tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post538993590969194585..comments2024-03-17T02:12:53.713-05:00Comments on POD People: Meanwhile at Lulu--veingloryveingloryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03709708573358649383noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post-18744821670405241672008-07-02T10:22:00.000-05:002008-07-02T10:22:00.000-05:00Could be, but I doubt they've missed the number of...Could be, but I doubt they've missed the number of tags with some variation on the word "erotic." :)Dusk Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17240494243900782524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post-73183240185683885782008-07-02T09:57:00.000-05:002008-07-02T09:57:00.000-05:00I imagine with a site that big they only look at i...I imagine with a site that big they only look at items when poked by the 'I object' button--or whatever they call it.veingloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709708573358649383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post-37827932848689635732008-07-02T09:42:00.000-05:002008-07-02T09:42:00.000-05:00"It's ToS allow rejection based on material that i..."It's ToS allow rejection based on material that is in any way objectionable'."<BR/><BR/>You'll find that word in most terms of service. It's so they can cover their behind. :)<BR/><BR/>Terms of service are less important, I've found, than how they're exercised. InsaneJournal has similar terms of service to LiveJournal, but they're exercised in a very different way. I haven't seen any indication that Lulu is yanking adult books willy-nilly.Dusk Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17240494243900782524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post-60488378259462968402008-07-02T09:28:00.000-05:002008-07-02T09:28:00.000-05:00as unable to get a copy to see what the cover and ...as unable to get a copy to see what the cover and preview looked like. I must say they have a very broad basis beyond obsenity. It's ToS allow rejection based on material that is in any way 'objectionable'. How often they use it in this way I don;t know. The material in question didn't sound that extreme but I didn't get to see it.veingloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709708573358649383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20796627.post-74853503569548199682008-07-02T09:16:00.000-05:002008-07-02T09:16:00.000-05:00There are two issues here. One is that Lulu (and U...There are two issues here. One is that Lulu (and U.S. federal law) makes a distinction between erotica and pornography. Therefore the title alone might have given the book trouble. Second of all, if the book had a preview of the images, that might have trigged Lulu's reaction, regardless of what the cover showed.<BR/><BR/>"And if adult (or in any way 'objectionable') material are not allowed, why do they have a 'direct access' mature content category where, according to their own description, there are no limits on the 'between the covers' content?"<BR/><BR/>Two comments. One is that Lulu does not reject adult material per se. What it rejects is material that it believes to fall under the federal guidelines for obscenity, which is illegal in the U.S. You'll find that sort of restriction in the fine print of every American bookseller, even if what the bookeller is selling is in fact what the average citizen would regard as pornographic.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, adult books don't <I>need</I> to be in the direct access category at Lulu. They can be placed in the general access category if the cover, blurb, and preview are all suitable for a general audience. This is a change from Lulu's earlier attempt to place adult books in a separate category that was only accessible by over-eighteen visitors. Now Lulu simply requires that any cover/blurb/preview be suitable for under-eighteen visitors.Dusk Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17240494243900782524noreply@blogger.com