Amazon Censorship Expands

[JeremyR]

I knew this would happen. Once people forced them (through threat of a boycott) to remove one book, they'd end up removing more.

Still, it's their right. Someone brought up snuff movies & Netflix, but at least when I was a member, Netflix didn't rent hardcore pornography, either. They had some of the Cinemax type of stuff, but no real porn. Not even ones with a plot.

While public companies have to answer to their shareholders, the biggest shareholder is apparently the guy that runs it. Not an outright controlling interest, but still, a lot.

And yeah, no, there isn't a lot of consistency. Here or anywhere else. Gay rape is a theme in Pulp Fiction, Deliverance, and probably a lot of other movies that I can't think of. So why is that okay to sell and not this book? Why is violence in video games bad and perfectly fine in mainstream movies (Saw, Hostel, the whole torture porn genre)? Hollywood has a lot more influence, basically.

Why does the NFL crack down on celebrating, yet go out of its way to protect and promote its newest poster boy, someone who tortures and kills dogs for fun and is pretty clearly a sociopath?

Why do sportswriters praise athletes who use steroids in the NFL and condemn athletes who do the same in baseball? In my local paper, a columnist won an award for an article attacking McGwire, yet like a month later wrote one praising and defending an NFL guy who was caught using steroids by testing (and that same year as he was suspended, he made the pro bowl).

So to sum up my point, hypocrisy is everywhere. You can't do anything about it, thinking about it will just drive you crazy...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by gtriever

Mee, mee too!

[MikeFromHC]

Originally Posted by screwballl

WHO CARES??

Amazon is a private business that has every right to sell or NOT sell anything they want to. This is not the local government funded library, it is a private business that can do things how they want. If they want to allow something, then remove it, then allow it, then remove it, who cares that is their choice. We do not tell you how to live your life, so don't expect to be able tell someone else how to run theirs.

Lucky for us the situation is not as simple as that. The right of a company to sell or not sell what they want went out a long time ago when the government found out the actual ingredients of many of these products.
Most of th entertainment world is also governed by rules.
Amazon's position on the internet and the money they can toss around might cause them to be considered a monopoly and arbitrary refusals could be considered a restraint of trade.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Still, it's their right. Someone brought up snuff movies & Netflix, but at least when I was a member, Netflix didn't rent hardcore pornography, either. They had some of the Cinemax type of stuff, but no real porn. Not even ones with a plot.

Snuff movies does not have to be porn. And snuff movies does not exist.

[Sydney's Mom]

I am confused. Wasn't there a HUGE uproar when Amazon refused to take down the pedifile book? On this very forum? And now we are upset that Amazon is (gasp) censoring the books they are presenting for sale? Rape is against the law, as is pedifilia.

This is exactly why we have the 1st amendment. It allows Nazi's to march in Skokie, a Chicago subsurb with a large Jewish population, and large number of survivors from the Holocaust.

It allows Tea Party members to carry signs showing Obama with a hitler-type mustache.

I understand why they would do this, after the last bru-ha-ha. I work for a bank, and we are enemy #1 these days. It changes your thinking, when you have to check under every mattress for boogie men (or women).

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by MikeFromHC

Lucky for us the situation is not as simple as that. The right of a company to sell or not sell what they want went out a long time ago when the government found out the actual ingredients of many of these products.
Most of th entertainment world is also governed by rules.
Amazon's position on the internet and the money they can toss around might cause them to be considered a monopoly and arbitrary refusals could be considered a restraint of trade.

How many publishers are there? How many book stores and chains? How many ebook sellers?

Using your own line of reasoning, Apple should be broken up because only Apple is legally controlling the hardware, software, OS, manufacturing and distribution of Apple computers. Its not like the rest of the computers where you have your choice of thousands of motherboards, memory, CPU, video card, OS, software, and so on.

By the way others talk here, Apple should be forced to sell Dell, HP, Compaq, Acer, Lenovo and all the other computer brands, AND be forced to sell Windows, RedHat, and every other OS out there, simply because you think or believe they should simply because some small minority may choose to buy it from them...

Altruism has little place in the retail business.

