created
3) There's a moral hazard
None of these conditions exist here. The difference is a product with DRM vs. a product without it. It's like the difference between cereal with new, poor tasting marshmallows or without them. No one is being forced into anything, there's no monopoly, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean using DRM is not unethical? gee...
Not neccessarily.
Lets look at what it stands for: Digital Rights Management. It it is attempt to digitaly enforce the rights you buy when you enter into a contract. Whenever you buy a copyrighted work you are usually buying a single user licence to that work, sometimes it is transferable to another person, sometimes not.
Personally I have no problem with a licence being non-transferable if that is made clear to me at the start. If I have willingly accepted a non-transferable licence I have no issue with DRM
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why complain about choice? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet you buy from adidas, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, DaimlerChrysler, Nestlé, Procter&Gamble and Siemens although they profit from torture, slavery, illegal medication trials on humans, political and social discrimination, destruction of resources and the environment.
And you do not actually want to hear that.
Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzbuch_Markenfirmen [wikipedia.org] (where is the English equivalent? Don't they criticize globalization where it is due?)
Re:Why complain about choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh? If they want to supply suicide sticks to others, that's fine with me.
Maybe they just don't believe you. Me, I figure they're both made with slave labor, and the Fair Trade schtick is just a way to get suckers to pay the slavemasters more, but I'm a wee bit cynical.
Parent
Re:Why complain about choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life. There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths. Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.
We like to think that a totally logically consistent pattern of behavior will yield better results, but it won't, for two basic reasons:
1) This idea is inherited from religious/magical thought and is, as far as I am concerned anyway, a crock of horseshit already, because it doesn't scale. You end up with fundamentalist Muslims killing people with rocks over petty shit, or evangelicals who believe that Jesus erases all their sins and that, therefore, even the most offensive crimes against humanity can be fixed with prayer and Kleenex.
2) This is actually part of the first reason, but these patterns don't exist in any objective way. They are applied after the fact by humans as shorthand. Religions made up simple rules to get people's minds off the big things so they could improve everyday life, and the cracks only start to really show when life is so good that we can take another look at those rules. Math doesn't exist. Numbers don't exist. Grammar doesn't exist (don't tell Chomsky). Ideas and meaning don't exist. They are all just tools to make our monkey lives better. We can't be frustrated when people's behavior is not logically consistent. It really shouldn't be.
So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM. But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.
That being said, if you are living in the developed world (and if you're reading this, you probably are), guess what? Virtually every product you enjoy has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere. You can't live high on the hog without slavery. We've just gotten very good at hiding it so we can feel superior. There's always a slave. Always.
And that doesn't bother me. I don't like it, but I don't think it can be avoided, and to try to do so would make my life incredibly inconvenient.
Maybe there's logical consistency after all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".
There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible. Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai. (Exodus 32). Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.
Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites. After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and chi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery? Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?
Re:Why complain about choice? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooo good. I love bad analogies. They're fun. Can I have a go too?
What if the objectionable thing B was manufacturing blue M&Ms, a colour you dislike - even if you don't purchase M&Ms. 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 someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.
Are you really surprised that people care more
Non issue (Score:5, Insightful)
So... a publishing company is giving authors the *Option* of using DRM? I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with that. If the Authors are silly enough to want that, then it's in Lulu's best interest to offer their clients what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This has nothing to DRM, everything to do with $$$ (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to know why someone does something, follow the money.
Does add cost though (Score:3, Insightful)
for no real added cost to themselves
Actually for Lulu the costs are very real and add up quickly:
1) Assume they need a DRM server, that must have 99.9% availability.
2) Need to test DRM to ensure it actually works
3) Need support staff to deal with authors and developers not understanding why they cannot access content.
I'm assuming they put a lot of thought into this, there must be a pretty compelling business case or else they would not incur this burden.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does add cost though (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a DRM that DOES WORK? I've found that anything a person could ever want is available on the web, already stripped of any restrictive code. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. Maybe there are some schemes that really work. But, it has often times been pointed out that DRM only frustrates legal users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the user's point of view, that is a contradiction. The very purpose of DRM is to make things cease to be fully functional.
Yes, Kindle DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a DRM that DOES WORK?
The Kindle DRM works about as well as any can (for eBooks).
By that I mean, from the users point of view it doesn't get in the way, and from the authors point of view it's hard enough to strip that it appears to offer some protection.
Also from the policy side, Kindle books are actually very user friendly - if you purchased a book but decide you want to "return" it, you can. Yes there was that whole mess with 1984, but even there at least the people got refunds. Personally I am still very reluctant to buy any book with DRM whereas I have and will buy PDF's without much of a qualm. I still mentally consider any DRM purchase merely a rental, no matter how long the digital version might be owned by me I live knowing it could go away any time for a variety of technical reasons.
Parent
User friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
> Kindle books are actually very user friendly
I doubt this (well, maybe the first one is doable, I don't have any Kin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they would like to say: "Look, you can put DRM on your books to try to protect your copies, you don't need to go elsewhere. But be aware that that make some legitimate users unhappy -- as it did with music -- and they will opt to non-DRM ... making you lose money."
If they wouldn't offer the option, they wouldn't be able to let publishers try out.
OTOH, I have no clue about ebook publishing ;-)
Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like threatening to not let a dealership sell your line of cars because they offer LoJack as an option on other models.
