# Kobo response about removing books -- MERGED



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

One of the erotica authors on the private erotica forums (not sure I can say the pen name) sent this letter to Kobo and really doesn't mind if anyone posts it far and wide. So here it is. I rather like it.


'Mr. Lefebvre,

I have been, in the past, close to delisting all of my books from Kobo, because it has just been issue after issue with your website. Today I have finally taken that step.

First it was the terrible search engine which only seems to list the same five authors in my genres. Sometimes, even when typing in the exact title of a book of mine, it would list another book before it.

Second, it was payment issues. From your ridiculously high $100 monthly threshold for payment, to your constantly late payments. Recently, there was an instance where every indie author in our community was paid late by you, and the excuse was the same. "Oh, there was one batch which got delayed but most went out on time." An obvious lie unless that particular batch contained the payments of every author in our community. In addition, bank details which have been fine for months have been needed to be repeatedly confirmed, sometimes input by your line employees because your own automated input system is so broken that it won't accept valid routing and SWIFT numbers.

I could go on about other issues having to do with the retailers you push to not changing prices when the price is changed on WritingLife, not pulling books when asked, and incorrectly formatting the descriptions that directly impact our sales negatively, but I'd prefer to focus on what Kobo is doing wrong. Don't mistake this for a pass, this is also a factor in this decision and your retailers are actively making your company look extremely unprofessional.

And now, due to a muckraking "journalist" who hasn't looked at books beyond their cover and title, you've banned the entire library of books of anyone who was publishing erotica. Many in my community have not published erotica, but had resorted to publishing through Draft2Digital to ensure that they would actually get paid for the books they sold, and their books are gone as well. All because of a vocal minority of Internet personalities who, honestly, don't have a clue.

I have delisted every book from WritingLife that I am not contractually obligated to continue to try to list on there. In the future, I will be specifically writing into contracts that I do not publish to Kobo. Kobo does not support independent publishers and I will not continue to support them. It will take a lot to undo the past sixteen months of ill will that your company has generated throughout the community of writers, and I will encourage my fellow writers to follow my lead. I wouldn't blame any of them for distributing everywhere that they can, every dollar counts to many of them. However, I will not be returning until a major effort is made to fix the major issues at your company.

I mentioned earlier that your other retailers have problems delisting titles that I have asked to be delisted before. Today is Monday, October 14, and if my books are not removed by Monday, October 21, I'll be sending DMCA notices to each of them stating that you are not authorized to distribute the books that I have delisted.

Thank you for your time and I hope that the next time I email you, it will be to congratulate you and your company for cleaning up your act.

Signed,... '


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

That's about the size of it. With the proviso that I don't write in the same genre, many are the issues that plague Kobo Writing Life...


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

It's very unfortunate that this happened.  I hope they get their act together and redeem themselves.  My only real experience with them was a pretty frustrating one.  Took one of my books off their site because I wanted to give it a shot in KDP Select for a little experiment.  My dashboard on WritingLife was showing that it was delisted, so I enrolled the book in Select.  Apparently the book was still showing up on Kobo anyway, and it turned into a three-ring of awful customer service with KDP Select (a thread topic for another day) that, if it had happened a few days later, would have destroyed my BookBub promo and lost me money.  So I'm not super-thrilled with Kobo, either.  The site itself clearly has bugs that need to be fixed.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I like your letter, why should all self-published authors be made to pay for Kobo and WH Smiths lack of common sense. From what I read WH Smith was surfacing the "Daddy Fantasy" books along with children's titles. So if someone typed "Daddy" naughty titles appeared alongside the kids' books:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/14/whsmith-closes-website-after-rape-porn-ebooks-appear-in-search-results-for-daddy-4145030/

This is relevant because KOBO is the official eReader for the WH Smith Brand in the U.K. But instead of acting responsibly and just putting up some appropriate filtering - their reaction is to nuke everything.

That's supremely dumb and should have been dealt with long before this happened. This entire fiasco was 100% preventable. 
As an erotica writer, I don't want my books to show where kids can read them. I mean jeesh just put up a filter or write some type of code that prevents books flagged as "Erotica" from appearing next to children's books.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Yeah, I can only echo what you are all saying too. My dashboard is a pain anyway. Each time I tried to add a title, the last publish page wouldn't ever show up for weeks. I tried sneaking up on it a few times to catch it unawares... worked a couple of times too.

I think it's beyond ridiculous that they are just going across the board anti self-publishing.

@Vicky It's really not my letter, but I do whole heartedly agree with it.


----------



## Debbiek (Aug 7, 2010)

Did they write and tell her she was banned or did they deist the books.  All of my books are missing today.  They say they are on sale but when I search they are not there.  Not all of them are erotica either. They drive me crazy there.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Debbiek said:


> Did they write and tell her she was banned or did they deist the books. All of my books are missing today. They say they are on sale but when I search they are not there. Not all of them are erotica either. They drive me crazy there.


To the best of my knowledge they didn't tell anyone they were delisting their books. They just did it. I lost 58 titles myself. The author in question (I believe, can't remember without going back to the thread) had some already pulled and then just decided to do the rest themselves.

The funniest thing though was that the Kobo interface wouldn't allow them to delist a title... although it was already technically delisted. Basically, the dashbaord is pants, and so is Kobo.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Kobo's delisting all aggregator-loaded books and will probably also hit direct uploads later, due to the WH Smith thing. But Kobo's been having problems for awhile.

I wrote Kobo a letter back on Sept 5th, because I was having so many issues with them. I couldn't change my book prices, I couldn't delist my books, it was ridiculous. So I took an informal author survey and all the issues seemed to be focused on aggregator uploads. When a friend of mine was flown out to Berlin by Kobo for a conference, he got me in touch with Mark.

In general, prior to the mass delisting, and in addition to payment problems, here's a list of problems people have been having with Kobo:

The site is so screwy, it causes constant problems.

There’s lots of problems with cover art changes and price changes not going through.

Kobo’s customer service personnel are not very helpful.

Authors are having to find workarounds to get price changes to go through, like pairing the price change with a product description change.

Readers are complaining to authors that they can't open the books they're downloading from Kobo, and after waiting for 2 weeks for Kobo's customer service to help them out and getting nowhere, they're going directly to the authors.

Readers are unknowingly buying books that are not compatible with their older generation readers, so when they open the book, they see nothing.

Authors are waiting for a month to get their covers changed.

Books are being published without the covers showing up, as long as a month later.

Kobo has been showing inconsistent performance and customer service.

Kobo only works correctly when you publish direct through The Writing Life. When you publish through an aggregator, it's almost like Kobo is punishing you for not going direct.

What I heard from D2D was that at the time, they had over 90 books that authors had asked to have unpublished from Kobo, and the only response they were getting is ‘we’re working on it, thank you for your patience.’

I know a number of authors who are scared to list their books on Kobo. I think that's a huge problem for any distributor. Although given the mass delisting, maybe Kobo just doesn't care.

What strikes me is that almost everyone who was having issues, (with the exception of the readers), is publishing to Kobo via aggregators. So, whatever server they had assigned to fielding the aggregator requests, seemed to be in serious need of an overhaul. I wonder if the payment issues were part of the same thing?


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

Check your inboxes, guys. Kobo just sent out an e-mail responding to their recent removal of books. Below is the e-mail, for anyone who doesn't directly publish with Kobo.

"To our Kobo Writing Life and self-publishing partners:


As you may be aware, there has been a significant amount of negative media attention in the UK regarding offensive material that became available across a number of eBook platforms. Kobo was included in the reports from media and we are taking immediate action to resolve an issue that is the direct result of a select few authors and publishers violating Kobo’s content policies.



In order to address the situation Kobo is taking the following steps:

1.      We are removing titles in question from the Kobo platform.

2.      We are quarantining and reviewing titles to ensure that compliance to our policies is met by all authors and publishers. We will ensure that content meeting the policy is made available online as soon as possible.

3.      We are reviewing our policies and procedures to implement safeguards that will ensure this situation does not happen in the future.



We are working hard to get back to business as usual, as quickly as possible. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter.



Our goal at Kobo is not to censor material; we support freedom of expression. Further, we want to protect the reputation of self-publishing as a whole. You have our promise that we will do all we can to ensure the exceptions that have caused this current situation will not have a lasting effect on what is an exciting new channel that connects Readers to a wealth of books. 



Sincerely,



Mark Lefebvre

Director, Kobo Writing Life "


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I just got this, too.
It offers a little reassurance that the Kobo sky isn't falling.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

The email is from Mark Lefebvre, who is responding on Canadian Thanksgiving (Mark is Canadian) and either the day of, or the day immediately after his wedding anniversary, and he's moving house this week to boot.


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

Quiss said:


> I just got this, too.
> It offers a little reassurance that the Kobo sky isn't falling.


Yeah. I imagine that most non-offending titles will probably be back up within the next few days/weeks.


----------



## Flash Rex (May 31, 2011)

"We are working hard to get back to business as usual..."

Not exactly reaching for the stars with that...


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm curious as to where the lines will be drawn.

Glad they stepped up to the plate and said something. Have to wait and see where this goes.

It makes sense if they ask everyone to keep it legal. Beyond that, shutting out legal content that's properly indexed because some crusader thinks it's icky...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

All this stuff got me curious, so I went over to Kobo to check on my three books.

Interesting aspects:

1) I think Kobo redid their category database because two of my categories were missing out of three, but I redid them.

2) They also seem to have vastly improved their on-site search engine. When I put "Craig Hansen" in the search box on their retail site, KoboBooks.com, all three of my books came up... and ONLY my three books. I know they carry the books published by a "Craig J. Hansen" who is not me, and even his books didn't come up in the search results.