Amazon is allowed to create their own hardware, software, distribution and choose to sell what they want. It is al about choice, not your desires. If you don't like that they do not sell epub or what you want, you have every right to go to another seller.

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by MikeFromHC

Lucky for us the situation is not as simple as that. The right of a company to sell or not sell what they want went out a long time ago when the government found out the actual ingredients of many of these products.
Most of th entertainment world is also governed by rules.
Amazon's position on the internet and the money they can toss around might cause them to be considered a monopoly and arbitrary refusals could be considered a restraint of trade.

Simply being a monopoly isn't against the law, but it does put you in a position to break laws that are much more difficult for smaller companies to break.

The oft-cited Microsoft example: Microsoft didn't run into legal trouble because they were shipping IE with Windows (at least, not in the US - the EU went way overboard IMO), they ran into legal trouble because they were coercing hardware retailers into not shipping PC's with Netscape pre-installed by threatening to revoke their contracts with MS. Because MS had sole control over who was able to purchase Windows, and because Windows was far and away the most popular OS on the market (95%+ at that time, I believe), not being able to ship Windows was a death sentence for hardware retailers. This abuse of their monopoly position to unfairly eliminate competition is illegal.

I don't see how Amazon's censorship is going to affect any of their competitors in any way (in some ways it's actually a boon to competitors, since they can say "we have it, Amazon doesn't"), so I don't see how it can run afoul of anti-trust laws. They aren't coercing anybody else into not selling these books, they are simply not selling them themselves. That's well within their rights.

For an example of what Amazon could do that would be illegal, if Amazon threatened to not carry any of a given publisher's books if they did not stop publishing certain books they found objectionable, that would run afoul of anti-trust laws. Amazon is in a position to at the very least severely damage that publisher, and they are abusing that position prevent the sale of certain books, which would be in direct competition with Amazon's books (who is also a publisher and retailer).

That would be an illegal abuse of a monopoly, and in fact that would even get a company that was not a monopoly into big legal trouble. The monopoly simply makes the potential damage much greater, and as a result the potential fines much greater.

Look at Microsoft IE and how their share has been eroded by Seamonkey/Firefox and Chrome and Opera. And the portable computers we call "phones" which run non-MS software. Their 90% monopoly is crumbling even as we speak. This is Amazons future, Google says hello.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I am confused. Wasn't there a HUGE uproar when Amazon refused to take down the pedifile book? On this very forum? And now we are upset that Amazon is (gasp) censoring the books they are presenting for sale? Rape is against the law, as is pedifilia.

These aren't instruction manuals for rape; they're fiction books depicting rapes. If the logic is "we can't have books that have graphic depictions of crimes," they'd have to ban a lot of murder mysteries and thrillers.

However, in this case, it appears the contents were irrelevant; they were removed for having titles that *violated Amazon's content terms.* Except that those terms weren't conveyed to the author; they were the secret content terms that "any decent person should understand," rather than the ones actually written on the page.

The author didn't submit the books attempting to get around Amazon's content requirements; Amazon failed to specify what wasn't allowed. It's unclear whether this was always not-allowed and they just noticed these titles, or they've recently changed their standards, since there still isn't an available list of "things you may not title your book."

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by screwballl

How many publishers are there? How many book stores and chains? How many ebook sellers?

Using your own line of reasoning, Apple should be broken up because only Apple is legally controlling the hardware, software, OS, manufacturing and distribution of Apple computers. Its not like the rest of the computers where you have your choice of thousands of motherboards, memory, CPU, video card, OS, software, and so on.

By the way others talk here, Apple should be forced to sell Dell, HP, Compaq, Acer, Lenovo and all the other computer brands, AND be forced to sell Windows, RedHat, and every other OS out there, simply because you think or believe they should simply because some small minority may choose to buy it from them...

Altruism has little place in the retail business.

Amazon is allowed to create their own hardware, software, distribution and choose to sell what they want. It is al about choice, not your desires. If you don't like that they do not sell epub or what you want, you have every right to go to another seller.

