[Selina Fenech]

Here's what I've been wondering about this whole pornopocalypse going on... what do the customers think? I don't mean the customers raising the furor about erotic books being in their face, I mean the readers of that erotica. They probably aren't being very vocal since maybe they don't want to stand up and be counted, but still, has anyone seen any reaction from the erotica customer base? Has there been a rush on sales of erotica from customers worried they won't be able to get it soon??

 

[iheartwords]

Here's what I've been wondering about this whole pornopocalypse going on... what do the customers think? I don't mean the customers raising the furor about erotic books being in their face, I mean the readers of that erotica. They probably aren't being very vocal since maybe they don't want to stand up and be counted, but still, has anyone seen any reaction from the erotica customer base? Has there been a rush on sales of erotica from customers worried they won't be able to get it soon??

The erotica readers have started at least one petition and it has a lot of signatures. I don't have the link. It's nice because during the whole Paypal thing a year and a half ago we heard not a peep from the erotica readers, if I recall.

 

[Ann in Arlington]

Several threads about Kobo's response to current issues have been merged -- sorry for any confusion.

 

[AnitaDobs]

Here's what I've been wondering about this whole pornopocalypse going on... what do the customers think? I don't mean the customers raising the furor about erotic books being in their face, I mean the readers of that erotica. They probably aren't being very vocal since maybe they don't want to stand up and be counted, but still, has anyone seen any reaction from the erotica customer base? Has there been a rush on sales of erotica from customers worried they won't be able to get it soon??

Here's a petition that was begun: http://www.change.org/petitions/amazon-barnes-and-noble-kobo-leave-our-self-published-and-or-indie-authors-alone

It's at 12,500 signatures which is quite impressive bearing in mind 12 hours ago it was at 4,000 when I looked.

 

[KurtCarlson]

Authors going in after the fact and changing their works to "forbidden" subjects doesn't make any logical sense, since the "forbidden" subjects were accepted on their platform during the first reviews. Looks like a case of CYA, cover your ass, as us office folk like to say. I feel bad for the authors that were singled out in some of these articles since some of them didn't even have anything to do with this.

 

[Guest]

Here's a petition that was begun: http://www.change.org/petitions/amazon-barnes-and-noble-kobo-leave-our-self-published-and-or-indie-authors-alone

It's at 12,500 signatures which is quite impressive bearing in mind 12 hours ago it was at 4,000 when I looked.

Neither impressive nor useful. It is poorly worded. Rambling. And reads like a temper-tantrum and not an adult concern. A petition, an EFFECTIVE petition, needs to plainly detail the issue and offer a solution. What does "leave our authors alone" even MEAN? Is Amazon going to people's homes in the middle of the night and erasing their hard drives?

You know what else had 12000 signatures? The White House petition to release the beer recipe. Generating "signatures" on an online petition isn't all that impressive or difficult.

What happened to freedom of speech?!

This is not a First Amendment issue. There is no constitutional right to force a for-profit business to sell your product. Nobody's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are being hurt. The First Amendment protects you from criminal prosecution from the government. It does not guarantee the right to make money from what you write.

Which is why the current methodology being used to push back against these vendors will fail. People are continuing to fight the wrong fight. You try to fight this on First Amendment grounds, you lose. Particularly when all you have is a bunch of poorly worded, fragmented, whiny-sounding online petitions to use as weapons. You are fighting a war with Nerf guns while the enemy is using M16s.

You have to win in the court of public opinion. And right now, the general public only sees vendors cracking down on nasty books. Most people don't see the levels of nonsense going on behind the scenes, and most don't care. Yelling "free speech" and most of these people won't register in the court of public opinion. You need a unified message and a sympathetic spokesperson to serve as the "face" of that message. Someone who can interact with the general media and present a reasoned, rational, and articulate message. Someone who can make the public understand how this impacts THEM. Right now, you don't have that, which is why the vendors are winning.

 

[Guest]

Authors going in after the fact and changing their works to "forbidden" subjects doesn't make any logical sense, since the "forbidden" subjects were accepted on their platform during the first reviews.

If you go to the thread on Amazon removing erotica, you'll see that a lot of authors did in fact make keyword and cover changes specifically to avoid the "adult dungeon." While I don't think it is nearly as widespread as has been suggested, yes, there ARE in fact authors who deliberately changed their titles and keywords specifically to circumvent the Amazon filters. Some even went so far as to not even put their books in the erotica genre but instead put them under general romance or other genres.

 

[AnitaDobs]

Neither impressive nor useful. It is poorly worded. Rambling. And reads like a temper-tantrum and not an adult concern. A petition, an EFFECTIVE petition, needs to plainly detail the issue and offer a solution. What does "leave our authors alone" even MEAN? Is Amazon going to people's homes in the middle of the night and erasing their hard drives?

Regardless, someone asked, and I answered Julie.

 

[cvwriter]

Like all other major bookstores, they're going the way of the dinosaur.

(Snicker) Nah, I don't think they'll be going there.

 

[KurtCarlson]

If you go to the thread on Amazon removing erotica, you'll see that a lot of authors did in fact make keyword and cover changes specifically to avoid the "adult dungeon." While I don't think it is nearly as widespread as has been suggested, yes, there ARE in fact authors who deliberately changed their titles and keywords specifically to circumvent the Amazon filters. Some even went so far as to not even put their books in the erotica genre but instead put them under general romance or other genres.

I was talking about Kobo. Kobo didn't have an adult filter, so there was no point in even changing it there.

 

[B. Justin Shier]

This is not a First Amendment issue. There is no constitutional right to force a for-profit business to sell your product. Nobody's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are being hurt. The First Amendment protects you from criminal prosecution from the government. It does not guarantee the right to make money from what you write.