So not all of the complaints in that guy's Open Letter to Kobo are current complaints, it seems. I'm wondering if re-checking your categories might help things? Maybe?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

> Our goal at Kobo is not to censor material; we support freedom of expression.


Which is obvious bullshit, considering the rest of the letter.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Just highlighting this list again. I have had almost all of those problems.



Sophrosyne said:


> In general, prior to the mass delisting, and in addition to payment problems, here's a list of problems people have been having with Kobo:
> 
> The site is so screwy, it causes constant problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I know the Kobo/WHSmith/Amazon situation is huge, but it will really make it easier for members to keep up if you try to use existing threads where possible.  If this gets too splintered people will miss important information.

I've merged a couple of threads that deal with Kobo's comments and responses to Kobo.  Sorry for any confusion.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

This entire situation has really made me lose trust in Kobo. And it's not just this recent crackdown, it's also their payment problems. In the past I've advocated for publishing to Kobo, but now I'm not so sure that is a good idea if this is how they handle problems. I'm curious to see which books will be allowed on their site and if they will block accounts that had "offensive" content.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

I just realized I have a very serious question for Kobo.

If, as they say, titles that contravened their guidelines slipped through - due to those unscrupulous self-publishers - then what was all that 72 hours (if you were lucky) or more review process?

I mean titles hardly flew through did they? Not by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Here's the latest update from D2D. Bolding is mine:

***

Late yesterday we received some initial communication concerning the titles Kobo removed from distribution.

Kobo confirmed that the bulk removal was conducted in reaction to a spate of recent negative media attention. Their initial solution was to immediately *remove from sale books from self-published authors and small presses as well as from digital aggregators like Draft2Digital *until they pass an additional review by Kobo.

To our knowledge, Kobo has not yet begun the review process to reinstate any books. This matter could take some time. However, they insist that they have a strong commitment to free expression and to the self-publishing community as well. They have assured us that all titles that comply with their content guidelines will be fully reinstated.

We will continue to do everything we can to bring this matter to a timely and satisfying conclusion. In the meantime you have our sincerest sympathy for the interruption of your business and our gratitude for your continuing patience. We'll keep you posted as we learn more.

Sincerely,
Kris Austin
President and CEO
Draft2Digital, LLC
https://www.draft2digital.com


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

My Smashwords/Kobo books are still up.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

I go direct to Kobo with KWL for all but one of my books. Those books are still on Kobo.

The one that I use D2D for is a 3-author bundle. Each of the underlying books contained in the bundle are also on Kobo through KWL. Those underlying single title books are still up on Kobo, but the bundle containing them went through D2D and that one is gone.

Interesting that readers need to be "protected" from this really sweet YA bundle, yet the "offending" books are all fine.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

Fingers crossed they'll get most books back up after the media buzz dies down and they get them through their review process. I searched Kobo the other evening and couldn't find a single title of mine on there.

Majorly unimpressed with Kobo and how they've handled this whole thing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KaryE said:


> The email is from Mark Lefebvre, who is responding on Canadian Thanksgiving (Mark is Canadian) and either the day of, or the day immediately after his wedding anniversary, and he's moving house this week to boot.


None of which matters. This is business not a hobby. When things go this badly wrong you take care of it.

ETA: I have refused to do business with Kobo for a couple of years. About six months ago, I decided to give them another chance, tried out their dashboard to list a novel and found it SO dire, I decided I had been right to ignore them. They have never, unfortunately, managed an efficient or well-run operation. This pretty much shows how incompetent they are.


----------



## roy le coeur (Aug 17, 2010)

According to the BBC teletext news service this afternoon, Kobo said, "Titles that do not violate it's policies will go back on sale in a weeks time."

No mention of what WH Smith whatsoever.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Their response is pretty weak sauce, and I'm now convinced I'll never publish on Kobo. I don't even write anything close to erotica, or anything that could be confused for it; but the way they handled this smacks of incompetence at an institutional level and nothing short of completely churning their upper management will fix it. Temporarily delisting a very large swath of titles to deal with only a potential few is absolutely the wrong approach, and it is not forgivable in a distributor. It's not like we're dealing with contaminated peanut butter or a defective baby stroller, where someone's going to get hurt if they get their hands on one of these supposedly evil books. There are many perfectly harmless books, whose authors have been harmed financially as a result of the temporary removal.

I'm less concerned with their decision to delist erotica. They have that right, as does Amazon, although gads I wish they'd come up with a clear policy already. The fact that this didn't become a problem until some loudmouth troll (already known for being a loudmouth troll) made a big deal of it says there really wasn't a problem to begin with, and I have very little respect for those who kowtow to the Jack Thompsons of the world. But it is what it is, and if they were going to delist erotica there's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to go after those titles selectively. Amazon has reportedly been over-aggressive in this, but at least they've had a lot fewer false positives. Kobo just flipped out and pulled the plug on anything with the faintest connection and promised to fix it later, which is a lot like the cable company disconnecting your entire block every time someone on your street is late on their bill. Unacceptable. And everyone who was caught in their extra-extra-wide net has to wait a full _week_ for their titles to go back up?

Bottom line: The professionalism isn't there. Kobo can't be trusted.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

This would make a great business school case.

The rules would be simple. Given the situation WHSmith faced last Thursday(?) Friday(?), what should they have done? How should they have reacted? What steps should they have taken?

Under the rules, we can't simply sit back and say what they could have done in the past that would have avoided the situation. Reciting that in their headquarters last week would not have solved their problem, and tells us nothing about what they should have done in the specific situation they faced.

So, what should they have done? If you were CEO, what would you have done?

(We can also apply the same case to Kobo. We can apply it to Amazon by asking, "Given the situation in the UK, how should Amazon react?")

The first thing that comes to mind is the Chicago Tylenol case in 1982. Johnson & Johnson's management of that crisis has become the gold standard in the US. At first look, it seems WHSmith is following their lead.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

The poisoned Tylenol (I assume that's what you're referring to) was actively dangerous and killing people. So far, no one died from reading a pseudo-incest or tentacle sex book. So that's not comparable at all. Porn is not killing people, even if some people act as if it does.

And personally, I believe that _W.H. Smith_ should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the _Daily Mail_, the _Kernel_ and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The poisoned Tylenol (I assume that's what you're referring to) was actively dangerous and killing people. So far, no one died from reading a pseudo-incest or tentacle sex book. So that's not comparable at all. Porn is not killing people, even if some people act as if it does.
> 
> And personally, I believe that _W.H. Smith_ should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the _Daily Mail_, the _Kernel_ and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).


Of course it is comparable. Both deal with a set of offerings they want to get off the market. They can't identify the exact instances, but they can identify a larger set in which they reside.

Johnson & Johnson didn't know the exact bottles or batches to target, so they took a larger set off the market immediately.

WHSmith didn't know the exact books to target, so they took a larger set off the market immediately.

The cases are similar since they both involve removing products while not having specific knowledge off exactly which instances are the problem.

They do differ in the danger posed. Both posed a danger to the company. Tylenol also posed a universally recognized danger to the public. Opinions differ on the danger to the public from the Daddy books.



> And personally, I believe that W.H. Smith should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the Daily Mail, the Kernel and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).


That would be like Johnson & Johnson taking tylenol off the shelves of only the stores where the victims shopped, and telling critics to stuff it.

It wouldn't solve the WHSmith problem. It would have left them open to the exact same attack as the original. The problem isn't limited to the specific flagged books. One could easily find another Daddy book. That would lead to an iterative process where the media identifies ten Daddy books, WHS removes ten books, then tells the media to stuff it. It would never end.

Telling the critics to stuff it would simply say the company chooses to sell more Daddy books.

We could have similar cases anytime a company identifies a defective product among many other products, and can't target the specific one causing the problem.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The Tylenol case also didn't result in every painkiller from every company ever being pulled. Even in a blind, simian panic, people reacted more intelligently to actual poison than Smith or Kobo reacted to naughty words.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> The Tylenol case also didn't result in every painkiller from every company ever being pulled. Even in a blind, simian panic, people reacted more intelligently to actual poison than Smith or Kobo reacted to naughty words.


I agree. In each case a subset of products was pulled that was sufficient to contain the targets.

What would you have done?

I'll confess I don't have a better solution. But I'm sure not the sharpest knife in the drawer here, so maybe someone else has some good ideas.

This isn't going to be the only time we encounter this stuff.

We also can't tell if WHSmith is following the full Tylenol model. Johnson & Johnson removed all the product, changed the pill form, packaging, and manufacturing processes, then reintroduced it. It will be interesting to see what WHSmith does.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I agree. In each case a subset of products was pulled that was sufficient to contain the targets.
> 
> What would you have done?
> 
> ...


Amazon's response to the moral panic in the UK has been pretty decent, IMO.

"Amazon has not responded to the BBC's request for comment on the issue, except to confirm that the specific books listed by The Kernel had been removed." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24519179

That's a simple, clean, and _relatively_ measured response to what may or may not develop into a PR nightmare. It shows that Amazon is listening to customer concerns while simultaneously reassuring their suppliers that their interests are being considered. I don't think it is enough. I think they should have had parental protections up on their website five years ago, but when the alternative is the 



, Amazon comes out looking pretty good.

