Amazon censorship

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The author who got booted quite literally says: "The Bible has incest in it. So Amazon, if that's why you dropped my book, then you should stop selling the Bible as well."

This claim is, as I said before: absurd, childish, trivial, fatuous, specious and so forth. This specific argument has absolutely no merit.

This is incorrect.

If the criteria is "contains incest = not allowed to be sold," then the bible should indeed be removed from the listings. If the criteria is the much more likely "depicts incest in a way that one of our managers thinks is prurient," then it shouldn't--but authors should be given that information, so they don't submit books that that manager thinks contain prurient depictions of incest.

If the criteria is "books that we receive [X#] complaints about, which mention sexual content, are removed from the listings," authors should know that, too, and they can decide whether it's worth submitting a book that might garner complaints.

[dadioflex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_...ure#Literature

Never read Flowers in the Attic, but I have read Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love" and I'm pretty sure at least one of Lumley's Necroscope books had an aunt/nephew scene. Not my cup of tea but it seems Amazon is getting a little thin-skinned in general.

Meh. Come the revolution...

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

(Elfwreck mentions safe driving)

You're mixing up the metaphor here, and in doing so miss the point.

CSS is saying "a less-than-universal application of a rule is unfair." I'm simply pointing out that this is merely a reality and a common occurrence -- and still doesn't let you off the hook.

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

And her point is not that someone else swerving might make one speed, her point (in my opinion--I apologize if I am misinterpreting) is that 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.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Better yet, please feel free to propose a standard that would actually work. Then demonstrate that The Lover will universally land on one side or the other of said test.

I think you misunderstand. I can't speak for Elfwreck but for myself, I am not proposing a better standard. I am proposing no standard at all beyond what is legal.

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."

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.

In addition, I think the author's desire for her book to be treated like the bible when it comes to being pulled or not is merely her way of saying what I have already said: "Treat all books the same with regard to standards that determine whether you sell or pull them, and with regard to handling customer complaints regarding them."

You have not persuaded me that there is anything absurd, childish, fatuous, specious, tone-deaf, trivial, unpersuasive or "and so forth" about this request.

[DavidI]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

OK folks, let's get a tiny bit back on track here.

The author who got booted quite literally says: "The Bible has incest in it. So Amazon, if that's why you dropped my book, then you should stop selling the Bible as well."

This claim is, as I said before: absurd, childish, trivial, fatuous, specious and so forth. This specific argument has absolutely no merit.

You are all welcome to be heathens if you want, that's none of my business. But the various opinions of the Old Testament itself are simply not relevant to this particular claim, and do not bolster it in the slightest.

Come on Kali Yuga, do you actually believe that the author was advocating that Amazon stop selling the Bible because it contains incest? Or is it more likely that the author was using the Bible reference to make her point that just because a book contains incest that it should NOT be banned? Using hyperbole to make a point is not absurd, childish, trivial, fatuous, specious and so forth.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by DavidI

Come on Kali Yuga, do you actually believe that the author was advocating that Amazon stop selling the Bible because it contains incest?

*sigh*

No.

The author was constructing a facetious argument. As such, I don't view her argument on this particular point as having any merit.

[elcreative]

That's just so not true... people and businesses are responsible for what they sell whether it's a bookstore or a junk shop... by your argument I should be able to walk into a store and buy anything regardless of what it is... Retailers are responsible in law for what they sell... now Amazon may be erratic in its choices, stupid in the way they proceed to implement them but if they have reason to suspect an item may be illegal, generally offensive or whatever (including a personal dislike of something) then they are fully entitled to remove it. It states this in their Terms & Conditions of business... if you don't like their terms then don't deal with them (your right) and if you don't read the T&C then you can't complain after the fact...

Equally the provider of this content (as I said earlier) has the opportunity to use other outlets including their own website... it isn't exactly difficult...

PS as for your other comment re Stephen King and the Bible... same applies, if Amazon wish to discontinue such books then they can... and equally you can choose to get them elsewhere.

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

They are a bookstore, a business that sells books, the content should be irrelevant to them. Are they going to stop selling Stephen King novels next, are they going to stop selling the Bible because of the rape, incest and mass murder in that ?

