Kindle Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Kobo response about removing books -- MERGED

Jump to Latest
201 - 220 of 250 Posts
#201 ·
Bards and Sages (Julie) said:
Free speech also includes the right not to listen. You are free to write whatever you want. But I am free not to buy it or sell it. Free speech is not a one-way road. It works both ways. Otherwise, YOU are infringing on my free speech by forcing me to financially support positions I don't agree with.
Click to expand...
I've already said that these publishers are within their right to choose not to publish anything they want. Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over?

Insofar as people uploading new files after approval: again, while I doubt it was that widespread, I can completely see it happening. Particularly if they were aware that the revision would be automatically approved without review. Or it could have been completely innocent. Someone decided to rewrite their story to make it steamier to attract a different audience but didn't want to lose their sales rank and reviews. Authors are CONSTANTLY revising and uploading new versions of previously published work. I can completely see this happening.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with what's going on with authors responding to Amazon's adult filter.
 
#202 ·
Bards and Sages (Julie) said:
Which I would agree with if the government statements had come in advance of this issue and WHSmith was responding to the government. But the statements, as I understood them, were in response to questions from reporters about something that already happened. Unless someone can produce an official summons or warning letter to WHSmith telling them they are in violation, it is all woulda/coulda/shoulda and can't be factored in to a response. In reality, the Obscene Publications Act was already law decades before WHSmith agreed to sell digital books. Unless they were working on the "it isn't illegal until we get caught" theory, I have to assume they are functioning from a PR perspective and not a legal perspective (though considering how poorly the PR perspective has been applied, I guess anything is possible!)
Click to expand...
Fair points all, but this is how I see it. Under the OPA, convictions depend on what judges and juries perceive as obscene. In olden days, obscene was insulting the king or his church. In the 1960's, obscene was a maid getting it on with a member of the upper class. In the 1980's, it was chasing teens around with chainsaws. In modern times, it is pooping on your boyfriend's head. Basically, content isn't illegal until it is unpopular, and the present media %^&storm risked making some rather profitable content unpopular. Faced with the realization that rather than riding the FSOG zeitgeist they might be riding on a runaway train, some sellers freaked and jumped.

These events didn't occur in a vacuum, either. Remember that the UK government has been in talks with ISPs to (somehow) filter out obscene internet material, alter search results, and monitor what digital content UK (and other) citizens are consuming. With their toes now entering the ISP puddle, Amazon may have been more sensitive to the changing political winds. That would explain their banning of many titles months prior to Kobo and Smiths. But I suppose that I am treading into the land of conspiracy talk. It's not like Amazon is in the spy business or anything.

B.
 
#203 ·
swolf said:
I was referring to them talking about the free speech of the writers of the books.

I thought that was made clear by the context, but it seems some aren't quick to follow.
Click to expand...
OK. I agree I am one of the slower folks here, and I appreciate the patience extended my way.

Even when they refer to the free speech of authors it seems in a constitutional sense. They obviously reserve the right to censor what appears in their own stores.

As Julie noted above, we have freedom to speak, but nobody has to listen. That has nothing to do with censorship
 
#205 ·
Let me preface my remarks by saying I don't read erotica. There was one exception. I did read Fifty Shades of Gray after every women's group in which I took part was talking about it. I read only the first book and never read the others. I'm not a prude, but it's not my cup of tea.

Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?

I know I just put myself out there for attack. I'm not condemning anyone or passing any judgment. I'm simply asking a question. So don't tear into me. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't write.
 
#206 ·
Terrence OBrien said:
OK. I agree I am one of the slower folks here, and I appreciate the patience extended my way.

Even when they refer to the free speech of authors it seems in a constitutional sense. They obviously reserve the right to censor what appears in their own stores.

As Julie noted above, we have freedom to speak, but nobody has to listen. That has nothing to do with censorship
Click to expand...
What I said in the post you quoted and responded to:

[quote author=swolf]Yes, they have the legal right to censor what they sell.[/quote]

So yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I shall continue to try to be patient.
 
#207 ·
Sapphire said:
Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?
Click to expand...
There are some out there who think that 50 Shades is porn.

Who gets to draw the line for everyone else? And if there are people out there writing and reading things that are beyond our personal 'limits', what business is it of ours?
 
#208 ·
B. Justin Shier said:
This conversation might be aided by placing the word "government" or "corporate" ahead of censorship.

B.
Click to expand...
Best idea I have heard in all of this. But I would suggest givernment and private censorship. That covers everything.
 
#210 ·
So yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I shall continue to try to be patient.
Click to expand...
OK. So what do you mean by the concept of free speech that exists outside the Constitution? How does it differ from constitutional free speech. What is it?
 