But to be fair to Smiths, an interesting point was brought up in Phillip Jones's Futurebook article:



> ...prior to the Mail report almost all the tweets about this subject from the journalist Jeremy Duns have been directed at Amazon. News website the Kernel's first piece focussed solely on Amazon, while its second piece referenced "Barnes & Noble, W H Smith, Waterstones and Foyles". In terms of market impact, Amazon is the driver of self-published material, not WHS.
> 
> But WHS holds a special place in the mind of middle-Britain: it's a family retailer with a high street presence. When it gets it wrong, it pays a bigger price. That explains what some might see as a massive over-reaction.
> 
> My sense is that when WHS says it wasn't aware these titles were for sale on its site, never mind how the authors were gaming WHS' search system, it really means it. New chief executive Stephen Clarke has done the right thing in swiftly moving to ensure that the WHS website never shows any of these "inappropriate" titles again. In reality, he had little choice. WHS' share price has barely blinked this week, and its website scarcely gets a mention in its financial reports. Sticking his head in the sand would only have risked escalating the hysteria way beyond its commercial worth. The deal with Kobo will be tested by this, that relationship between the two parties may strengthen as a result of the fallout, just as Clarke intimated had happened during its initial launch.


http://www.futurebook.net/content/shock-and-awe-w-h-smith#sthash.WeByYaxv.nDHzSYA4.dpuf

I don't think that justifies Smiths clumsy actions, but it would appear that they have distinct moralistic concerns.

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Amazon's response to the moral panic in the UK has been pretty decent, IMO:
> 
> "Amazon has not responded to the BBC's request for comment on the issue, except to confirm that the specific books listed by The Kernel had been removed."
> 
> ...


That is a pretty good public response. But reports on these threads about books being pulled indicate there is lot's more going on in the background.



> So, it would appear that Smiths would have distinct concerns.


That was a good article. I'm not familiar with the image WHSmith cultivates in the UK.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> This would make a great business school case.
> 
> The rules would be simple. Given the situation WHSmith faced last Thursday(?) Friday(?), what should they have done? How should they have reacted? What steps should they have taken?


They should have taken down their site, indefinitely, stating:

_"We're sorry to have been found out. We would have liked to further profit from selling porn, but we're obviously too incompetent to run simple filters on our site that the 15-year old nephew of our cleaning lady could have installed in 24 minutes flat. It's not so much that we care about the law, but we're moral cowards and hereby wish to shift the blame for our incompetence and lack of foresight to Kobo, independent authors, Barrack Obama and the Taliban."_

What they should do is go out of business, and Kobo should seriously consider doing the same.

ETA:

The Johnson & Johnson case only applies superficially.

* This was the act of one madman
* Nobody could foresee that someone would do this, nor foresee which bottles would be affected. In contrast, WHSmith, if they had taken just a few more precautions, could have prevented this.

J&J acted responsibly in a crisis that couldn't have been prevented. WHSmith was careless and uncaring in a non-crisis (no lives at stake) that could easily have been prevented.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> * This was the act of one madman
> * Nobody could foresee that someone would do this, nor foresee which "bottles" would be affected. In contrast WHSmith, if they had taken just a few more precautions could have prevented this.
> 
> J&J acted responsibly in a crisis that couldn't have been prevented. WHSmith was careless and uncaring in a non-crisis (no lives at stake) that could easily have been prevented.


Johnson & Johnson didn't know anything about why the Tylenol was bad. They didn't know if it was a madman, manufacturing process, distribution problem. All they knew is they had a product they wanted off the shelves and they had to act.

The fact that WHSmith could have done something differently in the past doesn't matter when the crisis hit. Hindsight and finger pointing wouldn't have done any good.

The managers of these companies have to accept the reality on the ground when it hits.

For anyone interested, there is a great book about the Tylenol case. I forget the title.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Mark Coker's handling of last year's erotic payment processing mess should also be considered. Say what you will about Smashwords' retro-styling, his crisis management skillz did impress.

B.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Johnson & Johnson didn't know anything about why the Tylenol was bad. They didn't know if it was a madman, manufacturing process, distribution problem. All they knew is they had a product they wanted off the shelves.
> 
> The fact that WHSmith could have done something differently in the past doesn't matter when the crisis hit. Hindsight and finger pointing wouldn't have done any good.
> 
> ...


You're right that once this ridiculous heap of crap hit the fan "what could have been done" didn't matter at that moment in time. I does matter for the future, though. WHSmith could have prevented this. They didn't. They shouldn't be allowed to operate a book selling site anymore, since they have proven to be incompetent and irresponsible.

I'm not very much concerned with what they "could" have done once they were found out. I'm more concerned with the fact that they didn't take sensible precautions.
J&J couldn't have taken precautions. WHSmith could have, but didn't.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Mark Coker's handling of last year's erotic payment processing mess should also be considered. Say what you will about Smashwords' retro-styling, his crisis management skillz did impress.
> 
> B.


But where *is* Mr Coker? Not even anything on the smashwords blog, let alone an email to sw authors (as D2D has done). I emailed smashwords yesterday as I wanted to hear what their official line was - but no reply.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> You're right that once this ridiculous heap of crap hit the fan "what could have been done" didn't matter at that moment in time. I does matter for the future, though. WHSmith could have prevented this. They didn't. They shouldn't be allowed to operate a book selling site anymore, since they have proven to be incompetent and irresponsible.
> 
> I'm not very much concerned with what they "could" have done once they were found out. I'm more concerned with the fact that they didn't take sensible precautions.
> J&J couldn't have taken precautions. WHSmith could have, but didn't.


The history leading up to the problem should never be forgotten. There are great lessons there. I suspect we are all going to feel the effects of those lessons in the future as the companies adapt.

But I have no problem with them operating an online bookstore. I wish them the best.


----------



## Alondo (Aug 30, 2011)

I'm confused.

All my titles are G-rated and they've all been pulled. Are Kobo stark raving mad?


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Alondo said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> All my titles are G-rated and they've all been pulled. Are Kobo stark raving mad?


They removed everyone. And they've closed some accounts according to some reports on this thread or another one.

ETA: Let me be more specific, they (Kobo) removed all self-pubbed content. And there was one report on another thread that at least one author's account was closed.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The first thing that comes to mind is the Chicago Tylenol case in 1982. Johnson & Johnson's management of that crisis has become the gold standard in the US. At first look, it seems WHSmith is following their lead.


The Tylenol case is the gold standard because they ACCEPTED responsibility.

All Tylenol was removed because, upon checking the lot numbers involved, it was determined that the tampered product had come from multiple manufacturing plants. In short, they looked INWARD and worked from a preliminary point that the problem was internal. This is also what was communicated to the public. In short, they were prepared to shoulder the blame if it turned out to be their fault.

WHSmith, on the other hand, is pretending they are the victim and pointing fingers at Kobo and, specifically, self-publishers. They are acting as if they have no blame whatsoever and the entire situation is someone else's fault.

In addition, J&J only shut down Tylenol production. They did not shut down production of all of their OTCs. In fact, they very shortly resumed sale of tablets when it was determined that only capsules were impacted. WHSmith has shut down all products. It isn't even "we won't sell any erotic titles until we know the bad stuff is gone." You can't buy any books from them right now.

I think WHSmith's behavior is much more in line with the Toyota recall debacle.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

DebBennett said:


> But where *is* Mr Coker? Not even anything on the smashwords blog, let alone an email to sw authors (as D2D has done). I emailed smashwords yesterday as I wanted to hear what their official line was - but no reply.


Honestly, Smashwords has had adult filtering for quite some time. It's defaulted to be on - so you have to enable it in order to see erotic works. They've also been pretty good about keeping the extreme taboo stuff to a minimum. This means there is nothing for them to say - they did the smart thing a long time ago.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The Tylenol case is the gold standard because they ACCEPTED responsibility.
> 
> All Tylenol was removed because, upon checking the lot numbers involved, it was determined that the tampered product had come from multiple manufacturing plants. In short, they looked INWARD and worked from a preliminary point that the problem was internal. This is also what was communicated to the public. In short, they were prepared to shoulder the blame if it turned out to be their fault.
> 
> ...


Johnson & Johnson did accept responsibility. They did that by pulling the product.

WHSmith is also accepting responsibility by pulling the product. They were the ones selling it. They are the ones who shut down sales. That is action they are taking.

Both companies are responding in the same manner.

Johnsion & Jonson did shut down only Tylenol. They knew they could contain a Tylenol problem by shutting down that subset.

WHSmith shut down everything. I cant fault that unless I have evidence that they had the immediate ability to identify and shut down a smaller subset that wuld have contained the books. I suppose Id also ask how long it would take their IT people to fix the problem under total shutdown vs partial. I dont know those answers? Anyone know?

So, what would you have done? Think of it as a role playing game.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> This would make a great business school case.
> 
> The rules would be simple. Given the situation WHSmith faced last Thursday(?) Friday(?), what should they have done? How should they have reacted? What steps should they have taken?
> 
> ...


Kobo gave them the categories under which the books are listed on their website, Kobo has 3 of them.
You can't make me believe that they couldn't simply filter out all the erotica categories? Or even erotica and romance?
I don't believe that all these "bad" titles were categorised wrongly? Why? Because a lot of people browse through categories, so categorising them the wrong way wouldn't make them show at the right places.
That would at least have made a lot less people mad.
Anything that might have slipped through the cracks from that, well, that they might have had to deal with themselves.

On the other hand... There are so many people with totally innocent titles that got pulled that the whole problem gets way more attention and that a lot of people are getting upset with the companies who might not have cared as much if it was just erotica titles that got pulled.

Just to note, I remember being 14 or so and I read a traditional published children's book (teen book, pre YA time) about a set of twins, boy and girl, who had a sexual relationship. This was a book for teens, about teens, so they weren't even 18 yet, possibly closer even to 14. It was traditionally published and in the 12-16 year old section in our library. Remembering that book just makes me shake my head at the titles that are getting pulled. That and I've read The Cement Garden by Ian mcEwan, talking about disturbing books with sex in them...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> You can't make me believe that they couldn't simply filter out all the erotica categories? Or even erotica and romance?


I agree. I dont know enough about their computer systems or categorization to make an effective case to you. Nobody calls to confide anymore.

