Amazon Censorship Expands

[ebookrights1]

When having morals becomes a bad thing, and the use of the word "God" more offensive than the rights of child molestors and rapists, it is a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

When having morals becomes a bad thing, and the use of the word "God" more offensive than the rights of child molestors and rapists, it is a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.

Please provide a reference to support your speculation. What morals are you speaking of? What rights in particular are you speaking of?

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by ebookrights1

When having morals becomes a bad thing, and the use of the word "God" more offensive than the rights of child molestors and rapists, it is a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.

I'm not sure how to interpret that.

Are you saying that refusing to sell a book that has the word "rape" in the title equates to having morals?

And how is the word "God" related to any part of any argument in this thread or within Amazon's actions?

And who are the child molestors and rapists you are speaking about - the reading public? the authors?

Your statement seems to be an excellent example of the phrase "apropos of nothing".

Regards
Caleb

[crich70]

I noticed the following when I looked round for some "Guidelines" info.

Producers or sellers of items are expected to conduct proper research to ensure that the items created to be sold on Amazon.com are in compliance with all local, state, national, and international laws

Now what may be considered acceptable in one country isn't always acceptable elsewhere. People are known to be scandalized by people kissing in a movie shown in India for example, so how can a person know that their book will be acceptable everywhere? I mean if someone writes an erotic book for example since much of this thread has dealt with erotic books, how can you know that you won't run afoul of the so called obsenity laws of one country or another? What one person considers art another might consider to be obscene and countries often think the same way I would think. I mean take any movie (as an example) that was released to DVD in the last year and get copies of it from 3 different countries and you may well find that you have three different versions of the same movie. One is less violent than the others, a 2nd might be more violent, a 3rd will have more or less sexual situations in the content and so forth. And I don't think there is a comperable situation with books. So if it violates what they consider decency in country x does this mean that Amazon can just yank it off the shelves everywhere without a word? That doesn't sound particularly fair to me. I mean in some far eastern countries the Bible is no doubt illegal or offensive to some so does that mean the Bible should be yanked off the kindle market, even though it isn't considered such in many other countries? That's what the quote above seems to be saying to me. How can anyone sell any book if all it takes is someone deciding it is objectionable to them to get the book yanked off the shelves?

[Mortis]

Why is it that every time Amazon pulls a book off of their own shelves, for what ever reason Amazon as a company decides, does this forum go into "Censorship" threat level 5?

How does what Amazon decides to sell in its store censorship?

Would all these people be upset if their corner book store doesn't sell that book?

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

Apple is forced to sell their manuals in English and French to Canada ...

Really? Doesn't Apple have the choice whether, or not, to sell its products in Canada? They may be required to supply their manuals in English and French, if that is the law there, but surely they aren't forced to do so unless they choose to sell their products there. Similarly, Amazon is free to choose whatever books it wants to sell. Shareholders might not like the way the company is being run, but that doesn't give non-shareholders the right to dictate to Amazon which books it does, or does not, sell. Nobody is forced to buy a book from Amazon, watch a film or view something on TV. People and companies are free to make choices. Isn't that part of what democracy is all about? But people also have responsibilities and some seem to have forgotten that there's an off switch, if not in reality then at least metaphorically speaking. If you don't like something then don't watch it, don't buy it, don't read it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do so. If authors are unable to get Amazon to sell their books, then they are free to look elsewhere for an alternative. Isn't that part of what a free market economy is all about?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

If someone wants to bring an antitrust action against Amazon publishing, I suppose they could (anyone can file a lawsuit for anything). But since Amazon has such a small portion of the publishing business, it is a loser.

I wouldn't call their market share of Kindle-compatible ebooks a small portion.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Let's say that Amazon had graphic depictions of the acts in those books on the home page and somebody complained. Would they be "imposing their strict views? If the books in question are the line Amazon draws, I don't think those views are strict at all.

Why do you need to move them out of the gay porn category and onto the home page? This isn't just some random norm clicking on something by mistake, they have actively gone looking for that content so that they can complain about it. It worked for pedo-porn, it worked for incest-porn, now it's time to spread the net a bit wider.

[DiapDealer]

This isn't just some random norm clicking on something by mistake, they have actively gone looking for that content so that they can complain about it. It worked for pedo-porn, it worked for incest-porn, now it's time to spread the net a bit wider.

You have no proof that there was any organized campaign that specifically targeted this author's book to get it removed. It can be just as easily explained by a random audit process. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that I prefer Occam's Razor to "let's gang up and conspire to get this trash removed from Amazon" when speculating about this particular "removal".

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm not sure what you mean by "artificially" restricting their offers.

You seem to be arguing that once a book has been put up on Amazon, the book has some "right" to stay on Amazon. I think that this is incorrect, and that it is better for authors to have some time on Amazon than no time.