#211 ·
Sapphire said:
Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I take a serious look at what I am publishing after composing every page. But the opposite must also be asked. Why do certain segments of society feel inclined to establish such edges? Why does it matter what others read? Are their "deviant" thoughts somehow intrusive? What sort of odd predilections lie at the heart of this drive to impose one's will on others? This need seems to appear in every society. What interests does it serve?

B.
 
#212 ·
Terrence OBrien said:
OK. So what do you mean by the concept of free speech that exists outside the Constitution? How does it differ from constitutional free speech. What is it?
Click to expand...
First of all, all the rights we have, we were born with. They weren't granted by the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution does is restrict government from infringing upon them. Some of the founders were against the Bill of Rights, because they were afraid people would take it as a granting of rights.

That includes the right to free speech. It is our right whether the Constitution exists or not. But our rights only extend until they infringe upon the rights of others. That's why we can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, because we're infringing on others' right to safety. And that's why we can't force others to give us a platform for our speech, because that's infringing upon their rights.

So when publishers talk about free speech in terms of authors, and not wanting to violate that right, it's the same right the Constitution protects. So while they're within their own right to free speech to print what they choose, they also support others' right to free speech by not censoring them unreasonably. (We'll, most of the time.)

And as authors we should always advocate free speech, no matter who is infringing upon it. Because once it becomes okay to censor one kind of speech, all free speech is in danger. And again, that's not to say that Amazon and Kobo don't have the right to choose what to sell, but if they're out there advocating for free speech, they should be walking the walk too.
 
#213 ·
Christian Science Monitor: Readers rally to protest online censorship of erotic books

Online booksellers like Amazon and Kobo have begun banning self-published titles featuring themes like incest and bestiality. But now, some readers complain, other erotic titles are disappearing as well [...] A petition at Change.org titled "Amazon, Barnes and Noble, KOBO: Leave our self-published and/or Indie authors alone" is addressed to Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos and claims that taking down the erotic titles that aren't harmful, by the petition writers' definition, is a violation of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/1018/Readers-rally-to-protest-online-censorship-of-erotic-books
 
#214 ·
Suzanna Medeiros said:
Kobo's business model is such that they rely on bookstore partners in different countries around the world in order to establish a presence in those countries. Unlike Amazon, that opens its own bookstores in those countries and answers only to themselves, Kobo has to develop a good working relationship with these different bookstores. That means they need to make them happy. It doesn't matter whether Kobo itself, headquartered right here in Toronto, allowed those taboo erotica titles on its site in the past. What matters is that their partner in the UK - their main entry into selling ebooks in that country - isn't happy. And yesterday Whitcoulls in New Zealand took down their ebook store and left a similar message to that of WH Smith (here.)

As we speak, you can bet that Kobo is actively trying to establish partnerships with booksellers in other countries - they just recently formed such partnerships with bookstores in Spain, Italy and India. Authors being upset with Kobo and trying to get them to stop filtering content on their website is pointless if doing so means their current partnerships, and their negotiations with other bookstores, would be placed at risk.

One, just because a retail store used to stock a certain product in the past does not mean that they are obligated to continue to stock that product moving forward.

Two, in order to continue to sell books Kobo needs to keep their retail partners happy, and that's what they're attempting to do. It's a shame that their bookstore isn't set up in such a way that they can just filter certain ebook categories to those different partners, but hindsight is 20/20. Petitioning Kobo isn't going to do anything. You need to make their partners (particulary WH Smith and Whitcoulls atm) stop putting pressure on Kobo to "clean up" their catalog of ebooks. Kobo isn't going to put its retail partnerships at risk because authors are unhappy about not being able to sell some of their books through Kobo.
Click to expand...
WHO said they shouldn't filter content?

Filtering content is quite different than taking down ALL CONTENT in a country as they did in the UK.

ETA: I happen to think filtering content is a good idea. Most people don't really think it is a good idea for young kids to look at extremely violent or highly explicit sexual content. But that may just mean putting in an adult filter. It may mean deleting content with very specific sexual behavior such as bestiality. Then as far as I am concerned WHSmith can do whatever they like, but being totally hypocritical such as putting soft porn directly in front of the kid's section while screeching about sexual content in their online store isn't very convincing, but that is for their customers to react to.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#215 ·
B. Justin Shier said:
Christian Science Monitor: Readers rally to protest online censorship of erotic books

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/1018/Readers-rally-to-protest-online-censorship-of-erotic-books
Click to expand...
I officially no longer trust the media...not that I ever did.

CSMonitor said: The petition notes that the petition creator and its signers do not endorse fiction featuring bestiality, incest, pedophilia, "or other things of such an 'extreme' nature."
Click to expand...
Uh, no the petition doesn't say that. The petition says they don't endorse nonfictional portrayals of those themes. Is it that this CSMonitor has a reading comprehension problem or is this a deliberate effort to mislead?