In other threads I have said I dont think the material they are looking for can be adequately described with words. I still sympathize with US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who wrote that he knows obscenity when he sees it.

And if it cant be described with words. Im not sure how we tell a computer what to look for. Anyone know how all these books get the categories they have? Where do they come from? Can they be trusted? Why?

Im looking at this as a purely management problem, and taking it from the perspective of the folks running the company. What should they have done when this hit the media a few days back?


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

*Off Topic but mentioned in thread*


> Johnson & Johnson didn't know anything about why the Tylenol was bad. They didn't know if it was a madman, manufacturing process, distribution problem. All they knew is they had a product they wanted off the shelves and they had to act.


There is a J&J researcher who begs to differ - saying the Tylenol was tainted in a J&J distribution location rather than different non-J&J owned stores and that J&J was aware of this - and considering his argument includes the point that one victim's Tylenol came from a secure hospital pharmacy, his case looks mighty possible airtight. 
Considering what may have actually occurred with the J&J situation, their response begs to be looked at in a whole different light. And certainly no longer being one to hold up as the ultimate business model and instead the ultimate dodge of admission and liability.
*
On Topic*
I write erotica - just want to get that out there.
IMO retailers are not going after their real problem and are busy cleaning up the damage the tail has done instead of looking for the dog.

These books are the products of internet marketers - I'd bet the percentage is as high as 97%. That could not be more obvious. These people are chasing money and that is never going to stop. When this money maker - daddy and doggy erotica is closed down - they are going to move on. And the evidence shows they saw the writing on the wall much before _The Kernel_ did and are already starting to make their moves out of erotica and into other genres. ( the evidence being the increase in requests for ESL material for Kindle and other retailer publishing in many genres on the hire-a-freelancer sites and, as the retailers react to the latest crisis, these requests are shooting the moon in numbers. )

Erotica authors have been pounding fists about the IM problem in their genre for years. And what have the retailers and/or all their fellow authors said or done? Nothing. Instead they say it is an erotica problem. Well I am here to tell you that this air that was and is currently being released out of the balloon has caused and is only causing these IMers to seek out non-erotica genres. So mark my words non-erotica authors, the problem is coming to you.

The issue is not the individual books or the genre, like some want to claim as they look around at the tidiness in their genre - the tidiness in their genre that one glance on Odesk reveals is living on short and borrowed time. If one looks at what the IMers are currently soliciting, it doesn't very long to see the problem is not about erotica and instead is solely the result of people cutting corners to chase the almighty Benjamin.

IOW, if we do insist on the Tylenol comparison, the issue is not the pills (books) or the bottles (genre), but is the shelves the bottles sit in within the store ( the _author_ accounts in the retailers database ). And right now Chicago happens to be erotica, but just as J&J's Tylenol problem reached out of Chicago, so will the IM problem. This, like that, will be a nationwide/genre wide problem. And when it involves other genres, the complaints will not be _kids are seeing porn books when they search daddy_. Nope. The customer complaints to the retailer will be that _all the genres are filled with dreck. I can't find any quality books and have wasted a fortune_. And the one commonality will be indie accounts. 
Think about that. All genres infected with what will be labeled as an indie problem - retailers then, just like they are now, excusing themselves by saying indie authors refuse to follow the rues - when the problem is not author accounts and is, just like now, IM accounts
Look at Odesk and tell me it is not coming

Retailers, if you truly want to fix the problem, and that is up to debate, you need to stop chasing the tails and look for the dogs. All these problem books have one thing in common and it is a lot easier to find than the mass nuking of words like daddy, brother, sister, werewolf, babysitter, etc. 
Look at your data - these books are all on the same accounts. Yeah, you have an outlier here and there, but the vast majority of the problem book were and are together on accounts with another 400 plus books that are all like wise titled. Titled like the _books_ below. Amiright? Yes, I am - I saw _The Kernels_' smut list just like you did. I just looked at it deeper. One account with how many daddy, babysitter, brother, etc keyword diarrhea "titles" and Captain Obvious tells you those aren't actual titles. Instead they are just a string of tightly packed keywords meant to work your algo, and as _The Kernel _article shows, doing a d*mn good job at it. Do you really think an author interested in craft titles their catalog as follows?


Babysitter F*** Werewolf Billionaire Daddy While Slu*, Barley Legal, Voyeur, Daughter Masturbates With Whips and Handcuffs ---- By Lick A ____ , a BDSM 69 Publishing Author

Bigfoot, Submissive Family Dog Shapeshifts Into Step-Daughter Student Master And Shaves Teacher ---- By Suck A ___ , - a 69 Publishing author

Billionaire, Tentacle Daddy Rapes Submissive Virgin Daughter In 50 Shades of Incest ---- By Barely Legal Daddy , a 69 BDSM Dominant, Alpha Male, publishing author

Followed by 300 plus _books_ with titles resembling the same


But, since the fix is in and the bust has gone down, Odesk tells me the next books from these _authors _ will be

50 Shades of a Young Adult, Hunger Games, Vampire, Twilight Werewolf By E.L. Collins
or
Steven King, an Amityville Wall Street Lawnmowerman, meets Chainsaw Massacre By James Patterson Grisham


If the retailers stay the course and keep on playing book-whack-a-mole instead of addressing the real problem, IM accounts, this will the world we share with them.

The retailers need to gatekeep at the right level and our problem goes away. It is that easy.

So perhaps the author contingent made up of _It's an erotica problem and it doesn't affect and/or bother me. And if I could say, I don't like those books and want them gone, I would,_ would acknowledge and rally around the real issue instead of thinking it is an erotica problem, we could help them preempt this.

We need the retailers to grasp that this problem is an internet marketer problem. It is the PLR problem just hidden by putting on an erotica coat. Right now, while we are all ( we = authors, publishers, and retailers ) bickering and moaning, rehashing free market principles, and focusing conversation on what kind of erotica retailers should sell, a little time on Odesk will tell anyone who looks that the internet marketers are busy making new costumes to hide with. IMers see this heat and they know it isn't good. This is not their first rodeo, they know it is time to change bulls. They have no interest in staying in a difficult arena to maneuver in. Any old high-demand market works for them, the easier entrance the better, and right now the freelance writing job sites are saying it looks like it is going to be both romance and young adult, maybe horror and kid lit too.

Be proactive, not reactive
Being reactive is putting everything into chasing the symptoms - all that does is keep an illness in maintenance illness with no curative intent
Being proactive is focusing major effort on curing the disease, curative intent, while treating symptoms as they pop up
The books are the symptoms. The disease is the IM accounts
If the retailers would change their approach, this would be a very easy thing to deal with
But if they continue on with approach they have taken thus far, they are going always be in maintenance mode chasing an evolving, growing and increasingly chaotic disease that will eventually invade all of the body's system.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Johnson & Johnson did accept responsibility. They did that by pulling the product.
> 
> WHSmith is also accepting responsibility by pulling the product. They were the ones selling it. They are the ones who shut down sales. That is action they are taking.


No, they are throwing a public temper tantrum and closing their entire online store over a handful of products. This would be if J&J shut down all of their factories and distribution centers instead of focusing specifically on the problem products.



> Johnsion & Jonson did shut down only Tylenol. They knew they could contain a Tylenol problem by shutting down that subset.
> 
> WHSmith shut down everything. I cant fault that unless I have evidence that they had the immediate ability to identify and shut down a smaller subset that wuld have contained the books.


We can fault it because they did not, as J&J had done, have protocols in place to properly identify erotic content. I know you for some reason think we should be able to come up with a solution without knowing what the root cause of the problem was, but without admitting the root cause of the problem, you can't formulate a solution. [/quote]



> So, what would you have done?


If I was their PR person, I would have recommended simply deactivating digital content but leaving the store online. The letter I would have written would have went something like this:



> Last week we were made aware of a number of inappropriate titles that appeared on our website despite our existing screening processes. Because this issue appears to have been limited to digital products, we have decided to remove all digital titles from our site while conduct an internal investigation to determine the cause of this issue.
> 
> We are working alongside our digital partners to determine the cause of this problem and formulate a solution that will best meet the needs of our customers. Our goal is to develop a new system that will better screen questionable content without preventing our customers from finding the type of digital media they are searching for.
> 
> We apologize to those customers who may have been offended by the titles in question, as well as to those customers who may be inconvenienced while we work on a new screening process for digital media.


Compare this to the angst-filled lamentations of what is currently sitting on their site.

Internally, heads would be rolling because I would want to know WHY we didn't already have filters in place for adult content. Kobo would be getting an earful privately (assuming there is something in the distribution agreement that makes them responsible for filtering). But you NEVER embarrass your business partners in public. That is just fifth-grade finger-pointing.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Great letter. I've never had much luck with Kobo and only had a book there under a pen name as a freebie so Amazon would price-match it. It was not erotica, but slightly steamy fiction which on screen, would be okay for prime time television. It was a victim of Kobo's indie flush as it was listed via D2D. 

Coincidentally, Amazon price-matched it yesterday. Today, I posted on Twitter:  Too Hot for #Kobo, but FREE on Amazon! "My Book Title: Description, link" 

At first, I felt guilty that I call it too hot for Kobo, but since Kobo's reasoning is that it could be erotica, I wasn't lying.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2013)

Someone said:


> *Off Topic but mentioned in thread*
> There is a J&J researcher who begs to differ, and with his argument that one victim's Tylenol came from the hospital pharmacy, his case looks pretty airtight.
> Considering what may have actually occurred with the J&J situation, their response begs to be looked at in a whole different light. And certainly no longer being one to hold up as the ultimate business model.


*

If you are referring to the...eh hem...illustrious Scott Bartz...well... The guy has an axe to grind with J & J (he's got a few civil cases against them). He's a disgruntled employee with a Createspace account. His employment with J & J was as a salesman, not a researcher. And his employment with them was something like a decade AFTER the incident took place.

