It is entirely within Apple's rights to choose what books to sell in their store - just like Barnes and Noble and Amazon are free to choose what books to sell. There is no reason to believe that Apple would ban a book just because someone mentions shopping at Target (or Amazon or Android store), though. That's just a silly straw man argument.
The point is, if a major distributor is deciding what content to carry based not on legality, slander, or material which is otherwise offensive to their customers, but instead based on their own competitive practices, then I personally consider that a form of censorship. It heavily influences content creators to consider the interests of the people distributing their work.
I feel the same way about news sources which won't report any stories that negatively affect partners or advertisers. I prefer my news and my creative content to be as free from commercial influence as possible -- because I prefer to get at the real fabric of the world, not just the whitewashed version.
Quote:
Never. Choosing not to carry a product for any reason is not censorship. Censorship means making it impossible for someone to access something from ANY source. In essence, only the government can be guilty of censorship. You're still free to buy the book somewhere else - if anyone else wants to carry it.
Ah yes, the libertarian capitalist will always sell everyone the argument that only government can be truly evil. When, in reality, it's large companies that play the biggest role in acting as the directing hand of our society these days. Either explicitly by lobbying the government to act in their best interests, or in more subtle ways.
Quote:
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
Speaking of straw man arguments... ROTFLMAO Completely different issue (see my earlier comment about content which could be offensive to customers).
Dude, Freedom of Speech applies to the government, not a private enterprise. Use a different word than pussies in the App title and it might be approved....
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
The TUAW article points out that the book Godin linked to isn't even available from Apple, so for Apple to dumbly hide behind a TOS mandate, and deny its customers content, is what is irritating.
pilgrim850, why is there no outcry that the Android Market is not available on the Amazon Kindle Fire? Why is there no Barnes and Nobles Reader on the Kindle Fire, nor a Kindle book reader on the B&N Nook? Why is it that Apple is the only one obliged to allow both book readers on their tablet?
Look, we are all Apple fans here, but we are not blindly following Apple. This really is an issue of specifically going against Apple's guidelines and linking to another store within the book.
What would be REALLY interesting is what would Apple do if this book was released for the Kindle - a book you buy elsewhere but then read on the Kindle App on the iPad, and that book WOULD link to the Kindle Store?
Then we would really have an interesting discussion on what Apple would do...
pilgrim850, why is there no outcry that the Android Market is not available on the Amazon Kindle Fire? Why is there no Barnes and Nobles Reader on the Kindle Fire, nor a Kindle book reader on the B&N Nook?
No, I don't have a problem with proprietary formats. It's the customer's choice to buy a locked-in book format, or not. Either way, the author's work is still presented as intended. Look, there are a thousand issues to go with the emergence of digital works, but to throw them at this problem to try to show an inconsistency is a waste of time, in my opinion. The point is the author being the voice of his work, not a bookstore.
What you bring up as interesting, "how will Apple respond to its TOS being challenged via a certain app linking back to etc.," is not interesting to me. Apple makes this up as it goes. Remember Apple's demand that companies charge no more for their services inside an iOS app as outside? Remember the backlash? Apple changed its policy.
Apple is showing a dark side in protecting its supposed rights and interests. We all know what fair play looks like. We don't need lawyers, or carefully worded TOS to tell us what is fair and what is draconian. I don't care what Apple thinks it deserves when creative media rights are at stake. We'll see a government investigation if Apple keeps this up, because the intentionality of Apple's actions is the biggest concern. They keep driving a harder and harder bargain with people, simply because they make a great infrastructure and believe they deserve everything that goes along with it, even the say of what authors write.
A link in an eBook? It's an authorial choice, let's be real here ... it's what an eBook is good for. You let Apple monitor how an eBook links to things, you are allowing Apple to dictate how an author writes his work. Seth Godin is a legitimate author, not a spam bot, so the charge that he is somehow taking advantage in his book is absurd. Get rid of all links, Apple, or stop selling eBooks if you can't handle how eBooks work.
The problem here is that there's no valid analogy in this case to paper/analog books, distribution or sales. In a traditional scenario, the bibliography lists references to sources by citing their title, author, publisher, etc. There was no commercial connection and therefore no conflict of interest. A reference to a book was not an endorsement of that book, since the info was available (assumedly) for free at one of millions of public libraries. There is no digital public library (yet). So for digital sources of material, online bookstores are the only go-to. A link in a bibliography is therefore more than citing a source, it's an advertisement for the book. And even if the link is to a hard copy of a book, its still an endorsement because it's linking to a sales site. The proper way to handle this would be to link to a reference site such as wikipedia or to the author's website. Linking directly to a seller isn't just violating Apple's rules, it's poor taste.
