Amazon censorship

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

You brought up the metaphor, I think it's fair if Elfwreck gets to use it too.

I guess, but it doesn't help if she misses the point of the metaphor.

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

.... if a vague rule is being enforced inconsistently it is certainly an issue that it is 1) unfair and 2) not going to achieve its stated purpose and therefore not just unfair, but unfair for nothing.

And again... any set of standards that is sufficiently flexible is going to be regarded by someone as "unfair."

This is not a situation which is anywhere near as clear-cut as speeding. That's why I am trying to limit the metaphor specifically to questions of "universal enforcement."

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

I am proposing no standard at all beyond what is legal.

I hate to break it to you, but....

In the US, at least, that standard is rather subjective and dynamic. At one point in the 1960s, one Supreme Court justice famously (infamously?) defined obscenity as "I know it when I see it." The current standards would be applied differently from one jurisdiction to the next.

Nor is Amazon in any way, shape or form obligated to sell anything and everything solely because it is legal.

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

I think you are quite right to point out that no standard can be fair. Where we differ is that I think the right solution is "therefore we should have no standard" and you appear to think the right solution is "therefore we must not mind that pulling books is unfair."

Close enough.

A bit more precise formulation is, "you're occasionally going to have casualties." This also appears to be a rare exception, not the start of a massive wave of expulsions.

I also regard forcing a retailer to sell a specific product as a much worse restriction on liberty than allowing any individual to sell their content via the retailer of their choice. She has other outlets, and nothing is stopping her from pursuing them.

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

But I do mind. And I think that in particular, your apparent expectation that the author herself should not mind, even though a chunk of her livelihood is on the line, is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Well, there's a few problems with this position.

She is dealing with transgressive ideas and content. For better and for worse, that is not always going to be socially acceptable. (And let's be real, that is obviously part of the appeal for her and her audience.)

So if she's going to write that kind of material, she has to face the fact that she might not have access to mainstream retailers to distribute her works. (If this was Walmart instead of Amazon, none of us would even blink.)

I don't blame her for feeling confused and miffed, or trying to poke at the black box to see how it operates. At the same time, she knows what she's doing is regarded by many people -- and not just right-wing or religious extremists -- as socially unacceptable. It's unrealistic for her to expect it to be treated exactly the same as Pride and Prejudice.

She's writing adult material. She ought to have adult expectations on how it's likely to get received.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

I've also made my case as to why I consider this to be completely unprofessional, and why Amazon should be expected to hold and be held to higher standards than just any crank local bookshop owner.

Wait, different standards for different booksellers are OK, but different standards for different books that deal in some way with the same subject matter (the Bible, books about incest fantasies) are not OK?

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

More violence again mankind has been done in the name of religion. This is fact. We know this to be true. So if Amazon is removing books because they contain material that can cause people to do bad things, then religious books such as bibles should go as well. Bibles cause more death then any other type of book in existence.

Is this lie still getting repeated?

WWI, WWII and the American Civil War were extremely bloody and had nothing to do with religion.

It seems to me the top causes of violence are something like this:

1) Greed
2) Racism/Xenophobia
3) Religion

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

She's writing adult material. She ought to have adult expectations on how it's likely to get received.

My understanding of "adult business treatment" includes "telling people the conditions under which you will do business with them."

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Is this lie still getting repeated?

WWI, WWII and the American Civil War were extremely bloody and had nothing to do with religion.

It seems to me the top causes of violence are something like this:

1) Greed
2) Racism/Xenophobia
3) Religion

Greed? Name one?

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Is this lie still getting repeated?

WWI, WWII and the American Civil War were extremely bloody and had nothing to do with religion.

It seems to me the top causes of violence are something like this:

1) Greed
2) Racism/Xenophobia
3) Religion

Beyond that, don't forget the "Great Leap Forward" by Mao, which killed tens of millions (some say 40 million), and Stalin's Ukraine famine which by comparison, only killed about 10 million. But hey, they were atheists so somehow they don't count.

It's pretty much always greed. Other things are just excuses. In almost every religious conflict, greed is the real motivator.

[Joebill]

Censorship, in the US, is what the government does or isn't allowed to do.

A company can decide what is allowed in their stores, their forums, their email system. That isn't censorship. That's exercising control of their systems.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Beyond that, don't forget the "Great Leap Forward" by Mao, which killed tens of millions (some say 40 million), and Stalin's Ukraine famine which by comparison, only killed about 10 million. But hey, they were atheists so somehow they don't count.