Since he's self-published, I guess this sort of makes both our statements on-topic. *


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Our experience with Kobo was a royal pain. There was a glitch in setting up the banking info that we weren't able to resolve with them despite trying several different bank accounts. It really was a simple issue, but we interpreted it at the time as 'if this is so tough for them to deal with, what other problems are we going to encounter?'. And so after a couple of days and a lot of hours working on the project we just walked away from it and the potential sales. We live in Canada, and my understanding is Kobo's pretty popular up here. Rats.

Three weeks ago, through threads on Kboards, we found AllRomance ebooks and their sister site OmniLit. Took us about four hours to set up an account and upload three books. Those titles have been languishing on Amazon since we put them up. Listed at $1.49 each. They pay quarterly. 

For the first time since KD and I have started this journey of indie publishing, we sold 100 copies in a week across all three titles, and we're now averaging 12 copies a day.

It's a simple website to use as a reader and as a indie publisher.
And they don't seem to have a problem with explicit material. 
Might be worth a look for those unhappy with Kobo as we wound up being.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> No, they are throwing a public temper tantrum and closing their entire online store over a handful of products. This would be if J&J shut down all of their factories and distribution centers instead of focusing specifically on the problem products.


Tantrums? That tells us nothing. We can observe their actions. They stopped selling. That is consistent with accepting responsibility. How many is a handful? Do we know? Id ask them what they are trying to target. Any reason to think it is a handful? Are there possibly far more than a handful that can cause the same problem next week? Anyone know?



> We can fault it because they did not, as J&J had done, have protocols in place to properly identify erotic content. I know you for some reason think we should be able to come up with a solution without knowing what the root cause of the problem was, but without admitting the root cause of the problem, you can't formulate a solution.


Of course we can fault them. And I have no reason to think you can come up with a solution. I cant. But this is good stuff to consider. This isnt easy stuff. But I suspect when this is finished we will have lots of posters telling us exactly what they should have done in the middle of October 2013. Well, this is the middle of October 2013, and nobody seems to know what they should do.



> If I was their PR person, I would have recommended simply deactivating digital content but leaving the store online. The letter I would have written would have went something like this:


Deactivate all digital content? For a mere handful? Everything digital? Draco rides again. Baby and bath water? Whack, whack? That is a very reasonable recommendation. Its actually similar to what they did. And it would take down all the non-offending books with it. If I was the CEO, Id then ask the IT people about the feasibility of doing that and how it would affect fixing the whole mess. Im looking at it from the perspective of the guy in charge, not an advisor.



> Compare this to the angst-filled lamentations of what is currently sitting on their site.


I dont much care about the angst and blather without actions. I look at actions. If all Johnson & Johnson did was blather, they would certainly not be the gold standard. They acted. Thats what matters.



> Internally, heads would be rolling because I would want to know WHY we didn't already have filters in place for adult content. Kobo would be getting an earful privately (assuming there is something in the distribution agreement that makes them responsible for filtering). But you NEVER embarrass your business partners in public. That is just fifth-grade finger-pointing.


Rolling heads dont fix immediate problems. Neither do post mortems. And why should they shelter Kobo? The digital feed from Kobo is public knowledge.



> There is a J&J researcher who begs to differ, and with his argument that one victim's Tylenol came from the hospital pharmacy, his case looks pretty airtight.


The guy on the grassy knoll had a headache?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> They removed everyone. And they've closed some accounts according to some reports on this thread or another one.
> 
> ETA: Let me be more specific, they (Kobo) removed all self-pubbed content. And there was one report on another thread that at least one author's account was closed.


Umm... not true.

My three books have remained up the whole time over there, and I'm self-pubbed. (I don't write erotica though... could that be why?)


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Of course it is comparable. Both deal with a set of offerings they want to get off the market. They can't identify the exact instances, but they can identify a larger set in which they reside.
> 
> Johnson & Johnson didn't know the exact bottles or batches to target, so they took a larger set off the market immediately.
> 
> ...


It's not comparable, because the poisoned Tylenol was a public health hazard, so it had to be pulled ASAP. Ditto for other cases of contaminated food stuffs and medical products, faulty electrical equipment, vehicles with faulty brakes, etc... If people are dying or getting seriously ill, then drastic measures are appropriate.

Fringe erotica, no matter how icky one may find it personally, does not pose a hazard to anyone's health. People do not die or become seriously ill after looking at creepy fringe erotica. And unlike the poisoned Tylenol pills, e-books that are definitely not erotica are easily identifiable without an in-depth lab analysis.

If anything this is comparable to the Weltbild scandal of two years ago (German bookstore chain owned by the Catholic church was found to be selling erotica and books on occultism in their stores and via their online site - scandal ensued). Weltbild responded by making the erotica and presumably the occultism less visible on their website (it's still there, but you have to search for it) and eventually the Catholic church got out of the bookselling business altogether and sold off Weltbild. Unlike W.H. Smith, however, they did not shut down their website or shutter their stores.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> I don't even write anything close to erotica, or anything that could be confused for it ...
> 
> I'm less concerned with their decision to delist erotica. They have that right, as does Amazon, although gads I wish they'd come up with a clear policy already ...
> 
> But it is what it is, and if they were going to delist erotica there's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to go after those titles selectively...


Lummox, please forgive me for any perceived "picking on you" here; however I'd like to make a point about some expressed attitudes on this, and you have three sentences that can help me illustrate the point. It's not personal.

In another thread on this topic, I brought up the point that erotica gets treated like the red-headed stepchild and people generally don't worry how it's treated because they don't write it. This is rationalized in general by people because the content of some erotica subgenres is objectionable to a lot of people.

I called it the WSICWIDAM Factor. (Translation: Why should I care when it doesn't affect me?)

Well, to lend some perspective to current discussions, how about we take a few comments and, instead of erotica, insert the sort of genre I *do* write and see how it sounds?

For example (and apologies to Lummox):



> I don't even write anything close to _horror_, or anything that could be confused for it ...
> 
> I'm less concerned with their decision to delist _horror_. They have that right, as does Amazon, although gads I wish they'd come up with a clear policy already ...
> 
> But it is what it is, and if they were going to delist _horror_ there's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to go after those titles selectively...


See, I write horror. A lot of folks here do.

And horror is no stranger to censorship.

In fact, lately, there's a lot of sound and fury being ginned up over the subcategory of torture horror. And "escaped, unstoppable killer" slasher horror. The arguments against those subgenres center around the over-the-top violence and, similar to arguments against erotica, not many people want to claim to play in that garden.

People label torture horror and slasher horror as "the worst of the worst" and tend to marginalize it.

So it's not an exaggeration to insert horror into statements where people have been rationalizing the censorship of erotica. Because when censorship is tolerated, that's how it'll play out: eventually, they'll come after a genre you DO write.

Food for thought, in terms of being dismissive of content we don't personally write.

Because horror is probably next...

And if people want to say, "Oh, that'd never happen because of Stephen King?" Please... E.L. James didn't get affected by the erotica crackdown. Superstars almost never do...


----------



## 71089 (Jul 12, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Umm... not true.
> 
> My three books have remained up the whole time over there, and I'm self-pubbed. (I don't write erotica though... could that be why?)


I DO write erotica and mine are still up, too. I publish directly through Kobo writinglife.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> It's not comparable, because the poisoned Tylenol was a public health hazard, so it had to be pulled ASAP. Ditto for other cases of contaminated food stuffs and medical products, faulty electrical equipment, vehicles with faulty brakes, etc... If people are dying or getting seriously ill, then drastic measures are appropriate.
> 
> Fringe erotica, no matter how icky one may find it personally, does not pose a hazard to anyone's health. People do not die or become seriously ill after looking at creepy fringe erotica. And unlike the poisoned Tylenol pills, e-books that are definitely not erotica are easily identifiable without an in-depth lab analysis.
> 
> If anything this is comparable to the Weltbild scandal of two years ago (German bookstore chain owned by the Catholic church was found to be selling erotica and books on occultism in their stores and via their online site - scandal ensued). Weltbild responded by making the erotica and presumably the occultism less visible on their website (it's still there, but you have to search for it) and eventually the Catholic church got out of the bookselling business altogether and sold off Weltbild. Unlike W.H. Smith, however, they did not shut down their website or shutter their stores.


Books are indeed not food or medicine. But in terms of the management problem, they are very similar. There are an unknown number of bad products in the midst of a much larger set that is on the market. Think of them as widgets for analysis.

And in both cases the future of the company was at risk. I one case there is general agreement the product is dangerous. In the other there is disagreement, a bit like the danger some see in those political books in Germany. Books are always messy, not like the clean dead or alive we get with poison.

I don't know anything about Weltbilt. I'll accept your judgement on it.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

> But WHS holds a special place in the mind of middle-Britain: it's a family retailer with a high street presence. When it gets it wrong, it pays a bigger price. That explains what some might see as a massive over-reaction.


I've spent quite a bit of time in the UK in the past 18 years. I'm very familiar with _W.H. Smith_ and I have never viewed them as a "family institution", though they tend to have a good selection of children's books and YA, even today. I guess it comes down to having been taken to _W.H. Smith_ as a child to buy schoolbooks and stationery, an experience I never had. For me, they were merely a place to pick up a magazine or a book and maybe a snack before a train/plane journey.

And let's not forget that _W.H. Smith_ has been selling erotica in its brick and mortar stores for as long as I have been visiting their stores. They used to carry _Black Lace_ books and a similar line of trad pub erotica in the 1990s. They carry skin mags (no idea how explicit, if it's only the really mild ones like _Maxim_, the racier ones like _Playboy_ or _Penthouse_ or the really racy stuff). They carry tabloids with scantily clad ladies and racy headlines. Last year I was in a _W.H. Smith_ store that had a big display table full of trad-pub erotica to cash in on the _50 Shades of Grey_ boom, including _Gabriel's Inferno_, an erotic romance between a college student and her professor that would probably get dinged these days, if self-published.