I don't know what library system services your area, but there are over 20,000 digital offerings at my library, as well as a $350,000,000 project proposal for a central digital access point at the main branch. -- Digital libraries have been present for quite some time.
As a library professional, much of my graduate-level education was centered upon intellectual freedom, the right to know, freedom of speech, and information access. This issue may have been completely circumvented by Apple's disabling of the hyperlink. -- Stating your source in a book is encouraged, protected and desirable. Connecting consumers to a purchasing platform outside of the platform that is supporting your work is distasteful, grey-area and less than respectful.
Both parties are in the wrong and treading into murky waters. -- Nonetheless, this author knows what he is doing. -- Nothing short of "Occupying Apple" and manipulating an obvious catch-22.
I know what you mean. Apple recently pissed me off big time. I'd been working hard on this iOS game called Ninja Pussies from Hell HD for over 5 months, and can you believe that they had the nerve to reject my app? They cited some silly rule about offensive sexual content. My pussies didn't even look like real pussies, these were 8 bit pussies and I don't see why Apple didn't allow my app.
I also had a few direct links to the STEAM store in my app, but I'm not sure if that too had anything to do with it getting rejected.
Where the hell is my freedom of speech? I'm so damned mad that I'm about to go outside and occupy something, or at the very least, maybe I'll piss on a cop car.
really... sarcasm?... you forgot the tag... but i am going to assume you are serious, thus...
REALLY?... "Ninja Pussies from Hell HD" are you kidding?... in some circles, "hell" is a swear word... and the word "pussies" is slang for v*gin* ( replace "*" with "a" ... not sure of the word policy here) how could you not know that?... if you are going to say that "pussies" is pural cats, then your game is animal cruelity... (or could be thought as such)...
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
OK. I call it green eggs and ham. That's just as accurate as what you're calling it.
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
Not true - Apple is not preventing it's iBooks software from registering a generic epub or PDF version of the book on the iBooks software. He is being denied a listing in the store which Apple (along with any other vendor) is allowed to do. Nobody is being deprived from this book even if they rely entirely on iBooks for their reading.
No vendor is under any legal or moral obligation to sell another vendors products unless there is an issue of monopoly or Anti-trust (legal issues BTW) - neither scenario which applies here.
This guys book is not being suppressed by any legal authority - there are many outlets that he can express his speech. The first amendment does not apply to private venues no matter how much you believe it to be the case. Heck, Apple isn't doing anything to deny him his right of speech - they never edited his book at all. They said "these are the things that we object to that violates our sales agreements. It would be his choice to change his own work. If he doesn't want to he is free to sell elsewhere. Apple doesn't claim any ownership. All they did is say "we don't want to sell this". That is their right. Apple is not a government. They get to set the terms of sale.
... If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. ...
There are slippery slopes everywhere, but, in this case, neither we nor Apple is walking on one. We're all still well up on the plateau.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
That is censorship.
You're simply playing word games. Trivially, yes, censorship can mean any stopping of speech or dissemination of content. We censor ourselves when we think, "You are an idiot," but don't speak it. Any bookstore that doesn't carry any book for any reason can be said to be "censoring" its offerings. Any publisher who declines to publish a book is "censoring" what it publishes.
Censorship also has more specific and pejorative meanings , including the government stopping publication of works.
Your argument is based on confounding the various meanings that the word can have by pointing out that Apple is indeed engaged in censorship (of the trivial kind) and that censorship (of the governmental book banning kind) is the bane of a free society. It has a certain degree of plausibility, but, ultimately, it depends on a confusion of thought to be convincing.
This is all much-ado-about-nothing... By including his Amazon Affiliate Links, Godin's book violates the iBookstore Terms of Service. Even more interesting, placingAmazon Affiliate links in the eBook is a violation of of Section 7 of the Amazon Associates Program ToS too (https://affiliate-program.amazon.com...ssoc_operating).
Apple isn't quashing Godin's freedom-of-speech, they're preventing him for monetizing their eco-system for free.
It's gratifying to see this community respond to what I'm saying, seriously. It doesn't happen often in a forum. You guys are spot-on in your responses. Very cool.
I do see ignorance, however, in the definition of the term censorship. It is not simply a definition applied to governments, any more than racism is simply done by governments. Both are enacted by powers-that-be, which can stifle expression, or advancement, of an individual or group.
