The accusation, if true, is pretty low. Let's say I wrote a book on how to build a DIY computer and linked to Amazon for items of a computer parts list used for building said computer, would Apple block it? Probably, they sell computers too, right?
Content you sell linking elsewhere is no different than an app linking elsewhere. the rules still apply.
If the guy linked to these books in the iTunes Bookstore as well, he may have a point, but he linked to Amazon, because Amazon gives him a take when he does (he linked with a referral ID)
All in all, pretty weak argument from this guy. If he wrote the book you mentioned (to build a computer), we could see what would happen and then have the discussion, but most likely it would be the same.
You fail to understand what censorship or freedom os speech means. A retailer choosing not to sell an item is not the same thing as the item not allow to exist within a nation.
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
Apple did not censor the content - he could have resubmitted the book without the links, still with the name of the books and the authors. Apple objected to this guy trying to profit off the links by linking to Amazon with a referral ID. He disobeyed two of Apple's rules - linking to an external store, and profiting without giving Apple the 30% take (not creating your own ecommerce within your content).
I am really disappointed you are equating this with censorship, because censorship IS a big issue, and Apple does that as well, this is just not it! Equating the two makes it so as when Apple really does censor content, people bitching about it sounds whiney. Think about this a little more before you continue (Is me saying that censorship?)
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
I never said it did.
What I have said is, a real bookstore does not tell an author how to write his book. A bookstore rejects the book outright, or approves it. Apple wants to remove--censor--inoffensive material.
A book is more than a product. It's a free-speech activity. That 's why it's a big deal. For Apple to play the role of a self-serving government, with its shareholders taking precedent over an author's rights to write what he wants, and a reader to read the work as intended, is disturbing.
When WalMart forced album covers to be changed, it was called what it was--censorship. When China pressures writers, it's called what it is. When Apple does it, it's a shrewd business move?
Yes, this Apple decision is very small, but it is the same concept as these other acts. When digital bookstores begin to lean on writers even more, for "commercial" reasons, and act like de facto publishers, then we as readers will see the full effect of a small decision like Apple has made here.
What I have said is, a real bookstore does not tell an author how to write his book. A bookstore rejects the book outright, or approves it. Apple wants to remove?censor?inoffensive material.
Which is exactly the same as a bookstore rejecting the book outright or approving it. The end game is identical. Apple is doing something BETTER for both parties than outright rejection in that it would accept the book as is minus the links.
Quote:
For Apple to play the role of a self-serving government, with its shareholders taking precedent over an author's rights to write what he wants, and a reader to read the work as intended, is disturbing.
But you're fine with a "real bookstore" rejecting books outright for some reason.
Quote:
When WalMart forced album covers to be changed, it was called what it was--censorship.
I'm confused, these bands were forced to sell their music at Wal-Mart? That sounds like a more grievous infringement of rights than what Wal-Mart did.
Which is exactly the same as a bookstore rejecting the book outright or approving it. The end game is identical. Apple is doing something BETTER for both parties than outright rejection in that it would accept the book as is minus the links.
But you're fine with a "real bookstore" rejecting books outright for some reason.
I'm confused, these bands were forced to sell their music at Wal-Mart? That sounds like a more grievous infringement of rights than what Wal-Mart did.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write. It is not a favor to an author to tell him what he needs to do to gain acceptance in your store. That is pressure. It is anti-speech. It is telling the writer how to do his job. Reject it, and move on. Let your competitors sell it, and if they were right and you were wrong, they will make the money while you further isolate yourself as antagonistic to readers and writers.
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong. Books are the lifeblood of a democracy, and censorship of books--for any reason--brings up serious issues.
A writer writes for an audience, not for a corporate entity. I just wish you guys could turn off the Apple vision for a minute, and go back to before there was a digital medium. Books are the wanton purview of the author, to connect with a reader. Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Before you accuse me of being full of myself, this is exactly the attitude that Apple has about technology. Apple does what will benefit the user, not what the corporate mentality wants. It is so uncharacteristic of Apple to step in between writer and reader, out of a misaligned sense of competitiveness. Yes, these are links in question, but those links are part of the book.
