View Single Post
Old 07-03-2009, 09:23 PM   #71
doreenjoy
01000100 01001010
doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.doreenjoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
doreenjoy's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,858
Karma: 293916
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Polyamorous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riocaz View Post
It was more than just Lesbian and gay titles. It was also not all of them (just a majority from what was reported at the time).

And it's also not true to say that "no reason was given"
they did give a reason and stated that it was not intentional, but an unexpected result of another change they had made if memory serves.

Whether or not you believe this explanation is another point entirely.
No reason was given AT THE TIME the action was taken. I thought that was clear from the context of my original post. Only after bloggers got up in arms and there was talk of a boycott did Amazon come up with the "unintentional glitch" explanation.

I never said it was "all titles" so the fact that some come up if you type "lesbian" to do a search proves nothing.

Many, many LGBT titles are still not listed in search results or sales rankings.

This thread is going nowhere fast. I'm not here to bash Amazon or the Kindle, but some seem to be here only to blindly defend.

EDIT: to go back on topic, I met with a group of IP attorneys today, and the consensus was that had A not taken action to remove the files, even though they had the capability to do so, their liability for distributing content illegally would be greater. FWIW.

Last edited by doreenjoy; 07-03-2009 at 09:45 PM.
doreenjoy is offline   Reply With Quote