Apple has been ramping up its influence in our society, from making insanely great computers, to internet-enabled devices, to selling music, movies, and now books. As I've said repeatedly, when Apple went into the business of selling books, it crossed a line of cultural seriousness. You may say that is my opinion, which only causes me to be more concerned for our society, because if you look at history, we don't burn anything but books when we want to make a statement, and we don't censor anything but books when we want to control what people are thinking and learning.
The written word has been the engine of change in our world since the beginning of ... the written word. The written word is what our democracy is founded on. We don't review the declaration of song, or watch a movie, when we want to remember what is law here, and what our country is founded on. We go to the Declaration or the Bill of Rights, or to the many other founding tomes which guide our nation's identity. (Yes, even evils like slavery, which were seen to be supported by our constitution, and were not, were combatted with books, including a now much-maligned but important work Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book which has been banned, and censored, variously.)
You may say I am flying far afield here, but I am simply trying to prove that books are different from songs and movies, in the way that books "work" in our society. Any power-that-be can suppress a reader's choices by declining a book for sale, especially a book by an author with a track-record of intelligent thought, and cultural significance. And when the reason to decline the book is arbitrary, from a cultural standpoint, and certainly a reader's, a precedent is set, whether you like to accept it or not. I don't see many of you here concerned because you don't appear to follow this closely. Apple, a world power in the marketplace, is setting a dangerous precedent.
To deny that links in an eBook are the sole authority of an author is ignorant. An eBook is a book, still, with some new functionality. Where that link points is none of a bookseller's business. Where the word censorship comes into full play is when Apple declines a work due to a certain place a link points, some being "acceptable" while others are not. Apple is taking its role as bookseller and distorting it, just as a newspaper--as another commentator pointed out--buries news unflattering to advertisers, or to its other papers, and simply leaves it out of the day's news cycle. Both are an abdication of duty for companies that have gotten into the business of words and perspective. There is no other excuse here. Apple is a sometimes bookseller, but always a voracious technology street fighter and control freak.
Apple should not be in the book business if it can't accept an eBook as having the same authorial rights as a printed book. The links were the author's choice. That 99% of you choose to view Apple's malfeasance as protecting a competitive advantage--at what cost? The sanctity of the product Apple is selling has just gone downhill, greatly.
Apple can, and does, know when media it sells was created with ill intent. As is clear, Seth Godin is not a spam bot. He is a legitimate, celebrated author. His purpose of linking to a textbook was to inform his readers. Apple does not sell said textbook. Apple wants the links removed. That is censoring the book. We are focused on Apple's conduct here, not wherever else it can be purchased. Apple says a lot about thinking different(ly) and being enlightened. Not here. With its cavalier attitude toward publishing, and greedy response to a non-event, it has shown itself to be motivated by things which real booksellers have no right to care about--what goes on inside of the legitimate, culturally significant books it sells.
Letting go of control, that it has no right to exercise in the first place, would be a good turnabout. Allowing eBooks to be books which send its readers wherever the author wants readers to go would respect the free market. Someday, eBooks are the only books we are going to have, and we're setting up what kinds of books those will be with incidents like this. Will you do nothing?
Apple should not be in the book business if it can't accept an eBook as having the same authorial rights as a printed book. The links were the author's choice. That 99% of you choose to view Apple's malfeasance as protecting a competitive advantage--at what cost? The sanctity of the product Apple is selling has just gone downhill, greatly.
Yes they can and they should. Appe isn't saying to their customer "you cannot view this text and the links". They are saying, "we will not sell this". That is a huge difference. If I open a book store, I can choose what I want to sell and how I want to sell it. If there are competitive choices I can do that. I can open up a bookstore and say " I want to carry these types of books, I can refuse to sell a book that falls outside of my desires. I am not censoring anybody in any real sense - I am engaging in a private business transaction between two parties. My bookstore doesn't have to contain Playboy in it nor do I have to sell the latest Glenn Beck diatribe. It's my choice and forcing me do do that is a violation of my freedoms of speech and expression.
Again, Apple is not forcing anybody to say or not say anything in their books. They merely say the requirements that a books must follow for them to sell it. Say I was operating a store with a strict no porn rule. Guess what, I can tell my book vendors that if a book has any form of graphical nudity - I won't carry it. I can even tell authors that. It is not immoral to deny somebody a platform in a private venue. If I own the forum, I get to set the rules. Kasper gets to decide what's allowed to be posted here (I think that he does, other people maybe). That's not really any sort of negative censorship.
You can say that there are 3 categories of censorship. There is positive types (for example the prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded theater) is good even when an authority figure commands it. There is also bad censorship, when we ban books from being published by force of law. There is also benign censorship which may be personally or privately imposed via mutual agreement. What happened here is benign. Apple blocked the selling of a book based on a set of rules that both parties agreed to and was privately done. Apple (nor any other private entity is obligated other than individual personal desire is obligated to give anybody a platform. That applies to books as well as spoken content.