You are doing what the other guy was doing, by bringing up the idea that artists aren't "forced" sell their works through WalMart or Apple. Of course you are right. But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did. You can't diminish a right-wing attitude just because there are other options. Apple makes a lot of money from its image as a friend to the artist, and this decision is backwards to that goal, why I brought WalMart into it. Apple is in its league on this decision, and trying change the focus, and the subject, can't alter that fact.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write.
Okay, and how is that different from what happened?
Quote:
In a Wednesday post on website PaidContent , Godin writes that Apple has chosen to not carry his new ebook "Stop Stealing Dreams" in the iBookstore due to number of links in the bibliography that direct readers to Amazon's competing marketplace.
It says, "chosen not to carry". It doesn't say, "removed/changed my content after the fact". Did Apple remove the links and post the book anyway?
Quote:
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong.
So Target should be allowed to sell its own brand-name stuff at Wal-Mart?
Quote:
Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Right, and as the wants and desires of a single bookstore don't matter, so should he want to continue to have his referral links in his book, he can sell it in the many other bookstores available.
Quote:
But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did.
Again, I don't see anything that says Apple removed the links. It says 'chosen not to carry'. Apple DID NOT censor the book. Apple DID NOT change the content themselves.
If you don't like the rules, don't sell your books on the Apple store.
You are absolutely right. He shouldn't sell his book through iBooks. And neither should any other author who wants their readers to be able to read their books on multiple different platforms and devices. What is their motivation to sell anything via Apple? Apple takes a larger cut, and then further eats into their revenue by denying them the ability to link to Amazon where they can get a share of the sales. And what if the book they were linking to wasn't available on iBooks? What if they wren't even linking to an e-book but something physical which Apple doesn't sell? Would Apple block those, too? And then Apple also wants to forbid the author from pricing their content higher on the iBookstore than on Amazon to make up for the revenue lost from not being able to link to Amazon.
You are absolutely correct that it's Apple's choice to not sell this book, but it's choices like that which will keep iBooks as a 2nd-rate player in the electronic publishing market.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write. It is not a favor to an author to tell him what he needs to do to gain acceptance in your store. That is pressure. It is anti-speech. It is telling the writer how to do his job. Reject it, and move on. Let your competitors sell it, and if they were right and you were wrong, they will make the money while you further isolate yourself as antagonistic to readers and writers.
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong. Books are the lifeblood of a democracy, and censorship of books--for any reason--brings up serious issues.
A writer writes for an audience, not for a corporate entity. I just wish you guys could turn off the Apple vision for a minute, and go back to before there was a digital medium. Books are the wanton purview of the author, to connect with a reader. Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Before you accuse me of being full of myself, this is exactly the attitude that Apple has about technology. Apple does what will benefit the user, not what the corporate mentality wants. It is so uncharacteristic of Apple to step in between writer and reader, out of a misaligned sense of competitiveness. Yes, these are links in question, but those links are part of the book.
You are doing what the other guy was doing, by bringing up the idea that artists aren't "forced" sell their works through WalMart or Apple. Of course you are right. But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did. You can't diminish a right-wing attitude just because there are other options. Apple makes a lot of money from its image as a friend to the artist, and this decision is backwards to that goal, why I brought WalMart into it. Apple is in its league on this decision, and trying change the focus, and the subject, can't alter that fact.
Your arguments are passionate. And well-crafted.
But let me ask you, shouldn't your arguments also apply to pornography? Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Where is the line drawn? Who draws that line?
Also, it's not like you don't have other means to access your readership. The same technology that you are complaining about also opens up all kinds of options for you to disintermediate the middleman, no? For example, you could form a cooperative that is a writers' collective and access those who want no space between the writer and the reader?
When Apple points out the so-called offensive parts as the reason the book was not accepted, and then has a reputation of having the material resubmitted--with changes made--you call that business. I call that asking the writer to change his book for a store. I call that censorship.
As I said, I see books differently from iPhone apps. Apple is in over its head, to treat books like negotiated media. Books are not apps. They are central our free speech. You don't negotiate with a writer to have the book accepted into your store. You just don't do that in a democracy.
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree. Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
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.
