Quote:
Originally Posted by
mdriftmeyer 
Exactly. This is the first time I've ever heard of this guy. Good PR stunt.
I've heard of him before, he carries a good reputation.
I think he is creating a tempest in a teapot though, especially if the links are running through his affiliate status. The fact he links something on Amazon really isn't hard to understand as being against the rules with all the previous kerfluffle over the issue. Being affiliate links just makes it self-serving. And complaining widely and publicly before submitting a version without the links to see if it is accepted just confirms the self-serving issue as this kerfluffle then looks more like a PR stunt than an actual issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tranquility 
No you don't. However, that's not the issue I addressed. I addressed Godin's argument - an argument that voiced concerns that I happen to agree with. I also addressed the fact that Apple's policies can lead to censorship in some cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tranquility 
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship, and in this case it unequivocally is!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
Please follow you own advice. Censorship conflicts for not having an item may exist in a public or school library because of First Amendment interplay and how it is specific with regard to government control of speech. Not carrying an item is completely different from suppressing it's existence in the marketplace. Censorship is completely different than inventory control within a single retail chain of a very large marketplace.
No store anywhere has an obligation to carry a particular item.
No bookstore has an obligation to sell any book submitted to it, and the reasons for saying no can be completely arbitrary as that is part of the store owner's freedom of speech. Until a player has monopoly power in the marketplace there are no rules that will change this, and with Amazon and B&N online, even if Apple is wildly successful with iBooks marketplace there will not be any monopoly.
So Seth, please submit another copy of that book, without the direct marketplace links. I think I would like to read it. I even invite you to mention the missing links back in the bibliography and make a request of the reader to to visit your webpage to look up the titles from there (where you use your existing your affiliate links).