Yes they can and they should. Appe isn't saying to their customer "you cannot view this text and the links". They are saying, "we will not sell this". That is a huge difference. If I open a book store, I can choose what I want to sell and how I want to sell it. If there are competitive choices I can do that. I can open up a bookstore and say " I want to carry these types of books, I can refuse to sell a book that falls outside of my desires. I am not censoring anybody in any real sense - I am engaging in a private business transaction between two parties. My bookstore doesn't have to contain Playboy in it nor do I have to sell the latest Glenn Beck diatribe. It's my choice and forcing me do do that is a violation of my freedoms of speech and expression.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
The iBookstore is a means for Apple to sell whatever books Apple wishes to sell - that's why they have guidelines just like every retailer does. It is not some institute owned by the public. I don't care who this guy is, nobody has a right to have their content sold everywhere. That right is an expression of freedom too.
Nobody can force me to sell anything that I do not want to by arguing censorship. That's abusing the term to an extreme. Just because Apple or I says no doesn't mean that I am denying something that you have an inherent right to. Your trowing around a word without regarding it's impact and implying malicious behavior. There is none. Apple exercised a right that they are entitled to.
Keep in mind that Apple isn?t blocking Godin?s book from being read in iBooks ? they?re simply not selling it in their e-book store.
Apple has no obligations period to sell a particular authors work so long as it follows the laws on commerce and it's not for a protected reason. Lots of bookstores refuse to carry all sorts of books. That's called business decisions. You are free to question those decisions, but we shouldn't be throwing around terms without regard. I think Apple's decisions are sometimes silly myself, but I don't see any problems here. He has lots of options to get his book published (I wish him all the luck on that) but whatever happens is business.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
It's about a retailer choosing not to sell a product that conflicts with their business model.
It's fine that you think that a retailer shouldn't have a choice in what is sold or that you're ignoring Amazon's stating it will not carry products that are sold in iBookstore, but what pisses me off are your hypocritical and hyperbolic comments. Shame on you!
Indeed - we can (and have) criticized Apples (and other companies) decisions. Heck, it's encouraged around here. Nobody wants this to be an area where we just cheer Apple on or just disparage the competition and nothing else. Nobody would tolerate it and this would be a barren wasteland.
However we like to encourage valid and constructive criticism else it becomes meaningless. Just throwing the word censorship is pointless since it does two things: It sounds trollish and invites further trollish behavior from others, and it also diminishes real and valid censorship that actually is going on in the real world. We just toss around the word "censorship" it just looses its meaning when we really do need it.
It's about a retailer choosing not to sell a product that conflicts with their business model.
It's fine that you think that a retailer shouldn't have a choice in what is sold or that you're ignoring Amazon's stating it will not carry products that are sold in iBookstore, but what pisses me off are your hypocritical and hyperbolic comments. Shame on you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy
Indeed - we can (and have) criticized Apples (and other companies) decisions. Heck, it's encouraged around here. Nobody wants this to be an area where we just cheer Apple on or just disparage the competition and nothing else. Nobody would tolerate it and this would be a barren wasteland.
However we like to encourage valid and constructive criticism else it becomes meaningless. Just throwing the word censorship is pointless since it does two things: It sounds trollish and invites further trollish behavior from others, and it also diminishes real and valid censorship that actually is going on in the real world. We just toss around the word "censorship" it just looses its meaning when we really do need it.
I can't be held responsible for you guys not understanding the nature of this debate. You both seem to write before you think. Maybe you should buy slower keyboards.
SolipsismX, Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. That is the problem. Apple is. If a book is not sold, outright, over a licensing issue, that is one thing--definitely not preferable, but licensing issues exist outside of the book. To pressure a change to a manuscript itself is unforgivable, and it will lead to darker places as eBooks become the standard in bookselling.
diddy, altering a manuscript, or seeking to alter it, is censorship. Read up on this issue. I am not the only one saying this. This is a case of valid censorship. Apple is acting like China, more than an American company. I am concerned about where this leads, because it is primed to affect me personally, to have a store (which thinks it's a publisher) tell me what is OK to put in my book.
I see in your emotional responses an unhealthy attachment to the power which Apple wields in this world. "If Apple does something, it must be moral." I don't have a problem accepting Apple's greatness on a technological level, but Apple has shown itself to be out of its depth on media issues, and while you guys are asleep at your iDevices, others of us are acutely aware of the ramifications of asking for "innocent' alterations to a writer's manuscript. It is a big deal to writers and readers, if not to techno-fans like yourselves.