I'm holding out a wad of dollars in my hand and my eyes are lighting up enthusiastically!
When Apple points out the so-called offensive parts as the reason the book was not accepted, and then has a reputation of having the material resubmitted--with changes made--you call that business. I call that asking the writer to change his book for a store. I call that censorship.
So Target SHOULD be able to sell their brand of stuff at Wal-Mart. That's what you're saying?
Quote:
Apple is in over its head, to treat books like negotiated media. Books are not apps. They are central our free speech.
Video is negotiated media, too. Apple only sells certain video from networks and networks only air certain video. Video's also a means of free speech.
Quote:
You don't negotiate with a writer to have the book accepted into your store. You just don't do that in a democracy.
Right, you just ban the book outright, because that's okay. \
Quote:
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree.
I see it as both. I also see the freedom for a retailer to sell what it wants and not what it doesn't. They're free to choose their criteria for sales and succeed or fail on that merit. Meanwhile, content creators are free to sell/distribute their stuff in as many venues as will have them.
Apple did not censor the book. Period. It didn't happen. They chose not to sell it. That's not censorship. If EVERYONE chose not to sell it, that's censorship. Since China has state-run media, if THEY choose not to air/print something, THAT is censorship. There's no alternative there.
There are hundreds of alternatives to Apple here. Because it's a democracy.
Quote:
Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
So you're giving up here?
OH WAIT, I've just… how did I miss this? Maybe I didn't, who knows?
Who says this is a censorship problem? Who says Apple wouldn't accept the book content without the external links? I don't see Apple having a problem with the book content, just the links to give Amazon money. It has NOTHING to do with the content of the book.
But let me ask you, shouldn't your arguments also apply to pornography? Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Where is the line drawn? Who draws that line?
Also, it's not like you don't have other means to access your readership. The same technology that you are complaining about also opens up all kinds of options for you to disintermediate the middleman, no? For example, you could form a cooperative that is a writers' collective and access those who want no space between the writer and the reader?
Most of us have a low tolerance for pornography/hate speech and the other stuff you mention--at least in the public sphere. (While some of us probably enjoy/indulge those things ... privately.) So for sake of argument, let's agree that we understand why Apple, or Barnes and Noble, would steer clear of this material for business reasons. It offends a lot of people and that's not good business.
The line I am pointing out is that Apple has gone beyond generally-accepted "icky" speech, into corporate speech issues which are not objectionable to anyone but Apple. So many readers on this site are so aligned with Apple that "whatever is good for GM is good for the country." But as a writer, and a reader, I break from this philosophy (which I generally share, for being here). I am worried that "what is good for Apple" does not align with what is good for readers.
Yes, writers have other options than to go with Apple, as you say. However, since Apple is the biggest, most valued company in the world, what Apple does matters to everyone, and its policies can have an effect on other companies (policies which are seemingly created overnight sometimes), which is why I focus on its actions so closely.
Let's take the argument that Apple acts as a de facto book "publisher" as well as seller (since eBooks are "published" on bookstores like iBookstore). Certainly, book publishers will edit/censor you all day long! They won't accept your book until they feel it is right for them, and since traditional publishers are footing the bill for your work, you go along or publish it yourself.
While Random House has a vested interest in shaping your book, by taking on your project, assigning you an editor on their dime, paying for promotion, etc., Apple has made no such investment in your work. They really aren't a publisher. They are a clearing house/marketplace.
Unless Apple takes on the role of a traditional publisher, promoting you, paying you in advance, it does not deserve to act like a traditional publisher in terms of telling writers what to publish, and how. It has a right (in my opinion) to reject "objectionable" material that will offend readers (like how it rejects pornography), but that is done for the sake of the reader. Rejecting a book because it links to Amazon is solely an issue that Apple has. A reader may appreciate those links.
In the end, I am arguing over what Apple "should" do, based on its creative image, and its many promises to unlock the greater potential for all people. I am not saying that Apple is preventing writers from publishing other places. But with Apple's track record, I think they are being hypocrites here. That is all I'm saying. Censoring, or "strongly suggesting that something be changed otherwise it will not be sold," should not extend to books, as iPhone apps. Books are different.