It's pretty much always greed. Other things are just excuses. In almost every religious conflict, greed is the real motivator.

What do either of those examples have to do with greed?

Both are pretty much ideological fanaticism - in my book that's a hell of a lot nearer to religion than greed.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Wait, different standards for different booksellers are OK, but different standards for different books that deal in some way with the same subject matter (the Bible, books about incest fantasies) are not OK?

Well, yes. One small book store censoring a book is a much smaller issue than a large retailer censoring a book. Which is a smaller issue than the government censoring a book.

Besides, small book sellers are missing so many books due to economic reasons that it seems somewhat silly to focus on censorship issues.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Beyond that, don't forget the "Great Leap Forward" by Mao, which killed tens of millions (some say 40 million), and Stalin's Ukraine famine which by comparison, only killed about 10 million. But hey, they were atheists so somehow they don't count.

It's pretty much always greed. Other things are just excuses. In almost every religious conflict, greed is the real motivator.

While Nazism and Communism are atheists, they both deify their leaders. Lenin was placed in a mausoleum and lighted, so the lines of worshippers could file by and pay homage to him. Mao's picture was all over China for years, may still be on walls and in buildings everywhere, in the same types of situations that religions icons were placed.

As for war and killing, humanity comes up with reasons for doing such things. Religious differences is only one such reason.

As for quantity, the Plague, in some years, killed over 50 percent of Europe.

[kindlekitten]

so do we have anything definitive yet? it seems we only have the word of an author who may or may not have had her books for awhile and they may or may not have been replaced. anyone know for certain? I'm damn sure not searching on them

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Well, yes. One small book store censoring a book is a much smaller issue than a large retailer censoring a book. Which is a smaller issue than the government censoring a book.

Besides, small book sellers are missing so many books due to economic reasons that it seems somewhat silly to focus on censorship issues.

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

so do we have anything definitive yet? it seems we only have the word of an author who may or may not have had her books for awhile and they may or may not have been replaced. anyone know for certain? I'm damn sure not searching on them

I posted early on in this thread asking if anybody could positively say the book was removed from their archive, but I had no replies.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

What do either of those examples have to do with greed?

Both are pretty much ideological fanaticism - in my book that's a hell of a lot nearer to religion than greed.

In both cases the central government took over industry and agriculture. They took all the resources and production, then rationed what they thought the needs were to the population.

And both systems collapsed. Leading to millions of deaths.

[RW2112]

Originally Posted by Fastolfe

What a crock. It's the same BS software makers have been trying to implant into people's heads since the seventies - that you don't "own" your copy of the book/software/computer file, you have it on lease.

It's quite simple really: either you own something, in which case your right to use it, store it, lend it and resell it is inalienable, or you don't and the loan you have is revokable by the rightful owner.

And there we have the argument, do you own it or not? Yes, you "pay" for the physical media the "data" is on, yes, you "pay" for the license that gives you the right to use said "data". Can you "resell" the license? Sure, if you remove all traces of it from your system and not keep any copies. Can you purchase the "data" and then resell it multiple times making a profit off it? Nope, that is "piracy". What you've purchased is a license to use of one copy and generally one copy for archival backup.

I think it's pretty clear that, once you bought an ebook, or a piece of software, it's inacceptable that a third party can deprive you of what you bought unilaterally. If you don't accept this, then you obviously demand to own the ebook/software.

Agreed. (surprised?) A "third" party should not deprive you of said "license". They can however decide they will no longer carry the "data" on their company owned equipment. Does that constitute "breach of contract"? Possibly; that's for wiser heads than mine to decide.

I think you'll find most people who buy an ebook/software consider they own their copy. They don't think they shelled out their hard-owned cash to rent the data. Software vendors are so keenly aware of people's deep dislike of that preposterous business model that they never really pushed the issue in court. They know that if they did, people would be up in arms. Instead, they keep pretending people accept the idea, and in return, people tolerate and disregard the outrageous conditions founds in EULAs as long as they're not enforced.

Again I agree. But however, EULA's DO exist, and for good reason. If there is one on the website or installation and you choose "Agree", then you are accepting said EULA and therefore MUST abide by it, no matter how "preposterous" or "outrageous" you may find it.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a licensed ebook or piece of software: I paid for my copy, I own it, and I deny the seller the right to decide what I can do with it from the point of my purchase on.

I beg to differ, but then again we both acknowledge that fact already. Besides, the seller has no right to tell you what to do with the property in question as I stated before. That is the right of the I.P. owner.