Comments
It is entirely within Apple's rights to choose what books to sell in their store - just like Barnes and Noble and Amazon are free to choose what books to sell. There is no reason to believe that Apple would ban a book just because someone mentions shopping at Target (or Amazon or Android store), though. That's just a silly straw man argument.
The point is, if a major distributor is deciding what content to carry based not on legality, slander, or material which is otherwise offensive to their customers, but instead based on their own competitive practices, then I personally consider that a form of censorship. It heavily influences content creators to consider the interests of the people distributing their work.
I feel the same way about news sources which won't report any stories that negatively affect partners or advertisers. I prefer my news and my creative content to be as free from commercial influence as possible -- because I prefer to get at the real fabric of the world, not just the whitewashed version.
Never. Choosing not to carry a product for any reason is not censorship. Censorship means making it impossible for someone to access something from ANY source. In essence, only the government can be guilty of censorship. You're still free to buy the book somewhere else - if anyone else wants to carry it.
Ah yes, the libertarian capitalist will always sell everyone the argument that only government can be truly evil. When, in reality, it's large companies that play the biggest role in acting as the directing hand of our society these days. Either explicitly by lobbying the government to act in their best interests, or in more subtle ways.
BTW, why aren't you out picketing Walmart for their decision not to carry Playboy?
Speaking of straw man arguments... ROTFLMAO
Dude, Freedom of Speech applies to the government, not a private enterprise. Use a different word than pussies in the App title and it might be approved....
That might have been sarcasm.
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
The TUAW article points out that the book Godin linked to isn't even available from Apple, so for Apple to dumbly hide behind a TOS mandate, and deny its customers content, is what is irritating.
pilgrim850, why is there no outcry that the Android Market is not available on the Amazon Kindle Fire? Why is there no Barnes and Nobles Reader on the Kindle Fire, nor a Kindle book reader on the B&N Nook? Why is it that Apple is the only one obliged to allow both book readers on their tablet?
Look, we are all Apple fans here, but we are not blindly following Apple. This really is an issue of specifically going against Apple's guidelines and linking to another store within the book.
What would be REALLY interesting is what would Apple do if this book was released for the Kindle - a book you buy elsewhere but then read on the Kindle App on the iPad, and that book WOULD link to the Kindle Store?
Then we would really have an interesting discussion on what Apple would do...
pilgrim850, why is there no outcry that the Android Market is not available on the Amazon Kindle Fire? Why is there no Barnes and Nobles Reader on the Kindle Fire, nor a Kindle book reader on the B&N Nook?
No, I don't have a problem with proprietary formats. It's the customer's choice to buy a locked-in book format, or not. Either way, the author's work is still presented as intended. Look, there are a thousand issues to go with the emergence of digital works, but to throw them at this problem to try to show an inconsistency is a waste of time, in my opinion. The point is the author being the voice of his work, not a bookstore.
What you bring up as interesting, "how will Apple respond to its TOS being challenged via a certain app linking back to etc.," is not interesting to me. Apple makes this up as it goes. Remember Apple's demand that companies charge no more for their services inside an iOS app as outside? Remember the backlash? Apple changed its policy.
Apple is showing a dark side in protecting its supposed rights and interests. We all know what fair play looks like. We don't need lawyers, or carefully worded TOS to tell us what is fair and what is draconian. I don't care what Apple thinks it deserves when creative media rights are at stake. We'll see a government investigation if Apple keeps this up, because the intentionality of Apple's actions is the biggest concern. They keep driving a harder and harder bargain with people, simply because they make a great infrastructure and believe they deserve everything that goes along with it, even the say of what authors write.
A link in an eBook? It's an authorial choice, let's be real here ... it's what an eBook is good for. You let Apple monitor how an eBook links to things, you are allowing Apple to dictate how an author writes his work. Seth Godin is a legitimate author, not a spam bot, so the charge that he is somehow taking advantage in his book is absurd. Get rid of all links, Apple, or stop selling eBooks if you can't handle how eBooks work.
The problem here is that there's no valid analogy in this case to paper/analog books, distribution or sales. In a traditional scenario, the bibliography lists references to sources by citing their title, author, publisher, etc. There was no commercial connection and therefore no conflict of interest. A reference to a book was not an endorsement of that book, since the info was available (assumedly) for free at one of millions of public libraries. There is no digital public library (yet). So for digital sources of material, online bookstores are the only go-to. A link in a bibliography is therefore more than citing a source, it's an advertisement for the book. And even if the link is to a hard copy of a book, its still an endorsement because it's linking to a sales site. The proper way to handle this would be to link to a reference site such as wikipedia or to the author's website. Linking directly to a seller isn't just violating Apple's rules, it's poor taste.