Well, yeah. I am giving up, kinda. You can't connect with everyone.
As long as you continue to discuss books as products (WalMart and Target references), as well as works of art, and blend the definition of censorship--trying to say I'm equating a state-run banning with Apple's disapproval of an inoffensive link, which caused Apple to request the link to be removed (censorship of a different sort)--then there isn't much of a shared concept to discuss from.
I do see the digital generation as viewing books as just another medium, to be negotiated, like an iPhone app. There isn't the view of a book as a take-it-or-leave-it sacred work, as I view it. Apple is blurring those lines, big time, with its "curated" approach to creative media. I, for one, don't like it.
From where I stand, what Apple is doing won't fly with me. I would never seek to be curated by them with a book. I wouldn't submit my work to be approved by Apple. It is a store, not a publisher. It's kind of a "where do you get off" thing. I esteem Apple in practically every other area. Not here.
From where I stand, what Apple is doing won't fly with me. I would never seek to be curated by them with a book. I wouldn't submit my work to be approved by Apple. It is a store, not a publisher. It's kind of a "where do you get off" thing.
And that's the risk a company takes a free market.
The flip side of that would be a company that chose to sell something that ended up losing customers. For instance, a cloth maker or retailer that uses child labor.
You can't tell a company what products to sell and still expect people to see as impartial and accepting a free market system.
Comments
There are no in app purchases in iBooks.
The accusation, if true, is pretty low. Let's say I wrote a book on how to build a DIY computer and linked to Amazon for items of a computer parts list used for building said computer, would Apple block it? Probably, they sell computers too, right?
Content you sell linking elsewhere is no different than an app linking elsewhere. the rules still apply.
If the guy linked to these books in the iTunes Bookstore as well, he may have a point, but he linked to Amazon, because Amazon gives him a take when he does (he linked with a referral ID)
All in all, pretty weak argument from this guy. If he wrote the book you mentioned (to build a computer), we could see what would happen and then have the discussion, but most likely it would be the same.
You fail to understand what censorship or freedom os speech means. A retailer choosing not to sell an item is not the same thing as the item not allow to exist within a nation.
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale,
Apple prefers the word "curate". It sounds very classy, like a museum or something.
Censor, on the other hand, doesn't sound so good.
You are confused, in that you believe censorship to only be a governmental thing. Apple censored the work by denying its sale, and pointing out the objectionable content. Apple participated in censorship, regardless of the book's viability in other stores (which are dwindling by the minute, due to the digital book market changing everything). Apple pointed out the content, the links, which proves that it wants the book altered for sale.
How this doesn't bother anyone is really surprising. As long as Apple is doing the censoring, for some anxiety that only it sees (how a company of its power and wealth could be afraid of eBook links), then otherwise-liberal thinkers that support Apple will support, even commend, Apple's going into a book and requesting subjective changes to an author's inoffensive work.
Apple did not censor the content - he could have resubmitted the book without the links, still with the name of the books and the authors. Apple objected to this guy trying to profit off the links by linking to Amazon with a referral ID. He disobeyed two of Apple's rules - linking to an external store, and profiting without giving Apple the 30% take (not creating your own ecommerce within your content).
I am really disappointed you are equating this with censorship, because censorship IS a big issue, and Apple does that as well, this is just not it! Equating the two makes it so as when Apple really does censor content, people bitching about it sounds whiney. Think about this a little more before you continue (Is me saying that censorship?)
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't force retailers to sell anything you want!!!
I never said it did.
What I have said is, a real bookstore does not tell an author how to write his book. A bookstore rejects the book outright, or approves it. Apple wants to remove--censor--inoffensive material.
A book is more than a product. It's a free-speech activity. That 's why it's a big deal. For Apple to play the role of a self-serving government, with its shareholders taking precedent over an author's rights to write what he wants, and a reader to read the work as intended, is disturbing.
When WalMart forced album covers to be changed, it was called what it was--censorship. When China pressures writers, it's called what it is. When Apple does it, it's a shrewd business move?
Yes, this Apple decision is very small, but it is the same concept as these other acts. When digital bookstores begin to lean on writers even more, for "commercial" reasons, and act like de facto publishers, then we as readers will see the full effect of a small decision like Apple has made here.
