Lulu introduces DRM

A blog article by Matthew Skala references the fact that Lulu is now promoting DRM. (See also SlashDot, and my comment there)

In the comments I offered the following:

I don't think you are over-reacting by thinking of pulling your books from Lulu, and looking elsewhere. The main reason I promoted Lulu myself in the past is because I thought it would be a publisher that would have rejected DRM given it was founded by Bob Young. This to me suggests the company has lost its way, and is no longer relevant as it can be lumped in with all the other outgoing publishers.

There is a market for publishers who understand these issues. As you research, please keep everyone informed about what you find.

Note: If there is anyone reading this that doesn't understand what is wrong with DRM, or that believes it should be the authors choice, I offer the following. http://flora.ca/own

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 (IE: a form of "theft", that should be made clearly illegal -- not legalised or legally protected).



For archival purposes, here is what I added as a comment to the Lulu blog.

Posted November 8, 2009 at 10:29 am

I have been promoting Lulu since its inception because it was founded by Bob Young who I felt understood issues such as the harm (to authors and their audiences) of DRM. Given this backward motion from Lulu I am now revoking any support, and will be recommending whenever asked that people should bypass Lulu and keep looking elsewhere for a modern publisher.

Note: If there is anyone reading this that doesn’t understand what is wrong with DRM, or that believes it should be the authors choice, I offer the following. http://flora.ca/own

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 (IE: a form of “theft”, that should be made clearly illegal — not legalised or legally protected).

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.