I don't know what library system services your area, but there are over 20,000 digital offerings at my library, as well as a $350,000,000 project proposal for a central digital access point at the main branch. -- Digital libraries have been present for quite some time.
Both parties are in the wrong and treading into murky waters. -- Nonetheless, this author knows what he is doing. -- Nothing short of "Occupying Apple" and manipulating an obvious catch-22.
I know what you mean. Apple recently pissed me off big time. I'd been working hard on this iOS game called Ninja Pussies from Hell HD for over 5 months, and can you believe that they had the nerve to reject my app? They cited some silly rule about offensive sexual content. My pussies didn't even look like real pussies, these were 8 bit pussies and I don't see why Apple didn't allow my app.
I also had a few direct links to the STEAM store in my app, but I'm not sure if that too had anything to do with it getting rejected.
Where the hell is my freedom of speech? I'm so damned mad that I'm about to go outside and occupy something, or at the very least, maybe I'll piss on a cop car.
really... sarcasm?... you forgot the tag... but i am going to assume you are serious, thus...
REALLY?... "Ninja Pussies from Hell HD" are you kidding?... in some circles, "hell" is a swear word... and the word "pussies" is slang for v*gin* ( replace "*" with "a" ... not sure of the word policy here) how could you not know that?... if you are going to say that "pussies" is pural cats, then your game is animal cruelity... (or could be thought as such)...
to sum up, you should know better...
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
OK. I call it green eggs and ham. That's just as accurate as what you're calling it.
We're giving this guy free PR because why?
Because he manipulated the blogosphere into giving it to him, and AI never met a contrived controversy it didn't like.
Originally Posted by pilgrim850
If you're trying to be an Apple customer, and use iBooks as you do iTunes, then no, you can't access the book. Apple is not providing it to you, for a business-conflict reason that has nothing to do with you. I call that censorship. You can call it whatever you want.
Not true - Apple is not preventing it's iBooks software from registering a generic epub or PDF version of the book on the iBooks software. He is being denied a listing in the store which Apple (along with any other vendor) is allowed to do. Nobody is being deprived from this book even if they rely entirely on iBooks for their reading.
No vendor is under any legal or moral obligation to sell another vendors products unless there is an issue of monopoly or Anti-trust (legal issues BTW) - neither scenario which applies here.
This guys book is not being suppressed by any legal authority - there are many outlets that he can express his speech. The first amendment does not apply to private venues no matter how much you believe it to be the case. Heck, Apple isn't doing anything to deny him his right of speech - they never edited his book at all. They said "these are the things that we object to that violates our sales agreements. It would be his choice to change his own work. If he doesn't want to he is free to sell elsewhere. Apple doesn't claim any ownership. All they did is say "we don't want to sell this". That is their right. Apple is not a government. They get to set the terms of sale.
... If we bend over backwards to see Apple's "right" to protect its competitive advantage--just some offensive links, after all--we start down a slippery slope. ...
There are slippery slopes everywhere, but, in this case, neither we nor Apple is walking on one. We're all still well up on the plateau.
That is censorship.
You're simply playing word games. Trivially, yes, censorship can mean any stopping of speech or dissemination of content. We censor ourselves when we think, "You are an idiot," but don't speak it. Any bookstore that doesn't carry any book for any reason can be said to be "censoring" its offerings. Any publisher who declines to publish a book is "censoring" what it publishes.
Censorship also has more specific and pejorative meanings , including the government stopping publication of works.
Your argument is based on confounding the various meanings that the word can have by pointing out that Apple is indeed engaged in censorship (of the trivial kind) and that censorship (of the governmental book banning kind) is the bane of a free society. It has a certain degree of plausibility, but, ultimately, it depends on a confusion of thought to be convincing.
Apple isn't quashing Godin's freedom-of-speech, they're preventing him for monetizing their eco-system for free.
I do see ignorance, however, in the definition of the term censorship. It is not simply a definition applied to governments, any more than racism is simply done by governments. Both are enacted by powers-that-be, which can stifle expression, or advancement, of an individual or group.
Apple has been ramping up its influence in our society, from making insanely great computers, to internet-enabled devices, to selling music, movies, and now books. As I've said repeatedly, when Apple went into the business of selling books, it crossed a line of cultural seriousness. You may say that is my opinion, which only causes me to be more concerned for our society, because if you look at history, we don't burn anything but books when we want to make a statement, and we don't censor anything but books when we want to control what people are thinking and learning.