DRM is not the devil. It is a tool. The sooner we stop crying about buzz words and instead actually do something about how they are used, the better off we will all be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not always.
Especially if your non-refundable purchase of DRMed material gets nuked because the company doesn't feel like holding up their end of the bargain.
You can't really "shop around" much if you've already been milked and burned.
Doubly so if they have a big enough army of lawyers to squash you like a bug if you try to complain.
Parent
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is not the devil. It is a tool.
Yes, it's a tool to shut people out of using what they bought. Supposedly it prevents criminal copyright infringement but there is always collateral damage on legitimate use. That damage doesn't stop with the current owner either. In the future there will be entire groups of historians specialising in breaking ancient copyright to get an incite on our culture.
The sooner we stop crying about buzz words
DRM isn't a buzzword. It describes an intent to restrict the use of a resource. If you ask me we're not crying loud enough. The boiling frog analogy may not be scientifically correct but it's as good an analogy as any.
Parent
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, try a substitution - "the police" are a tool to punish innocent people who annoyed those in power. Supposedly they prevent crime as well but there's always collateral damage on legitimate behavior.
DRM is only necessary because piracy is so widespread that it's impossible for humans to police it. If piracy was as rare as murder, then it'd be possible to have humans investigate every case and make a nuanced decision on whether it was legitimate and beneficial or criminal. This is an extremely sad state of affairs, but it's the reality in which we live.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Like a pitchfork, or a giant blast furnace...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of bad car analogies
No, not LoJack, it's more like you're buying a 2005 SUV especially because you know it has an OnStar system on board, and then a few months later, GM decides to change the format on you, and you basically have no recourse [yahoo.com] (and no one willing to buy that truck from you, because by now everybody knows about the discontinuation).
First generation Zune owners and Walmart DRM music customers should know basically what I'm talking about. You don't own the music you buy, and if you want
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:5, Funny)
DRM is not the devil. It is a tool.
DRM is the Devil's tool.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to show this is to not buy anything with DRM in it.
No, that is not enough. You have to tell the shop "I would buy that if it hadn't DRM in it." Same with mp3-players. Shops and companies will never know people would like ogg support (although it would be trivial to add).
Create demand.
Re:Just to start us off with a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Opposing DRM is not some kind of religion, it is not even a moral position,
Opposing DRM is most definitely a moral position, on any number of grounds, starting with the ones you don't want to acknowledge down to the less obvious ones, such as opposing anything that makes life more difficult without providing any benefit or opposing the conflation of 'buy' with 'rent', as you never actually buy anything with DRM, you simply rent it.
Feel free to pretend you aren't doing anything wrong when you say there's nothing wrong with DRM. Just be aware that that's exactly what you're doing -- pretending.
Parent
Making customers pay for DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Note to self: Never use Lulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? You can still buy printed books there.
Re:Making customers pay for DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much ado about nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been said many times in this thread already, you don't HAVE to use DRM. I guess there are a lot of people who publish on Lulu who don't want a free-to-spread PDF of their work roaming around the world, diminishing the profits from their hard work. Now they have an extra option to offer people their work and get paid for it. Most people don't care about DRM at all, so what is the problem?
What's the best alternative? (Score:2)
And, while I'm asking this kind of question, does anyone know of a good place to get hard-copies of books from GutenPrint?
CC isn't for everybody. (Score:3, Insightful)
still very friendly toward free information (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using lulu for several years now. As with most long-term relationships, there are some things I like and others that drive me crazy. In general, however, their positive attitude toward free information is one of the big pluses. They were founded by a former Red Hat guy. They have always offered CC licenses as an explicit option in the menus when you set up your book in their web interface. Also, if you set your own royalty to zero, they do not take their usual cut. (This is what I do, because I'm a college professor, and I feel that taking a royalty raises uncomfortable conflict of interest issues, since I'm using my books in my own classes.) After reading TFA, I updated one of my books to see what the deal was. I have always had my books set so that people can buy printed copies (with zero royalty to me) or just download them for free in PDF format. When I updated my book I got a page like this:
If you look way down at the bottom under "Give My Download Away For Free," you'll see that they are not going to charge money unless I do. Here [lulu.com] is the book, as updated today. You can still download it without paying any money.
I do feel that DRM is evil. I'm not happy that lulu is supporting it. However, their over-all support for free information seems to me to be a lot better than you'd expect from Random Corporation, Inc.
For the record, here are the things I like and dislike about lulu:
Likes: They are the only POD or vanity publisher I know of that will let you set up and sell your book with zero initial cost. They handle all of the shipping and order processing, which was a huge hassle for me when I was doing it myself. They are relatively friendly toward free information.
Dislikes: They have a business model sort of similar to Paypal, i.e., it is absolutely impossible to get a Lulu employee to talk to you on the phone, and very difficult to communicate with one in any other way, either. I have had repeated technical issues with them before, where the printer they subcontracted out to couldn't output a book that had outputted successfully for a long time before with other subcontractors; lulu wasn't willing/able to help me figure out a workaround, although I eventually figured it out myself. College bookstores have reported problems to me where lulu sent them bogus bills ($700 for books that FedEx tracking showed were shipped to someone's house in a different state), and made it an incredible hassle to straighten out the problem.