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by RW2112

Agreed. In today's world of digital information the concept of "owning" a piece of intellectual property of another simply by buying it is no longer valid. Ownership remains with the creator of the I.P., the buyer simply purchases a license to "use" the I.P. in question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Books about people taking drugs encourages people to take drugs, so they should be removed too

Man, did I raid my local chemist after reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or what... HST sure can make drugs look sexy.

[elcreative]

Careful Fastolfe, you're in danger of sounding sensible and then descending to humour... bit risky round here...

Edit: see below... I warned you...

[ApK]

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.

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.

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.

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.

If that's all really true I deem you to be of very poor character.
If you act on those stated beliefs, you are a criminal and deserve to be punished.
If more poetic justice is in store, you may find yourself on the receiving end of some like-minded individual who similarly scoffs at laws against robbery or murder.

But that's all hypothetical, as I suspect it's just a troll post. Just sayin'.

[haiyeekayakee]

You're reading and selectively addressing parts of my posts. I've already stated I accept that yes, legally, they can do what they want, and that I have already severed business with them (and in the process taken eight family members and friends with me). That's Amazons loss not mine, why should I want to deal with such an erratic and unreliable company.

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.

Originally Posted by elcreative

That's just so not true... people and businesses are responsible for what they sell whether it's a bookstore or a junk shop... by your argument I should be able to walk into a store and buy anything regardless of what it is... Retailers are responsible in law for what they sell... now Amazon may be erratic in its choices, stupid in the way they proceed to implement them but if they have reason to suspect an item may be illegal, generally offensive or whatever (including a personal dislike of something) then they are fully entitled to remove it. It states this in their Terms & Conditions of business... if you don't like their terms then don't deal with them (your right) and if you don't read the T&C then you can't complain after the fact...

Equally the provider of this content (as I said earlier) has the opportunity to use other outlets including their own website... it isn't exactly difficult...

PS as for your other comment re Stephen King and the Bible... same applies, if Amazon wish to discontinue such books then they can... and equally you can choose to get them elsewhere.

[Elfwreck]

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.

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.

Depends on the terms of sale. US courts have ruled that, if there's no expectation of return, it's a sale.

When you rent a video from a store, it's licensed; you paid with the stated agreement that you'd return the object in a given amount of time. When you subscribe to World of Warcraft site, you're licensing use of the software (the stuff on their servers, not the disc you use to set up your computer); if you stop paying, you stop getting access. When you borrow an ebook from a library through Overdrive, it's understood that it'll stop working in two weeks. Those are licenses.

When you buy an ebook from Fictionwise, there's no expectation that you'll lose access to it. They may not make it downloadable forever, but once you've got it on your hard drive, you get to keep it. That's a sale, not a licensed use.

However, there've been some legal arguments the other direction--and if ebooks sold by Amazon are legally "licensed," the publishers & stores may be taking a hit: Licensed uses traditionally have a 50% royalty rate, instead of the 10-20% sales rate.

Pro authors going through major publishers should check their contracts for "license" royalties.

[RW2112]

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.

A better way to express this would be "religious texts" as not just the Bible can that be claimed. Extremism in the name of religion is not a good thing...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

You have grasped the heart of the argument.

One can't censor evenhandedly; censoring arbitrarily is unfair; perhaps one shouldn't censor at all.

So everything is equal, and no one can exercise any judgment about what to let in and keep out, because that is somehow "censorship"? That's the heart of your argument?

I can decide what to buy, but if I own a bookstore, I can't decide what to sell? Or if I'm a publisher, and you send me a piece of dreck, do I need to publish it, because if it I don't, I'm "arbitrarily" applying standards?

This is beyond absurd.

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by ApK

If that's all really true I deem you to be of very poor character.

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by ApK

If you act on those stated beliefs, you are a criminal and deserve to be punished.

I do act on those stated beliefs: I don't buy remote-controllable software or ebooks unless I absolutely have no other choice. Funny how you can hold an opinion on software or ebooks and not necessarily be a cracker eh?

Originally Posted by ApK

But that's all hypothetical, as I suspect it's just a troll post. Just sayin'.

Ah yes, the ever-useful troll canard. Never a better way to rebuke an argument than call it a troll. A truly classic logical fallacy of the modern age.
Would you care to explain how my opinion is a troll?

[RW2112]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Now that you have shown an interest in such books Amazon will start sending you emails advertising them

EGAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!