The written word has been the engine of change in our world since the beginning of ... the written word. The written word is what our democracy is founded on. We don't review the declaration of song, or watch a movie, when we want to remember what is law here, and what our country is founded on. We go to the Declaration or the Bill of Rights, or to the many other founding tomes which guide our nation's identity. (Yes, even evils like slavery, which were seen to be supported by our constitution, and were not, were combatted with books, including a now much-maligned but important work Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book which has been banned, and censored, variously.)
You may say I am flying far afield here, but I am simply trying to prove that books are different from songs and movies, in the way that books "work" in our society. Any power-that-be can suppress a reader's choices by declining a book for sale, especially a book by an author with a track-record of intelligent thought, and cultural significance. And when the reason to decline the book is arbitrary, from a cultural standpoint, and certainly a reader's, a precedent is set, whether you like to accept it or not. I don't see many of you here concerned because you don't appear to follow this closely. Apple, a world power in the marketplace, is setting a dangerous precedent.
To deny that links in an eBook are the sole authority of an author is ignorant. An eBook is a book, still, with some new functionality. Where that link points is none of a bookseller's business. Where the word censorship comes into full play is when Apple declines a work due to a certain place a link points, some being "acceptable" while others are not. Apple is taking its role as bookseller and distorting it, just as a newspaper--as another commentator pointed out--buries news unflattering to advertisers, or to its other papers, and simply leaves it out of the day's news cycle. Both are an abdication of duty for companies that have gotten into the business of words and perspective. There is no other excuse here. Apple is a sometimes bookseller, but always a voracious technology street fighter and control freak.
Apple should not be in the book business if it can't accept an eBook as having the same authorial rights as a printed book. The links were the author's choice. That 99% of you choose to view Apple's malfeasance as protecting a competitive advantage--at what cost? The sanctity of the product Apple is selling has just gone downhill, greatly.
Apple can, and does, know when media it sells was created with ill intent. As is clear, Seth Godin is not a spam bot. He is a legitimate, celebrated author. His purpose of linking to a textbook was to inform his readers. Apple does not sell said textbook. Apple wants the links removed. That is censoring the book. We are focused on Apple's conduct here, not wherever else it can be purchased. Apple says a lot about thinking different(ly) and being enlightened. Not here. With its cavalier attitude toward publishing, and greedy response to a non-event, it has shown itself to be motivated by things which real booksellers have no right to care about--what goes on inside of the legitimate, culturally significant books it sells.
Letting go of control, that it has no right to exercise in the first place, would be a good turnabout. Allowing eBooks to be books which send its readers wherever the author wants readers to go would respect the free market. Someday, eBooks are the only books we are going to have, and we're setting up what kinds of books those will be with incidents like this. Will you do nothing?
Apple should not be in the book business if it can't accept an eBook as having the same authorial rights as a printed book. The links were the author's choice. That 99% of you choose to view Apple's malfeasance as protecting a competitive advantage--at what cost? The sanctity of the product Apple is selling has just gone downhill, greatly.
Yes they can and they should. Appe isn't saying to their customer "you cannot view this text and the links". They are saying, "we will not sell this". That is a huge difference. If I open a book store, I can choose what I want to sell and how I want to sell it. If there are competitive choices I can do that. I can open up a bookstore and say " I want to carry these types of books, I can refuse to sell a book that falls outside of my desires. I am not censoring anybody in any real sense - I am engaging in a private business transaction between two parties. My bookstore doesn't have to contain Playboy in it nor do I have to sell the latest Glenn Beck diatribe. It's my choice and forcing me do do that is a violation of my freedoms of speech and expression.
Again, Apple is not forcing anybody to say or not say anything in their books. They merely say the requirements that a books must follow for them to sell it. Say I was operating a store with a strict no porn rule. Guess what, I can tell my book vendors that if a book has any form of graphical nudity - I won't carry it. I can even tell authors that. It is not immoral to deny somebody a platform in a private venue. If I own the forum, I get to set the rules. Kasper gets to decide what's allowed to be posted here (I think that he does, other people maybe). That's not really any sort of negative censorship.
You can say that there are 3 categories of censorship. There is positive types (for example the prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded theater) is good even when an authority figure commands it. There is also bad censorship, when we ban books from being published by force of law. There is also benign censorship which may be personally or privately imposed via mutual agreement. What happened here is benign. Apple blocked the selling of a book based on a set of rules that both parties agreed to and was privately done. Apple (nor any other private entity is obligated other than individual personal desire is obligated to give anybody a platform. That applies to books as well as spoken content.
