Help Stop eBook Censorship

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Oh please, the Dixie Chicks only got "censored" because the country stations didn't want to lose listeners.

Bruce Springsteen & Bon Jovi pretty much say the same things, yet the demographics of rock radio is different than country. Ditto for Green Day and Rage Against the Machine on "Modern Rock" stations.

Stations tailor their music to their audience.

OTOH, I didn't hear many complaints about some people boycotting Ted Nugent's music for his recent comments. Funny how it only goes one way...

If a consumer boycotts the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent because of their political views, thats their right. If a government or corporation does it, thats plain wrong. One is freedom of choice. The other is denying that freedom based upon on one's own preferences. I would never support a radio station banning Nugent. Let the listeners change the channel if they don't like it.

Didya mention Rage Against the Machine? From Wikipedia,

Following the September 11 attacks on New York and The Pentagon, radio stations circulated a list of songs that were deemed inappropriate for broadcast during the time of national mourning following the attacks. A small list was initially generated by the Clear Channel office on Thursday, September 13, 2001,[34] though individual program directors added many of their own songs. A list containing about 150 songs was soon published on the Internet. Some critics[who?] suggested that Clear Channel's political preferences played a part in the list.[35] A number of songs were apparently placed on the list because they had specific words such as "plane", "fly", "burn," and "falling" in their titles. Clear Channel denies that this was a list of banned songs, claiming it was a list of titles that should be played only after great thought. Also WOFX, Cincinnati, owned by Clear Channel at the time continued to play songs that were on the alleged list, even though radio headquarters was in Cincinnati at the time.[36] Songs on the list included Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'", Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" and the entire Rage Against the Machine discography.

With corporations like that, who needs government censorship?

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Out of those mentioned, Green Day is the only one worth listening to

Silly simian, rock is for humans!

[plib]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The word is discernment.

Are you sure? I think the other word on the page beginning with "D" is more appropriate myself.

[plib]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

If a consumer boycotts the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent because of their political views, thats their right. If a government or corporation does it, thats plain wrong. One is freedom of choice. The other is denying that freedom based upon on one's own preferences. I would never support a radio station banning Nugent. Let the listeners change the channel if they don't like it.

+ 1 from me. But discussion can be healthy and informative, for example I've learned that people listen to Ted Nugent.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

If a consumer boycotts the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent because of their political views, thats their right. If a government or corporation does it, thats plain wrong. One is freedom of choice. The other is denying that freedom based upon on one's own preferences. I would never support a radio station banning Nugent. Let the listeners change the channel if they don't like it.

Didya mention Rage Against the Machine? From Wikipedia,


With corporations like that, who needs government censorship?

The corporate distinction has no baring on the issue. The 'public airwaves' matters only inasmuch as the licensing requirements associated with that bandwidth. The FCC has a decidedly hands-off policy regarding content. As well it should, because forcing a station to air that which they choose not to is no better than forcing them not to air something they want to; it is a form of censorship in and of itself.

As an aside, when a radio station plays the Dixie Chicks, then they become the consumer of the music; they have to pay the Dixie Chicks every time they play one of their songs.

Your retain the option to boycott Clear Channel, they retain the option to boycott Dixie Chicks.

[jalandar]

Originally Posted by kleinste

I agree with those who are saying that you should fill the niche and team up with other erotic authors. At the end of the day, people will go where they can find what they want to read - if they want to read glittery vanilla romance, they'll go to ... what did you say that website was called, All Romance Books? And if they want some hardcore erotica, more and more will turn to your website if you really work on your bases, and get out there contacting erotica authors and publishers, promoting it on twitter on the likes.

If anything, you shouldn't get angry about this - you should see it as a business opportunity. This is giving you the perfect chance to start up your own ebookstore!

The main problem with this frequently put forward argument, is that one can't simply do that. E-Commerce providers, including Amazon, Google, and Paypal, won't allow sellers to use their service to sell such items. Not because the subject matter is a higher risk, but simply because of the content.

So you end up having to go with one of the "high risk item" providers, who care less about the content, but charge fees that make it virtually unprofitable.

[Penforhire]

But Amazon, Google, and Paypal are not monopolies. Nothing prevents you or I from starting our own e-commerce site and selling certain e-books directly if we make agreements with the publisher (or author for self-published works). That's what filling an e-book niche means today.

[jalandar]

Again, except that you then have to build your entire payment processing ability yourself, which ads a lot of work and cost to something like this, and is still no guarantee. You still have to worry about specific payment clearinghouses not wanting this type of content (I can think of some I've dealt with in the past who would reject it out of hand, or charge significantly higher rates for anything even close to "adult" content).

Unless you can guarantee a high volume, you're not going to make it work.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jalandar

Again, except that you then have to build your entire payment processing ability yourself, which ads a lot of work and cost to something like this, and is still no guarantee. You still have to worry about specific payment clearinghouses not wanting this type of content (I can think of some I've dealt with in the past who would reject it out of hand, or charge significantly higher rates for anything even close to "adult" content).

Unless you can guarantee a high volume, you're not going to make it work.

So? That's capitalism and the free market at work.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by plib

+ 1 from me. But discussion can be healthy and informative, for example I've learned that people listen to Ted Nugent.

His music or his opinions?

[Penforhire]

jalandar, you are thinking this is more difficult than it really is.

There are a metric crap-ton of credit card processing services out there. I signed up for such a service for my own business a couple of years ago. No muss no fuss and fairly minimal cost. Most of them don't care what it is you're billing for as long as it legal.

High volume is simply not a requirement for e-commerce these days. You actually pay more upfront to run a high-volume e-business (more transactions, more server space) than a nichy low-volume biz.

[jalandar]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

jalandar, you are thinking this is more difficult than it really is.

There are a metric crap-ton of credit card processing services out there. I signed up for such a service for my own business a couple of years ago. No muss no fuss and fairly minimal cost. Most of them don't care what it is you're billing for as long as it legal.

High volume is simply not a requirement for e-commerce these days. You actually pay more upfront to run a high-volume e-business (more transactions, more server space) than a nichy low-volume biz.

Now go try and get such an account when your primary product is adult entertainment items such as erotic books.

I am not thinking it is more difficult than it is, I know how difficult it is, as I've been involved in it.

When you got your account, I will bet in your contract there was a clause about use restrictions. And I will also gamble that you had to tell them what type of business/products you were selling in your application. And if you just say something different to get the account, and they discover it as a material omission, you can lose your merchant account, and end up a blacklist that makes it nearly impossible to get one again for years.

It's simply not that simple.

That's why I firmly believe that corporations such as paypal, which provide a service, should only be permitted to invoke restrictions that pertain to actual restrictions of legality, or that are materially relevant to their business (then they would be forced to say that the transactions themselves are risky because of fraud, and back that up, otherwise all the legal content).

[Dulin's Books]

as far as that goes i tend to agree. they are only facilitating the transfer of funds between two parties in a legal transaction. that should be the end of their involvement. they shouldnt even know what the payment is for in particular

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

OTOH, I didn't hear many complaints about some people boycotting Ted Nugent's music for his recent comments. Funny how it only goes one way...

Right, because he was in such high demand before the "boycott," what with all his recent hits.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

As an aside, when a radio station plays the Dixie Chicks, then they become the consumer of the music; they have to pay the Dixie Chicks every time they play one of their songs.

Radio stations have blanket licenses from the big music publishers. They're paying the same amount whether they play one particular artist or not. They do not individually pay each artist each time they play a song.