Apple did not censor the content - he could have resubmitted the book without the links,
That is censorship.
What I have said is, a real bookstore does not tell an author how to write his book. A bookstore rejects the book outright, or approves it. Apple wants to remove?censor?inoffensive material.
Which is exactly the same as a bookstore rejecting the book outright or approving it. The end game is identical. Apple is doing something BETTER for both parties than outright rejection in that it would accept the book as is minus the links.
For Apple to play the role of a self-serving government, with its shareholders taking precedent over an author's rights to write what he wants, and a reader to read the work as intended, is disturbing.
But you're fine with a "real bookstore" rejecting books outright for some reason.
When WalMart forced album covers to be changed, it was called what it was--censorship.
I'm confused, these bands were forced to sell their music at Wal-Mart? That sounds like a more grievous infringement of rights than what Wal-Mart did.
That is censorship.
Nonsense.
Which is exactly the same as a bookstore rejecting the book outright or approving it. The end game is identical. Apple is doing something BETTER for both parties than outright rejection in that it would accept the book as is minus the links.
But you're fine with a "real bookstore" rejecting books outright for some reason.
I'm confused, these bands were forced to sell their music at Wal-Mart? That sounds like a more grievous infringement of rights than what Wal-Mart did.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write. It is not a favor to an author to tell him what he needs to do to gain acceptance in your store. That is pressure. It is anti-speech. It is telling the writer how to do his job. Reject it, and move on. Let your competitors sell it, and if they were right and you were wrong, they will make the money while you further isolate yourself as antagonistic to readers and writers.
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong. Books are the lifeblood of a democracy, and censorship of books--for any reason--brings up serious issues.
A writer writes for an audience, not for a corporate entity. I just wish you guys could turn off the Apple vision for a minute, and go back to before there was a digital medium. Books are the wanton purview of the author, to connect with a reader. Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Before you accuse me of being full of myself, this is exactly the attitude that Apple has about technology. Apple does what will benefit the user, not what the corporate mentality wants. It is so uncharacteristic of Apple to step in between writer and reader, out of a misaligned sense of competitiveness. Yes, these are links in question, but those links are part of the book.
You are doing what the other guy was doing, by bringing up the idea that artists aren't "forced" sell their works through WalMart or Apple. Of course you are right. But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did. You can't diminish a right-wing attitude just because there are other options. Apple makes a lot of money from its image as a friend to the artist, and this decision is backwards to that goal, why I brought WalMart into it. Apple is in its league on this decision, and trying change the focus, and the subject, can't alter that fact.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write.
Okay, and how is that different from what happened?
In a Wednesday post on website PaidContent , Godin writes that Apple has chosen to not carry his new ebook "Stop Stealing Dreams" in the iBookstore due to number of links in the bibliography that direct readers to Amazon's competing marketplace.
It says, "chosen not to carry". It doesn't say, "removed/changed my content after the fact". Did Apple remove the links and post the book anyway?
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong.
So Target should be allowed to sell its own brand-name stuff at Wal-Mart?
Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Right, and as the wants and desires of a single bookstore don't matter, so should he want to continue to have his referral links in his book, he can sell it in the many other bookstores available.
But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did.
Again, I don't see anything that says Apple removed the links. It says 'chosen not to carry'. Apple DID NOT censor the book. Apple DID NOT change the content themselves.
If you don't like the rules, don't sell your books on the Apple store.
You are absolutely right. He shouldn't sell his book through iBooks. And neither should any other author who wants their readers to be able to read their books on multiple different platforms and devices. What is their motivation to sell anything via Apple? Apple takes a larger cut, and then further eats into their revenue by denying them the ability to link to Amazon where they can get a share of the sales. And what if the book they were linking to wasn't available on iBooks? What if they wren't even linking to an e-book but something physical which Apple doesn't sell? Would Apple block those, too? And then Apple also wants to forbid the author from pricing their content higher on the iBookstore than on Amazon to make up for the revenue lost from not being able to link to Amazon.
You are absolutely correct that it's Apple's choice to not sell this book, but it's choices like that which will keep iBooks as a 2nd-rate player in the electronic publishing market.