I also think that requiring Amazon to read all of the self-published stuff on their site would simply result in them not offering self-published stuff because it's not cost effective.

In any event, I fail to see why rejecting a book before it goes on Amazon is any better for the author than removing it afterwards.

Perhaps not a "right" that is enforceable in court but a reasonable expectation by both the customers and the authors. We are only talking about a file that is stored on a server for download, not about a physical book that requires storing space in a warehouse, after all.
However, if this isn't feasible then I expect a company of that size to be predictable and reliable in handling the issue of discontinuing books. I do not consider it as professional conduct to arbitrarily fob off one author with a completely meaningless claim that his work violates the content guidelines. We should keep in mind that apart from removing his book they also threatened to terminate his account if he submitted any more content that's considered to violate their guidelines. Yet their guidelines are so vague that they deserve the term "risible". This is what they say with regard to offensive content:

"What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect."

They might just as well tell people that they will do what they damn well please. Hardly a sound foundation for a business relationship.

[phil75070]

I don't know about the 2nd title in the OPs original post, but anything that purports in its title to be a "Guide" or "How to" for illegal/illicit activity probably should not be sold.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by phil75070

I don't know about the 2nd title in the OPs original post, but anything that purports in its title to be a "Guide" or "How to" for illegal/illicit activity probably should not be sold.

This has been discussed thoroughly in the other thread here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=106314

Freedom of speech is just that, the freedom to say and publish what one wants provided it does not break other laws.

If the publisher chooses to not sell a particular book that is a business decision, but if you are advocating banning all selling of "How to" guides that provide information about illegal activities in general you are infringing on free speech.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

I didn't say that they shall offer any book there is, they just should not artificially restrict their offers by removing books that were already on offer. So Amazon acts as quasi-publisher? Then they should at least take a haphazard look at content, instead of arbitrarily removing some books because of some keywords in the title.

As a self-publishing service, Amazon might be considered in a different vein than a regular publisher as self-publishing services, vanity presses, etc. aren't expected to read the books -- especially if they are offered without editing. Still, there is a gray area here.

Several years ago, AuthorHouse, a large vanity press, was sued for libel when a best-selling author's ex-husband published a "tell all" book that contained lots of "facts" that smeared his ex-wife:
http://mayareynoldswriter.blogspot.c...ibel-suit.html

In that case, however, I think what hurt AuthorHouse was that the ex-husband told them there might be problems with the manuscript, but they still published it. I have heard of other vanity presses pulling a manuscript from publication because it was found to be plagiarized or because a family sued over allegations in a memoir, but I'm not sure a lawsuit in those cases would be any point.

On the other hand, it's a good thing Alexander Pope didn't self-publish his famous book-length "mock epic" poem The Rape of the Lock with Amazon. (By the way, there are no rapes in this poem. The title refers to a man cutting a lock of hair from a woman.) It's a classic satirical work, and calling it The Cutting of the Lock of Hair would kind of miss the satirical point of the title.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by crich70

. . . So if it violates what they consider decency in country x does this mean that Amazon can just yank it off the shelves everywhere without a word? That doesn't sound particularly fair to me. I mean in some far eastern countries the Bible is no doubt illegal or offensive to some so does that mean the Bible should be yanked off the kindle market, even though it isn't considered such in many other countries? That's what the quote above seems to be saying to me. How can anyone sell any book if all it takes is someone deciding it is objectionable to them to get the book yanked off the shelves?

In Pakistan, the christian bible could well be an insult to islam, requiring not only its banning but the death penalty for anyone who owns a copy.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Mortis

Why is it that every time Amazon pulls a book off of their own shelves, for what ever reason Amazon as a company decides, does this forum go into "Censorship" threat level 5?

How does what Amazon decides to sell in its store censorship?

Would all these people be upset if their corner book store doesn't sell that book?

The difference between Amazon and the corner bookstore is the power each can and does exert in the marketplace. An ebook not being sold by Amazon can be a funeral for that book and author (if we accept Amazon's claims of controlling 70%+ of the ebook market), whereas rejection by the corner bookstore essentially has no effect on the book or the author.

Again, it isn't that . . .

• Amazon doesn't have the right to decide what it wants to sell/not sell

it is that . . .

• because of Amazon's dominance in the ebook marketplace, it should provide authors and publishers with clear guidelines of what is acceptable beforehand

and that . . .

• when exercising its rights after accepting a book for sale on its site, that it provide clear guidance to the author of exactly how the book suddenly violates Amazon's guidelines when it did not violate the guidelines at time of acceptance.

In addition, there is the question of whether Amazon has the right (or if it has the right whether there is a moral obligation involved) to agree to terms of a contract with an author, accept the author's book for sale on its site, and then weeks later unilaterally change the terms of the contract and declare the author in violation of the new, unilaterally imposed terms.