I look forward to your explanation of how my previous post was not grammatically correct.
I think your post was grammatically correct and you probably have a better grasp of what censorship actually is and can distinctly the types are and doesn?t just toss it out there as if any form of it whatsoever puts you suddenly in the league of Satan!
No need to worry. When would MacDonalds ever allow Burger King discount vouchers in their store? Apple is not censoring content, it's limiting promotion of a competitor within its own store. And by the way it gives away the software to write the book with the content intended to drive sales for both Amazon and the author. If another author was to promote his books on the back cover of Godin's how happy would he be? This is a nonsense argument.
As to how to do this properly, then simple - link to Godin's own website where he can publicly state that his books are available on Amazon. You can bet Apple wouldn't try to restrict that.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
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.
So, if a brick and mortar establishment erected a sign stating, "No shirt, no shoes, no service," do you automatically assume that the establishment is flagrantly discriminating against shirtless and shoeless would-be patrons? Or is the establishment trying to maintain an acceptabe decorum in that place of business?
The principle is quite similar, and I believe you and pilgrim850 should learn the difference between censorship and refusal of service based on the terms of service and understand that a refusal of service does not equate to censorship.
It's a good thing I stopped using my @mac.com e-mail account a couple of years ago. I'd hate to be using that account for all of my e-mail-- printing it on my business cards and stationary, using it in the course of personal and business relationships, etc. only to find out that Apple has decided that they wouldn't transmit my e-mail because it contained a link to Amazon for something that Apple's store carries.
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).
Comments
I see one who is confused - or doesn't know - about the rules of grammar and how to write a complete, cogent sentence. ...
I look forward to your explanation of how my previous post was not grammatically correct.
I look forward to your explanation of how my previous post was not grammatically correct.
I think your post was grammatically correct and you probably have a better grasp of what censorship actually is and can distinctly the types are and doesn?t just toss it out there as if any form of it whatsoever puts you suddenly in the league of Satan
As to how to do this properly, then simple - link to Godin's own website where he can publicly state that his books are available on Amazon. You can bet Apple wouldn't try to restrict that.
Suggest? Rules are rules. The end.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
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.
So, if a brick and mortar establishment erected a sign stating, "No shirt, no shoes, no service," do you automatically assume that the establishment is flagrantly discriminating against shirtless and shoeless would-be patrons? Or is the establishment trying to maintain an acceptabe decorum in that place of business?
The principle is quite similar, and I believe you and pilgrim850 should learn the difference between censorship and refusal of service based on the terms of service and understand that a refusal of service does not equate to censorship.
It's a good thing I stopped using my @mac.com e-mail account a couple of years ago. I'd hate to be using that account for all of my e-mail-- printing it on my business cards and stationary, using it in the course of personal and business relationships, etc. only to find out that Apple has decided that they wouldn't transmit my e-mail because it contained a link to Amazon for something that Apple's store carries.
Afterall, it's within their private rights.
</slippery cliff>
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.
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.
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).