In the United States, absolutely, but remember that in the initial reporting by the Guardian, BBC, and Mail there were suggestions made that the UK's Ministry of Justice might be planning prosecutions.

The Ministry of Justice said the retailers would be liable for prosecution if a judge deemed that the ebooks breached the Obscene Publications Act.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/13/whsmith-shuts-website-hardcore-pornography-ebooks

Last night the Ministry of Justice said the retailers would be liable for prosecution if a judge deemed that the ebooks breached the Obscene Publications Act.

The National Crime Agency said: 'There is a need to think about criminalising the paedophilic written word in the same way as child abuse imagery and virtual images of children.

'In the meantime, businesses who are aware that they are involved in the sharing of potentially paedophilic material can of course look to their consciences or consider the impact on their reputation.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456651/WHSmiths-vile-trade-online-rape-porn-Bookseller-apologises-sales-sick-ebooks-revealed.html

These insinuations of impending government action have yet to come of anything, but the mere threat of government action (and criminal prosecution under the Obscene Publications Acts) may well have spooked the few lawyers / PR folk working at Kobo's HQ over Canada's Thanksgiving weekend. The chilling effect of possible jail time should never be underestimated. As Terrence pointed out in one of these threads, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was partly in reaction to the information control American colonists experienced while living in the UK.

B.

 

[Speaker-To-Animals]

If you go to the thread on Amazon removing erotica, you'll see that a lot of authors did in fact make keyword and cover changes specifically to avoid the "adult dungeon." While I don't think it is nearly as widespread as has been suggested, yes, there ARE in fact authors who deliberately changed their titles and keywords specifically to circumvent the Amazon filters. Some even went so far as to not even put their books in the erotica genre but instead put them under general romance or other genres.

Keyword and title changes were largely for books that were, as we understood them, to be perfectly within the rules, but which had been tagged anyway because the titles or covers were misleading or salacious in and of themselves. Amazon actually contacted several high profile and high selling authors and told them outright that the issue was covers and keywords, not content and that to get books restored, they just needed to change the presentation, not the book itself.

I've never heard of authors changing a title to add smut in after its submitted. Among other things, the retailers that screen, screen every time you change the book. What happens all the time is that if something is deemed to be against the rules, the piece is toned down. There are books about people diddling the next door neighbor or family friend that a month ago were pseudo incest and three years ago were incest.

Very few people were putting books into unrelated categories. However, for erotic romance, there is a massive double standard between what publishers can do and what indies can do. A lot of books that are on the same "heat level" as Maya Banks, Sylvia Day, or FSOG get pushed into the erotica category if they're from an indie, but are romance if they're from a trad press. So there was definitely a lot of conflict over where that line was getting drawn.

 

[Guest]

These insinuations of impending government action have yet to come of anything, but the mere threat of government action (and criminal prosecution under the Obscene Publications Acts) may well have spooked the few lawyers / PR folk working at Kobo's HQ over Canada's Thanksgiving weekend.

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!)

 

[swolf]

If you go to the thread on Amazon removing erotica, you'll see that a lot of authors did in fact make keyword and cover changes specifically to avoid the "adult dungeon." While I don't think it is nearly as widespread as has been suggested, yes, there ARE in fact authors who deliberately changed their titles and keywords specifically to circumvent the Amazon filters. Some even went so far as to not even put their books in the erotica genre but instead put them under general romance or other genres.

That's not what Kobo is talking about. They're talking about authors who submit one type of content, and then come back and either submit a different type of content, or change their original content to something else. That's nothing like authors changing titles and keywords to avoid the arbitrary filters that Amazon doesn't even admit exists.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

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.

Of course it can be factored into their response. They are subject to the law, the issue has been raised, and the media is asking about it. It would be irreponsible not to factor it into a response. Legal liability is not a function of official paperwork.

 

[swolf]

This is not a First Amendment issue.

While the Constitution provides protections for free speech from government infringement, the concept of free speech exists outside of that document. When these book distributors talk about being in favor of free speech, they're not talking about constitutional guarantees, they're talking about people being able to speak and write freely without censorship, whether that censorship comes from the government or them. Yes, they have legal right to censor what they sell, but if they do that and also claim they're for free speech, then they're not practicing what they're preaching.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

" When these book distributors talk about being in favor of free speech, they're not talking about constitutional guarantees, they're talking about people being able to speak and write freely without censorship, whether that censorship comes from the government or them."

Seems like they are talking about the Constitution. Over the years book distributors have declined to carry lots of stuff in their own inventories for whatever reasons they want. But they haven't tried to extend their control beyond their own buisnesses. They are exercising their First Amendment rights while respecting the First Amendment rights of others.

I note they have not interferred with anyone's speech.

I suppose we could always just ask them. You know? Ask, don't tell.

 

[Guest]

While the Constitution provides protections for free speech from government infringement, the concept of free speech exists outside of that document. When these book distributors talk about being in favor of free speech, they're not talking about constitutional guarantees, they're talking about people being able to speak and write freely without censorship, whether that censorship comes from the government or them. Yes, the have legal right to censor what they sell, but if they do that and also claim they're for free speech, then they're not practicing what they're preaching.

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.

The right of one person ends where the right of another person begins. One can support freedom of religion without condoning human sacrifice to the Volcano gods. One can support the right to peacefully assemble while also preventing people from assembling in your own front yard. I can support the right to bear arms and still not want guns in my own home. And I can support free speech and still reserve the right to not sell products that conflict with my own speech.

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.

 

[swolf]

Seems like they are talking about the Constitution.

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.

 

[@Suzanna]

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.