Yes, I am fine with real bookstores rejecting a work outright. It happens because, as you point out, companies have a right to sell what they want. They do not have a right to tell the author what to write. It is not a favor to an author to tell him what he needs to do to gain acceptance in your store. That is pressure. It is anti-speech. It is telling the writer how to do his job. Reject it, and move on. Let your competitors sell it, and if they were right and you were wrong, they will make the money while you further isolate yourself as antagonistic to readers and writers.
Apple is treating a book like an iPhone app approval process, which is just wrong. Books are the lifeblood of a democracy, and censorship of books--for any reason--brings up serious issues.
A writer writes for an audience, not for a corporate entity. I just wish you guys could turn off the Apple vision for a minute, and go back to before there was a digital medium. Books are the wanton purview of the author, to connect with a reader. Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
Before you accuse me of being full of myself, this is exactly the attitude that Apple has about technology. Apple does what will benefit the user, not what the corporate mentality wants. It is so uncharacteristic of Apple to step in between writer and reader, out of a misaligned sense of competitiveness. Yes, these are links in question, but those links are part of the book.
You are doing what the other guy was doing, by bringing up the idea that artists aren't "forced" sell their works through WalMart or Apple. Of course you are right. But the point is not smaller, that Apple is censoring works, just as WalMart did. You can't diminish a right-wing attitude just because there are other options. Apple makes a lot of money from its image as a friend to the artist, and this decision is backwards to that goal, why I brought WalMart into it. Apple is in its league on this decision, and trying change the focus, and the subject, can't alter that fact.
Your arguments are passionate. And well-crafted.
But let me ask you, shouldn't your arguments also apply to pornography? Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Where is the line drawn? Who draws that line?
Also, it's not like you don't have other means to access your readership. The same technology that you are complaining about also opens up all kinds of options for you to disintermediate the middleman, no? For example, you could form a cooperative that is a writers' collective and access those who want no space between the writer and the reader?
When Apple points out the so-called offensive parts as the reason the book was not accepted, and then has a reputation of having the material resubmitted--with changes made--you call that business. I call that asking the writer to change his book for a store. I call that censorship.
As I said, I see books differently from iPhone apps. Apple is in over its head, to treat books like negotiated media. Books are not apps. They are central our free speech. You don't negotiate with a writer to have the book accepted into your store. You just don't do that in a democracy.
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree. Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
Apple is at best a middleman in this exchange. Here, Apple's wants and desires don't matter. What matters is writer and reader.
The retailer has no say in what they sell if the writer and reader think otherwise???!!!
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.
I'm holding out a wad of dollars in my hand and my eyes are lighting up enthusiastically!
I want to buy your app!!!
When Apple points out the so-called offensive parts as the reason the book was not accepted, and then has a reputation of having the material resubmitted--with changes made--you call that business. I call that asking the writer to change his book for a store. I call that censorship.
So Target SHOULD be able to sell their brand of stuff at Wal-Mart. That's what you're saying?
Apple is in over its head, to treat books like negotiated media. Books are not apps. They are central our free speech.
Video is negotiated media, too. Apple only sells certain video from networks and networks only air certain video. Video's also a means of free speech.
You don't negotiate with a writer to have the book accepted into your store. You just don't do that in a democracy.
Right, you just ban the book outright, because that's okay.
As long as you see a book as a product, and I see it as a first-amendment issue, then we will never agree.
I see it as both. I also see the freedom for a retailer to sell what it wants and not what it doesn't. They're free to choose their criteria for sales and succeed or fail on that merit. Meanwhile, content creators are free to sell/distribute their stuff in as many venues as will have them.
Apple did not censor the book. Period. It didn't happen. They chose not to sell it. That's not censorship. If EVERYONE chose not to sell it, that's censorship. Since China has state-run media, if THEY choose not to air/print something, THAT is censorship. There's no alternative there.
There are hundreds of alternatives to Apple here. Because it's a democracy.
Safe to say, Apple will continue to view creative expression as merely a widget in which to fill its electronic devices, so your viewpoint will reign with them, and on this site. Good chatting with you.
So you're giving up here?