So in short, they are hypocrites or the people who view W.H. Smith as a family retailer have been visiting very different Smith stores. And besides, if W.H. Smith were so concerned about their reputation as a family friendly store, maybe they should have installed an adult filter on their website in the first place?


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> See, I write horror. A lot of folks here do.
> 
> And horror is no stranger to censorship.


Remember, this kerfuffle is coming from a country which considered 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' to be too dangerously depraved for anyone in the country to watch until it was finally passed by the film censors in the late 90s or early 2000s.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> . And besides, if W.H. Smith were so concerned about their reputation as a family friendly store, maybe they should have installed an adult filter on their website in the first place?


Good point. Perhaps that's what they are doing during the shutdown.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

It's Weltbild with a "D". I have a write-up about the scandal on my blog with links, including some in English.

And I sincerely doubt that the future of W.H. Smith is/was at risk because of a few problematic books. W.H. Smith is a big company with lots of stores. And books aren't even their main line. I strongly suspect that newspapers and magazines as well as snacks and chocolate are bigger sellers for them.

As for Johnson & Johnson, I'm not sure if their whole company was at risk, though I suspect Tylenol was a bigger seller for Johnson & Johnson than books for W.H. Smith. Though I mainly associate them with cosmetics and detergents, not pharmaceuticals, probably because Tylenol had never been available in Germany (at least not as Tylenol, the substance itself is available under a different trade name).

Besides, if Grünental Pharma could survive the Contergan/Thalidomide scandal (which is a textbook case of how not to handle health hazards) and Ford could survive knowingly releasing a car prone to go up in flames, then a few dirty book shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ClarissaWild said:


> I DO write erotica and mine are still up, too. I publish directly through Kobo writinglife.


I publish via Kobo Writing Life, too.

Maybe that's it?

Maybe it's better to go direct than via Draft2Digital?

*ducks inevitable pro-D2D s---storm*


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Remember, this kerfuffle is coming from a country which considered 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' to be too dangerously depraved for anyone in the country to watch until it was finally passed by the film censors in the late 90s or early 2000s.


Hey, here in Germany we still can't watch _Evil Dead_ or _Friday the 13th_ after thirty years, because the voluntary self-control (which is neither voluntary nor self-control) considers both films too dangerous to watch. And mainstream Hollywood action fare like _Total Recall_ or _Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_ is only available in a cut to ribbons edition. However, censorship here mostly affects visual media and is focussed on violence rather than sex.

And books are rarely banned unless it's incitement to hatred (and it has to be damn hateful to be considered incitement to hatred) as well as cases of supposedly violating privacy rights such as _Esra_ by Maxim Biller, which was banned in 2007, because Biller's ex-girlfriend and her mother felt the novel violated their privacy rights. There is an English language summary of the case here. And pretty much everybody agrees that the _Esra_ ban was ridiculous and that the novel basically became a victim of an ugly relationship war.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I wonder what the risk/reward rubric is between basically ignoring a tabloid's expose in a nation that has learned that tabloids are jokes while quietly adding an adult filter and, say, loudly blaring it out to the internet that you are all for censorship and have hurt hundreds of people in the process of engaging in it.

The wound from this decision is going to be far deeper than if they had just kept their heads down.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> And I sincerely doubt that the future of W.H. Smith is/was at risk because of a few problematic books. W.H. Smith is a big company with lots of stores. And books aren't even their main line. I strongly suspect that newspapers and magazines as well as snacks and chocolate are bigger sellers for them


.

I don't. I never underestimate the power of the masses to respond to emotion or a charismatic leader manipulating them. History has lots of examples. This is especially true when a firm is facing a challenge from electronic media and a changing demand profile.



> As for Johnson & Johnson, I'm not sure if their whole company was at risk, though I suspect Tylenol was a bigger seller for Johnson & Johnson than books for W.H. Smith. Though I mainly associate them with cosmetics and detergents, not pharmaceuticals, probably because Tylenol had never been available in Germany (at least not as Tylenol, the substance itself is available under a different trade name).


It was a very big deal at the time. J&J sure considered it a threat. People falling over dead can have a chilling effect on a pill popping public.



> Besides, if Grünental Pharma could survive the Contergan/Thalidomide scandal (which is a textbook case of how not to handle health hazards) and Ford could survive knowingly releasing a car prone to go up in flames, then a few dirty book shouldn't be a problem


.

Think those companies didn't spend huge amounts of resources making sure the FUBARS didn't take them down? That took lots of work. They didn't sit around saying everything will be ok because some other outfit managed to survive. WHSmith isn't sitting around counting on thatt either.

[/quote]


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Here are some current writing gigs recently been posted on Odesk ( note the Zombie one, although showing a month for its age, was just reposted. It is an ongoing open ad by IMers trying to increase their number of writers. )
Now some will say, "well, they are only asking for one book." Thinking it is just a request for one book is false comfort. There never has been a lot of erotica gigs posted either. What the IMers do is sniff writers out using Odesk requests for one book and then mass produce after they have the number of ESL writers they want. When they hit their number, they drop all of their ads; it's much cheaper for them that way

Another thing is Odesk isn't cheap like it was so its popularity with the IMers has declined. And declined a lot.
The number of ads on the other hire-a-freelance-writer-to-write-an-ebook sites...
When I see how many there are, all I can say is wow



> Ghostwriter Wanted for Romance/Suspense - 30K words
> Fixed-Price - Est. Budget: $800 - Posted 2 hours ago
> Do you have experience writing in the Romance genre? I have the plot and characters fully outlined for a short (30K words) Romance/Suspense book that features a bickering young couple, a one-night affair (not too graphic) by the wife and the offer to the husband by someone who can end his problems by eliminating his wife.





> Looking for Fiction Writer to Create Romance Book
> Fixed-Price - Est. Budget: $67 - Posted 3 hours ago
> Need an English-speaking writer who can create a romance book around 20k words. Story line will be provided





> Creative Writing for Vampire Book
> Fixed-Price - Est. Budget: $1,000 - Posted 7 hours ago
> I've written a book about a young detective that must enter the world of vampires to protect her younger sister. It has a lot of action but also romance throughout the book. The book is about 290 pages long with 18 chapters.





> Ghostwriter for Zombie survival horror short stories.
> Fixed-Price - Est. Budget: $30 - Posted 1 month ago
> Require Zombie survival horror content short stories. -Payment will be $30 USD per story. -These stories are of normal people in horrific situations (zombie apocalypse).





> Ghost Writer - Contemporary Romance
> Fixed-Price - Est. Budget: $500 - Posted 4 hours ago
> I am looking to hire a ghostwriter to write a contemporary romance novel of at least 70,000 words in length. The story must be a minimum of 70,000 words. I will provide you with an outline for an idea for a story I have. ... I will provide you with an outline for an idea for a story I have. You will read what I have already written, and consider it just notes and then write your own version of my story. ... You will read what I have already written, and consider it just notes and then write your own version of my story. I am *NOT* looking for someone to try and re-write what I've already written.


There's a few I found in a simple, fast search
This is exactly what happened to erotica. Requests for other genres were non-existent
Now, however, there are a lot of requests for other genres and much fewer for erotica - retailers are looking too close at erotica so IMers are backing off

Internet Marketing in a new genre
Wash, rinse, repeat
It's coming to a genre near you. Soon. Very soon
And when it does, the complaints will be about the indie and small press books, and indie and small press as a whole, in YOUR genre

The dog or the tail
That easy
Now if only authors, all authors, would push back by pointing the real problem out

But when IM happens in the other genres as it has in erotica - not if, but when - at least us erotica authors might have a break from the hot seat for awhile


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I've spent quite a bit of time in the UK in the past 18 years. I'm very familiar with _W.H. Smith_ and I have never viewed them as a "family institution", though they tend to have a good selection of children's books and YA, even today. I guess it comes down to having been taken to _W.H. Smith_ as a child to buy schoolbooks and stationery, an experience I never had. For me, they were merely a place to pick up a magazine or a book and maybe a snack before a train/plane journey.
> 
> And let's not forget that _W.H. Smith_ has been selling erotica in its brick and mortar stores for as long as I have been visiting their stores. They used to carry _Black Lace_ books and a similar line of trad pub erotica in the 1990s. They carry skin mags (no idea how explicit, if it's only the really mild ones like _Maxim_, the racier ones like _Playboy_ or _Penthouse_ or the really racy stuff). They carry tabloids with scantily clad ladies and racy headlines. Last year I was in a _W.H. Smith_ store that had a big display table full of trad-pub erotica to cash in on the _50 Shades of Grey_ boom, including _Gabriel's Inferno_, an erotic romance between a college student and her professor that would probably get dinged these days, if self-published.
> 
> So in short, they are hypocrites or the people who view W.H. Smith as a family retailer have been visiting very different Smith stores. And besides, if W.H. Smith were so concerned about their reputation as a family friendly store, maybe they should have installed an adult filter on their website in the first place?


Anybody ever watch _I, Claudius_, a BBC production?

Messalina showing her naked breasts. Sejanus telling the soldier protesting against killing a 14 year old virgin because it's forbidden, "Then see that she's not a virgin when you kill her."

Goodness! Nudity, rape and murder on national television!


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> They carry skin mags (no idea how explicit, if it's only the really mild ones like _Maxim_, the racier ones like _Playboy_ or _Penthouse_ or the really racy stuff).


Oh good point!