Apple is forced to sell their manuals in English and French to Canada, I assume you're not upset about that? Also, App censor happy Apple is losing marketshare to open Android:



The point should not be whether censorship is right or wrong for Amazon, it should be what's better for business. I'm sure CBS would love to run uncensored HBO shows on their channel.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

These aren't instruction manuals for rape; they're fiction books depicting rapes. If the logic is "we can't have books that have graphic depictions of crimes," they'd have to ban a lot of murder mysteries and thrillers.

However, in this case, it appears the contents were irrelevant; they were removed for having titles that *violated Amazon's content terms.* Except that those terms weren't conveyed to the author; they were the secret content terms that "any decent person should understand," rather than the ones actually written on the page.

The author didn't submit the books attempting to get around Amazon's content requirements; Amazon failed to specify what wasn't allowed. It's unclear whether this was always not-allowed and they just noticed these titles, or they've recently changed their standards, since there still isn't an available list of "things you may not title your book."

Amazon puts too many books up to be able to judge them on content. They have made the decision to get the books up for sale, and pull them if they discover a problem. As their lawyer, I would be comfortable with that risk/reward formula.

I would NOT create guidelines about what was and was not acceptable. As soon as I say "Rape cannot be in the title" I would have a bunch of books written by the Chicago Rapist. I would only agree to act reasonably in banning books. And since they cannot read every book to determine if it will piss off a majority of their customers, they are coming up with criteria on the fly.

Kinda like the TSA.

[susan_cassidy]

The difficulty of writing guidelines that cover all cases reminds me of a place I worked that tried to write a dress code. One of the rules was that shoes had to be enclosed, or have a strap around the back (trying to avoid flipflops). One guy came to work wearing scuba fins.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I would NOT create guidelines about what was and was not acceptable.

If that was the system they had, then the author was not in violation of the content guidelines, since there were no guidelines, and they lied in their letter of explanation.

If they pulled the books for being "too objectionable," that may be allowed; if, however, they claim the author violated a rule that doesn't exist, that's a form of fraud.

I would only agree to act reasonably in banning books.

Would you be willing to state what "reasonable" standards you'd be using? I don't mean exact details--I mean the difference between "we have a decency officer who deals with those complaints" and "we have a board that votes" and "we submit books suspected of being objectionable to a pool of readers and reviewers and their chairperson writes up an analysis & we follow those suggestions."

And since they cannot read every book to determine if it will piss off a majority of their customers,

Why not? Because they wouldn't make as much money if they spent time confirming that what they sell fits their standards?

they are coming up with criteria on the fly.

Kinda like the TSA.

I don't buy from Amazon, and I don't fly, because of exactly these kinds of issues.

Amazon has the right to run its business, within the law (which this decision may skirt but probably doesn't break), any way it likes--but customers also have the right to point out that they're being sleazy and dishonest, and encourage people to stop doing business with them.

[K-Thom]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

Also, App censor happy Apple is losing marketshare to open Android:

You're using crystal ball statistics (2014???) to prove your point? You're either very brave or very desperate right now.

And if you do use those statistics you might as well explain that Windows Mobile part to me. You've lost me there somewhere with your one-sided perception.

[mboothe]

How the heck is refusing to sell sick, perverted crap censorship? I would be offended if they didn't remove it.

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

You're using crystal ball statistics (2014???) to prove your point? You're either very brave or very desperate right now.

And if you do use those statistics you might as well explain that Windows Mobile part to me. You've lost me there somewhere with your one-sided perception.

I have a opinion that in terms of business open beats closed. The chart is based on the growth trends in 2010. In the 80s Microsoft was "open" (clone PCs) and Apple was closed. MS won. Now we have a repeat of the OS wars on phones. Blackberry used to be the king of Smartphones, customers used to complain about the poor websurfing in the phone, Blackberry did not care because of their smartphone monoploy, now Apple comes out with a better product and beats them. Closed vs Closed. How do you think Apple lost their 90% smartphone OS share? Google eating their lunch. What's going to happen to "closed" Amazon when Google starts competing against them? Based on the acceleration of Windows 7 phone sales some people think their marketshare will be 9.8% in 2014.