OH WAIT, I've just… how did I miss this? Maybe I didn't, who knows?
Who says this is a censorship problem? Who says Apple wouldn't accept the book content without the external links? I don't see Apple having a problem with the book content, just the links to give Amazon money. It has NOTHING to do with the content of the book.
Your arguments are passionate. And well-crafted.
But let me ask you, shouldn't your arguments also apply to pornography? Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Where is the line drawn? Who draws that line?
Also, it's not like you don't have other means to access your readership. The same technology that you are complaining about also opens up all kinds of options for you to disintermediate the middleman, no? For example, you could form a cooperative that is a writers' collective and access those who want no space between the writer and the reader?
Most of us have a low tolerance for pornography/hate speech and the other stuff you mention--at least in the public sphere. (While some of us probably enjoy/indulge those things ... privately.) So for sake of argument, let's agree that we understand why Apple, or Barnes and Noble, would steer clear of this material for business reasons. It offends a lot of people and that's not good business.
The line I am pointing out is that Apple has gone beyond generally-accepted "icky" speech, into corporate speech issues which are not objectionable to anyone but Apple. So many readers on this site are so aligned with Apple that "whatever is good for GM is good for the country." But as a writer, and a reader, I break from this philosophy (which I generally share, for being here). I am worried that "what is good for Apple" does not align with what is good for readers.
Yes, writers have other options than to go with Apple, as you say. However, since Apple is the biggest, most valued company in the world, what Apple does matters to everyone, and its policies can have an effect on other companies (policies which are seemingly created overnight sometimes), which is why I focus on its actions so closely.
Let's take the argument that Apple acts as a de facto book "publisher" as well as seller (since eBooks are "published" on bookstores like iBookstore). Certainly, book publishers will edit/censor you all day long! They won't accept your book until they feel it is right for them, and since traditional publishers are footing the bill for your work, you go along or publish it yourself.
While Random House has a vested interest in shaping your book, by taking on your project, assigning you an editor on their dime, paying for promotion, etc., Apple has made no such investment in your work. They really aren't a publisher. They are a clearing house/marketplace.
Unless Apple takes on the role of a traditional publisher, promoting you, paying you in advance, it does not deserve to act like a traditional publisher in terms of telling writers what to publish, and how. It has a right (in my opinion) to reject "objectionable" material that will offend readers (like how it rejects pornography), but that is done for the sake of the reader. Rejecting a book because it links to Amazon is solely an issue that Apple has. A reader may appreciate those links.
In the end, I am arguing over what Apple "should" do, based on its creative image, and its many promises to unlock the greater potential for all people. I am not saying that Apple is preventing writers from publishing other places. But with Apple's track record, I think they are being hypocrites here. That is all I'm saying. Censoring, or "strongly suggesting that something be changed otherwise it will not be sold," should not extend to books, as iPhone apps. Books are different.
Well, yeah. I am giving up, kinda. You can't connect with everyone.
As long as you continue to discuss books as products (WalMart and Target references), as well as works of art, and blend the definition of censorship--trying to say I'm equating a state-run banning with Apple's disapproval of an inoffensive link, which caused Apple to request the link to be removed (censorship of a different sort)--then there isn't much of a shared concept to discuss from.
I do see the digital generation as viewing books as just another medium, to be negotiated, like an iPhone app. There isn't the view of a book as a take-it-or-leave-it sacred work, as I view it. Apple is blurring those lines, big time, with its "curated" approach to creative media. I, for one, don't like it.
From where I stand, what Apple is doing won't fly with me. I would never seek to be curated by them with a book. I wouldn't submit my work to be approved by Apple. It is a store, not a publisher. It's kind of a "where do you get off" thing. I esteem Apple in practically every other area. Not here.
From where I stand, what Apple is doing won't fly with me. I would never seek to be curated by them with a book. I wouldn't submit my work to be approved by Apple. It is a store, not a publisher. It's kind of a "where do you get off" thing.
And that's the risk a company takes a free market.
The flip side of that would be a company that chose to sell something that ended up losing customers. For instance, a cloth maker or retailer that uses child labor.
You can't tell a company what products to sell and still expect people to see as impartial and accepting a free market system.