I can confirm some of their magazines are very explicit. At least as explicit as you can get where each image is a single image of a female baring all... and not in an almost tasteful Playboy way either. This doesn't take into account the ads within those mags which are as explicit (couples/trios) as you can get.

But, I'm no expert.  One fell off the shelf.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Of course we can fault them. And I have no reason to think you can come up with a solution.


On the contrary. A solution would be extremely easy, the same one that Smashwords uses. Put in an "adult content" filter. Problem solved.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> On the contrary. A solution would be extremely easy, the same one that Smashwords uses. Put in an "adult content" filter. Problem solved.


Perhaps it would be extremely easy to use an adult filter if they have an adult on/off flag on all their inventory. Do they have it now? Where does that come from? Who puts the adult label on a book? The filter is easy. The data is a different story. We can do all sorts of sorting and selection, but we need the data to do it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Perhaps it would be extremely easy to use an adult filter if they have an adult on/off flag on all their inventory. Do they have it now? Where does that come from? Who puts the adult label on a book? The filter is easy. The data is a different story.


The same place Smashwords gets theirs.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> The same place Smashwords gets theirs.


OK. Where is that? Do we have any reason to think Amazon, Kobo, B&N, and WHSmith all have the flag set in their inventory? If not, how many millions of books have to be flagged? What is the basis for the flags? How is it done?

We cant say its extremely easy if we dont know this stuff. Anyone know? I don't.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I publish via Kobo Writing Life, too.
> 
> Maybe that's it?
> 
> ...


Since this is about events in the UK, I'm assuming you looked for your books on the UK site and not the US site?


----------



## ilamont (Jul 14, 2012)

Spotted on GigaOm:

In furor over rape and incest porn, ebook retailers aren't the only ones to blame

I got a notice from Kobo this morning, but the language in it suggested that they were only taking down "offensive" titles, not everything under the sun:



> As you may be aware, there has been a significant amount of negative media attention in the UK regarding offensive material that became available across a number of eBook platforms. Kobo was included in the reports from media and we are taking immediate action to resolve an issue that is the direct result of a select few authors and publishers violating Kobo's content policies.
> 
> In order to address the situation Kobo is taking the following steps:
> 1. We are removing titles in question from the Kobo platform.
> ...


However, when I tried to visit my Kobo publishing page, I got an error message.

I don't get a lot of sales from Kobo, but I am bothered by Kobo's ham-handed approach.

I am also wondering about the review processes employed by the platforms. They're black boxes, but I assume in the hours or days that books are "in review", human beings in some remote cube farm are looking at basic metadata like title, description, and cover art, and algorithms are crunching through the interior text. Shouldn't this get most of the obvious titles, like those named in the GigaOm article?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,164749.0.html

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,164939.0.html

Goodnight


----------



## MarilynVix (Jun 19, 2013)

I'm wondering how people are doing in getting their titles listed through Smashwords or other means this week. Because of the hoopla, not sure how long it will take to get my title up on Nook, Sony, Kobo, and other distributors that work with Smashwords. Anybody trying to get things listed on the Prime Catalog having trouble? Or did Smashwords just hit stop this week.  Trying to get everything listed in time for Halloween sales.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

ilamont,

I've merged your thread with one of the existing threads on this topic.  Sorry for any confusion.  Thanks for understanding.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Lummox, please forgive me for any perceived "picking on you" here; however I'd like to make a point about some expressed attitudes on this, and you have three sentences that can help me illustrate the point. It's not personal.
> 
> In another thread on this topic, I brought up the point that erotica gets treated like the red-headed stepchild and people generally don't worry how it's treated because they don't write it. This is rationalized in general by people because the content of some erotica subgenres is objectionable to a lot of people.
> 
> I called it the WSICWIDAM Factor. (Translation: Why should I care when it doesn't affect me?)


Point well taken (and I don't feel picked on). 

Although the delisting of erotica doesn't impact me _now_, it is worth recognizing that when one genre falls, others are in danger. These sorts of things always come with a nasty slippery slope. The fact that sci-fi and fantasy are way down near the bottom of the slope doesn't mean there's no cause for concern.

Yet on the other hand, look at that debacle a few years ago when Amazon was selling some schmo's book on how to be a better pedophile. I'm going by memory here, but the gist is they gave out a form response of "We don't want to be censors", then they took it down, then it went back up, then they took it down again. It was kind of badly handled because they didn't have a plan in place at the time, but clearly if ever a line needed to be drawn on a book, it was here. My gut says this was just a typical case of content coming in from a third-party publisher like Lulu or such, and while they botched their initial response (which, let's face it, Amazon always does; their first-tier form letter response system is crap), they did the right thing. I don't think the book going back up was their fault; it was either an automated system or the author himself trying to get around the delisting. Yet Amazon still took the blame for a lot of what happened, when in reality the only thing they did wrong was send that stupid form response. (If I'm wrong on any of the details here, it's because this falls under Things I Don't Want to Google.) I know people who still won't use Amazon because that incident ticked them off so badly.

In this case I don't love (from a free speech standpoint) that these books were censored, nor that lots of more "regular" erotica got bashed just because a small fraction of the genre is really extreme and squidgy, nor that this whole thing sets a really bad precedent. But in spite of all that, I get the distributors' and retailers' points. It would have made way more sense, however, to just delist those specific titles and be done with it. While the troll still wins, at least he doesn't get a ton of free publicity out of it because a bad decision on the business's part caused the author community to mobilize for war. If all this guy can get every time he raises a stink is a brief "We've taken care of those titles", then he's fighting the tide uselessly.

And to address the other big back-and-forth in this thread: The J&J analogy is terrible. A few books tarnishing a brand isn't equivalent to consumers fearing they're playing Russian roulette with their medication. Removing those books would have taken care of the immediate problem, and if they chose to go a step further then a simple press release could have explained that they'd followup by looking into other titles in the coming days and weeks. In every case of brand endangerment, there are two priorities: 1) Protect consumers from harm, and 2) reduce the oxygen so the flames die down. #1 doesn't always apply, and didn't here; the threat to the brand and a threat to consumers are two completely different things. #2 differs on a case-by-case basis; what will reassure most people in one case will cause massive problems in others. J&J acted quickly and responsibly in a way that was right for their exact situation. The parties involved here acted quickly but extremely recklessly, making a bad situation worse.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> Since this is about events in the UK, I'm assuming you looked for your books on the UK site and not the US site?


FWIW, my books (directly uploaded) seem to show up on the UK site as well. (Knock wood.)

They're all romance, some sweet, some mildly spicy.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

ChristinePope said:


> FWIW, my books (directly uploaded) seem to show up on the UK site as well. (Knock wood.)
> 
> They're all romance, some sweet, some mildly spicy.


I don't see any of your books up.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> And to address the other big back-and-forth in this thread: The J&J analogy is terrible. A few books tarnishing a brand isn't equivalent to consumers fearing they're playing Russian roulette with their medication.


I agree those are not equivalent. Few buisness situations ever reach the level of equivalance. What is very similar is the need to remove a subset of instances of products from a larger set of instances where one cannot identify the problem set. Both Johnson & Johnson and WHSmith faced that problem.



> Removing those books would have taken care of the immediate problem, and if they chose to go a step further then a simple press release could have explained that they'd followup by looking into other titles in the coming days and weeks.


The immediate problem would not have been takebn care of by removing a few cited books. There are many others the media could cite to take their place. That would lead to an iterative process where the media lets out a few titles everyday and WHSmith sees it as a series of immediate problems. How exactly would they answer , "_Why are you still selling Daddy books_?"

An explanation that one is going to take a leisurely few weeks to rid the inventory of Daddy books is far inferior to moving quickly and decisively. That is a PR disaster. "_WHSmith sells Daddy Books In Kids Section While They Take Some Time To Think About It_?" Think about what?



> In every case of brand endangerment, there are two priorities: 1) Protect consumers from harm, and 2) reduce the oxygen so the flames die down. #1 doesn't always apply, and didn't here; the threat to the brand and a threat to consumers are two completely different things. #2 differs on a case-by-case basis; what will reassure most people in one case will cause massive problems in others. J&J acted quickly and responsibly in a way that was right for their exact situation. The parties involved here acted quickly but extremely recklessly, making a bad situation worse.


How exactly did they make a bad situation worse? How is the present situation worse than removing a few books and issuing a letter saying we will look at the rest of our inventory someday? That reduces the oxygen? How? It lets the media throw kindling on the fire everyday. It lets it ask how long WHSmith will be hosting Daddy.

WHSmith is concerned with consumers and government, not independent authors.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Removing just those specific books, or doing so and following up with a very quick search of related books, would have taken a great deal of the wind out of the sails of this problem. Yes, there are some who would still look for related books themselves and freak out at still finding them, but it would at least show the company was working on the problem. It's probably not the best available option, but it's way better than the one they took. Pulling _everything_ isn't working on the problem; it's panic, and it's stupid. Shutting down in response to a situation like this is, I contend, nearly as damaging to the brand as total inaction. It's simply not justifiable, when they had so many other options. And it's been said already that WHSmith could have still gone ahead with the lesser (but still stupid) nuclear option of simply stopping digital sales, while letting print sales through their site continue.

Kobo didn't handle themselves much better. They didn't pull everything, but they basically took a rake to any virtual shelf that looked remotely iffy. Also stupid. Also not justifiable. Casting a narrow net rather than a wide one would have solved a great deal of the problem.

Amazon, predictably, is handling this better than anyone. They've been caught in bad situations before and now they have the institutional maturity to deal with it. Anecdotally they seem to be a little overzealous, hitting some false positives, but they're doing a way better job of this than their competitors.


----------



## Writer1000 (Jul 28, 2013)

I just did a search for my name on Kobo and one of my books (Secret Designs) that I just uploaded 3 days ago through D2D came up! I haven't even received that standard email from D2D to say this book has now been published on Kobo but it's there.