Yes they can and they should. Appe isn't saying to their customer "you cannot view this text and the links". They are saying, "we will not sell this". That is a huge difference. If I open a book store, I can choose what I want to sell and how I want to sell it. If there are competitive choices I can do that. I can open up a bookstore and say " I want to carry these types of books, I can refuse to sell a book that falls outside of my desires. I am not censoring anybody in any real sense - I am engaging in a private business transaction between two parties. My bookstore doesn't have to contain Playboy in it nor do I have to sell the latest Glenn Beck diatribe. It's my choice and forcing me do do that is a violation of my freedoms of speech and expression.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
The iBookstore is a means for Apple to sell whatever books Apple wishes to sell - that's why they have guidelines just like every retailer does. It is not some institute owned by the public. I don't care who this guy is, nobody has a right to have their content sold everywhere. That right is an expression of freedom too.
Nobody can force me to sell anything that I do not want to by arguing censorship. That's abusing the term to an extreme. Just because Apple or I says no doesn't mean that I am denying something that you have an inherent right to. Your trowing around a word without regarding it's impact and implying malicious behavior. There is none. Apple exercised a right that they are entitled to.
As John Gruber points out:
Keep in mind that Apple isn?t blocking Godin?s book from being read in iBooks ? they?re simply not selling it in their e-book store.
Apple has no obligations period to sell a particular authors work so long as it follows the laws on commerce and it's not for a protected reason. Lots of bookstores refuse to carry all sorts of books. That's called business decisions. You are free to question those decisions, but we shouldn't be throwing around terms without regard. I think Apple's decisions are sometimes silly myself, but I don't see any problems here. He has lots of options to get his book published (I wish him all the luck on that) but whatever happens is business.
Seth Godin is a technology and internet-cultural writer. He is the exact type of writer than the iBookstore exists to publish.
It isn't about selling pornography, or mysteries in a feminist bookstore. You are grasping at straws here.
It's about a retailer choosing not to sell a product that conflicts with their business model.
It's fine that you think that a retailer shouldn't have a choice in what is sold or that you're ignoring Amazon's stating it will not carry products that are sold in iBookstore, but what pisses me off are your hypocritical and hyperbolic comments. Shame on you!
However we like to encourage valid and constructive criticism else it becomes meaningless. Just throwing the word censorship is pointless since it does two things: It sounds trollish and invites further trollish behavior from others, and it also diminishes real and valid censorship that actually is going on in the real world. We just toss around the word "censorship" it just looses its meaning when we really do need it.
It's about a retailer choosing not to sell a product that conflicts with their business model.
It's fine that you think that a retailer shouldn't have a choice in what is sold or that you're ignoring Amazon's stating it will not carry products that are sold in iBookstore, but what pisses me off are your hypocritical and hyperbolic comments. Shame on you!
Indeed - we can (and have) criticized Apples (and other companies) decisions. Heck, it's encouraged around here. Nobody wants this to be an area where we just cheer Apple on or just disparage the competition and nothing else. Nobody would tolerate it and this would be a barren wasteland.
However we like to encourage valid and constructive criticism else it becomes meaningless. Just throwing the word censorship is pointless since it does two things: It sounds trollish and invites further trollish behavior from others, and it also diminishes real and valid censorship that actually is going on in the real world. We just toss around the word "censorship" it just looses its meaning when we really do need it.
I can't be held responsible for you guys not understanding the nature of this debate. You both seem to write before you think. Maybe you should buy slower keyboards.
SolipsismX, Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. That is the problem. Apple is. If a book is not sold, outright, over a licensing issue, that is one thing--definitely not preferable, but licensing issues exist outside of the book. To pressure a change to a manuscript itself is unforgivable, and it will lead to darker places as eBooks become the standard in bookselling.
diddy, altering a manuscript, or seeking to alter it, is censorship. Read up on this issue. I am not the only one saying this. This is a case of valid censorship. Apple is acting like China, more than an American company. I am concerned about where this leads, because it is primed to affect me personally, to have a store (which thinks it's a publisher) tell me what is OK to put in my book.
I see in your emotional responses an unhealthy attachment to the power which Apple wields in this world. "If Apple does something, it must be moral." I don't have a problem accepting Apple's greatness on a technological level, but Apple has shown itself to be out of its depth on media issues, and while you guys are asleep at your iDevices, others of us are acutely aware of the ramifications of asking for "innocent' alterations to a writer's manuscript. It is a big deal to writers and readers, if not to techno-fans like yourselves.