CSMonitor said: Meanwhile, a Kobo spokesperson told Publishers Weekly, "We are additionally taking steps to ensure that compliance to our policies - and international law - is met by all authors and publishers.
Click to expand...
Uhm, are they serious? This isn't some Star Trek episode where we have a Federation which governs all nations. There is no international law governing fiction, writers, and the publishing industry. Oh God, I need a drink...and I don't even drink!
 
#216 ·
I'm pretty sure international law covers issues like war crimes and genocide and not books that some people find objectionable. What the Kobo spokesperson might have meant is that they want to comply with local laws in the countries where they or their affiliates sell books.

It's also interesting how the mainstream media coverage keeps talking about books featuring pedophilia and bestiality, when the objectionable books did not contain underage sex or bestiality (the dog was on the cover, because there is a dog in the story. However, said dog is not a sex partner) nor did most of them contain actual incest. So why does the mainstream media keep repeating the incorrect reporting by The Kernel and the Daily Mail? On the other hand, scratch that. After all, the German press gleefully repeated The Sun's lies about the Hillsborough disaster 24 years ago.
 
#218 ·
B. Justin Shier said:
Perhaps. I take a serious look at what I am publishing after composing every page. But the opposite must also be asked. Why do certain segments of society feel inclined to establish such edges? Why does it matter what others read? Are their "deviant" thoughts somehow intrusive? What sort of odd predilections lie at the heart of this drive to impose one's will on others? This need seems to appear in every society. What interests does it serve?

B.
Click to expand...
Extremes often help with these issues. Do the Germans ban material supporting National Socialism? If so, I think they do that to prevent the resurgence of a group that led the country down a disastrous path. I dont know if it is effective, but I believe thats the reason.

I dont know if its reasonable to call that intent an odd predilection. It may be criticized as being ineffective, but I don't question the intent. I also support inhibiting the return of National Socialism.

In the US, womens groups tried to suppress American Psycho in the Nineties. Their stated objective was to prevent violence against women from becoming entertainment because they felt it led to social attitudes more accepting of that conduct. Again, I dont see the intent as odd.

If the intent is not odd, then we might ask if the means are odd. I think the Germans employ law as a means. The American groups used speech as a means. I will let the Germans speak for themselves on that one, but I dont see much wrong with the Americans using speech to oppose things.
 
#219 ·
swolf said:
First of all, all the rights we have, we were born with. They weren't granted by the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution does is restrict government from infringing upon them. Some of the founders were against the Bill of Rights, because they were afraid people would take it as a granting of rights.

That includes the right to free speech. It is our right whether the Constitution exists or not. But our rights only extend until they infringe upon the rights of others. That's why we can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, because we're infringing on others' right to safety. And that's why we can't force others to give us a platform for our speech, because that's infringing upon their rights.

So when publishers talk about free speech in terms of authors, and not wanting to violate that right, it's the same right the Constitution protects. So while they're within their own right to free speech to print what they choose, they also support others' right to free speech by not censoring them unreasonably. (We'll, most of the time.)

And as authors we should always advocate free speech, no matter who is infringing upon it. Because once it becomes okay to censor one kind of speech, all free speech is in danger. And again, that's not to say that Amazon and Kobo don't have the right to choose what to sell, but if they're out there advocating for free speech, they should be walking the walk too.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything until the last sentence. It all seems a good description of the right guaranteed under the Constitution. It looks like Amazon and Kobo are walking the path you described. That path includes the right to sell what one chooses.
 
#220 ·
Terrence OBrien said:
Extremes often help with these issues. Do the Germans ban material supporting National Socialism? If so, I think they do that to prevent the resurgence of a group that led the country down a disastrous path. I dont know if it is effective, but I believe thats the reason.

I dont know if its reasonable to call that intent an odd predilection. It may be criticized as being ineffective, but I don't question the intent. I also support inhibiting the return of National Socialism.

In the US, womens groups tried to suppress American Psycho in the Nineties. Their state objective was to prevent violence against women from becoming entertainment because they felt it led to social attitudes more accepting of that conduct. Again, I dont see the intent as odd.
Click to expand...
True. Being (what at least some people consider) ineffective or even counter-productive isn't necessarily odd. In fact, from an internal point of view, it may look perfectly sensible.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
201 - 220 of 250 Posts
About this Discussion
249 Replies
86 Participants
Last post:
CoraBuhlert
Kindle Forum
posts
3.9M
members
120K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to Amazon Kindle owners, authors, and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about publishing, audio, troubleshooting, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Writers' Cafe Not Quite Kindle The Book Bazaar Let's Talk Kindle! The Book Corner