All my other 3 books previously published on Kobo through D2D are gone, and the other book I uploaded the same time as the book that's appearing isn't showing.

I wonder how this particular book slipped through?


----------



## roy le coeur (Aug 17, 2010)

Mark Coker has now posted this on the Smashwords site:
October 15, 2013 - Kobo powers multiple retailers around the world.  One of those retailers in the UK, WH Smith, woke up the other day and realized they were carrying a lot of racy erotica when a British tabloid embarassed them publicly with this fact.  What a surprise.  WH Smith, in what appears to have been a nonsensical panic, took their entire store down, pinned the blame on self-published books, and replaced the home page with an over-the-top anti-self-publishing rant that will not soon be forgotten by indies.  That's what you call, "thowing the baby out with the bathwater."  Kobo is now racing to put together all the pieces.  From what I'm told, all or most Smashwords titles are not available in the UK through the Kobo-branded store as well as through WH Smith.  Most Smashwords titles continue to appear internationally through Kobo, but not all.  I spoke with Kobo today and they're working to restore as many blocked titles as possible as soon as possible.  However, not all titles will reappear.  Similar to Apple, Smashwords erotica authors can now assume that erotic fiction where the predominant theme, focus, title, cover image or book description is targeted at readers who seek erotic stories of incest, pseudo-incest or rape will find that their content is not welcome at the Kobo store.  I've heard multiple reports that Amazon is cracking down on the same.  Going forward, I think we can expect this to become the new reality as major retailers set their sights on a global market where the cultural, religious or political norms in some countries will find certain categories of erotica too objectionable, or might find non-erotic categories that most western cultures consider mainstream as too objectionable.  This means we can expect more mess to come in the years ahead as the industry navigates ebook globalization.  Improved metadata, in the form of more granular categorization, will go a long way toward helping authors, publishers and retailers respect cultural norms while also enabling access to those who want it.  All titles that meet the Smashwords Terms of Service are available for worldwide purchase at the Smashwords store.  As we did with Paypal, we'll always do what we can to protect the ability of writers to publish legal fiction at Smashwords.  In the meantime, Smashwords will work closely with Kobo to get as many titles restored as possible.  Most of the most eggregious content - the type that any retailer would most fear such as underage erotica - is already blocked by Smashwords.  However, much of what Kobo now finds too objectionable is still accepted by Smashwords.  Kobo is going to begin increasing their internal vetting procedures, much as Apple began doing over a year ago.  This will likely introduce new delays in terms of the speed at which Kobo loads titles, regardless of whether a title is uploaded direct or delivered through Smashwords.  That said, Kobo appreciates that Smashwords has always had strict vetting standards for our Premium Catalog, so we expect with some process and metadata enhancements at Smashwords, we can maintain preferential delivery and listing speeds at Kobo while respecting Kobo's right to sell and distribute what they please.  We want to do this in partnership with our erotica authors through better metadata which will lead to greater transparency for customers and retailers alike.  As a first step, Smashwords is considering adding new metadata fields for erotica authors so they can voluntarily tag their books as NSFAK (not safe for Apple/Kobo), but because these titles meet the Smashwords Terms of Service they are allowed at Smashwords and other Smashwords retailers.  This will allow us to omit certain books from certain distribution channels while maintaining the flow to the Smashwords store and others.  Please keep in mind that we're still very early in the planning stages of this, and a lot needs to happen before we get there.  I realize there are members of the author community who would prefer we throw our bodies upon swords to protect the ability of Smashwords authors to distribute the now restricted categories to Kobo.  That's not going to happen.  We will continue to engage with them in the spirit of partnership as we always have with every Smashwords retailer, working to protect the best interests of all Smashwords authors, and working to help Kobo and every other Smashwords retailer evolve their systems to adapt to the brave new realities of a multi-cultural world that changes every day.  I don't expect everyone to be happy with how things turn out.  I'm not happy about it, because such limitations lead to slippery slopes and subjective judgments that can be harmful to authors, readers and the culture of books.  I expect this story to develop over time.  In the meantime, if you feel your title has been inappropriately blocked by Kobo, please contact the Smashwords support team via the "Comments/questions" link at the top of the page and provide the following information: 1.  Your book title.  2.  A direct hyperlink to your Smashwords book page at Smashwords. 3.  Your ISBN.  4.  A short one-sentence note that clearly states your book does not fall within the prohibited characteristics as I described above in bold italics.  Kobo wants our help to do the right thing, which means we need your help.  Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

roy le coeur said:


> As a first step, Smashwords is considering adding new metadata fields for erotica authors so they can voluntarily tag their books as NSFAK (not safe for Apple/Kobo)


A bit pointless that isn't it? Can't authors already opt in or out of certain stores? Why would they put NSFAK on a title and then opt IN to kobo and Apple?


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Regarding the Smashwords' post, I have a question about this part:

"In the meantime, if you feel your title has been inappropriately blocked by Kobo, please contact the Smashwords support team via the "Comments/questions" link at the top of the page and provide the following information: 1.  Your book title.  2.  A direct hyperlink to your Smashwords book page at Smashwords. 3.  Your ISBN.  4.  A short one-sentence note that clearly states your book does not fall within the prohibited characteristics as I described above in bold italics. "

Does this mean every author whose book does not currently appear on Kobo (I'm in the UK and my books have disappeared when I look on Kobo)? I know all self-published books have been suspended from W H Smith and Kobo UK, but I was under the impression that once they had sorted out the titles they wanted to block, the rest would be automatically restored. Does the Smashwords "inappropriately blocked" mean those erotica titles which remain blocked when the author feels that their content is within guidelines? - or all books currently suspended in the UK?


----------



## Peter Salisbury (Mar 3, 2010)

A good question, Daphne. To be on the 'safe' side I have just notified Smashwords for each of the twenty books of mine they have on site that none of them contain any covers or content relating to this issue.


----------



## Lana Amore (Oct 13, 2013)

markecooper said:


> A bit pointless that isn't it? Can't authors already opt in or out of certain stores? Why would they put NSFAK on a title and then opt IN to kobo and Apple?


It's possible that in all the confusion the Smashwords CEO didn't quite think this through.  I have to say, I like his response. I only wish Smashwords was prettier and more popular with buyers. It's turning out to be the only retailer I like.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2013)

markecooper said:


> A bit pointless that isn't it? Can't authors already opt in or out of certain stores? Why would they put NSFAK on a title and then opt IN to kobo and Apple?


Remember, SMashwords requires you to opt out of channels, When you upload, the boxes are already checked. If you forget to uncheck them, the books go in until you pull them. I assume this is perhaps a safeguard against folks who forget to uncheck the box or an attempt at double-verify adult content.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> I don't see any of your books up.


That's really weird. I see them on both the US and UK sites when I do a search on my name. (We need a head-scratching smiley for this sort of situation!)


----------



## @Suzanna (Mar 14, 2011)

ChristinePope said:


> That's really weird. I see them on both the US and UK sites when I do a search on my name. (We need a head-scratching smiley for this sort of situation!)


I see them for sale in Canada.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Removing just those specific books, or doing so and following up with a very quick search of related books, would have taken a great deal of the wind out of the sails of this problem. Yes, there are some who would still look for related books themselves and freak out at still finding them, but it would at least show the company was working on the problem.


Working on the problem? Shutting down the whole place solves the problem. The Daddy problem is gone. Results trump intentions.



> It's probably not the best available option, but it's way better than the one they took. Pulling _everything_ isn't working on the problem; it's panic, and it's stupid. Shutting down in response to a situation like this is, I contend, nearly as damaging to the brand as total inaction.


Why will the public will blame WHSmith for shutting down to make sure Daddy is kicked out? Independent authors might not like it, but the public will see the company obviously fixed the problem immediately. It also may have some effect on potential legal problems. I don't know enough about the UK law on that.

We hear lots of folks telling us it's panic, so it's wrong. I prefer to simply look at the actions and forget about the names being attached. Attaching a name to an action is not evidence it's the wrong action.

We really won't be able to assess the effect of what they did for a few weeks. If they come back online, they simply apologize for the inconvenience and say the situation was so serious they had to take immediate and drastic action to fix the problem.

But it's still instructive to say what we would have done before the results are in and hindsighters begin to swarm.



> It's simply not justifiable, when they had so many other options. And it's been said already that WHSmith could have still gone ahead with the lesser (but still stupid) nuclear option of simply stopping digital sales, while letting print sales through their site continue.


To whom do they have to justify it?

I know it's been said they could have stopped just digital sales. That may be true. I don't know anything about their particular systems. I'd have to ask theirr IT folks. But I note all the effects we have read about here would still happen if only digital had been shut down.



> Kobo didn't handle themselves much better. They didn't pull everything, but they basically took a rake to any virtual shelf that looked remotely iffy. Also stupid. Also not justifiable. Casting a narrow net rather than a wide one would have solved a great deal of the problem.


Again, to whom do they have to justify it?



> Amazon, predictably, is handling this better than anyone. They've been caught in bad situations before and now they have the institutional maturity to deal with it. Anecdotally they seem to be a little overzealous, hitting some false positives, but they're doing a way better job of this than their competitors.


Amazon does seem to be doing a better job. However, they operate in a different legal environment and have the advantage of letting WHSmith and Kobo hang out there while they fix things.

I do note there is a long thread here about Amazon taking down lots of erotic books. People were reporting lots of books being pulled prior to the Kernal stuff. The thread started Sep 27. So something was already in play. It would be interesting to know what.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

ChristinePope said:


> That's really weird. I see them on both the US and UK sites when I do a search on my name. (We need a head-scratching smiley for this sort of situation!)


If I search for your books on Kobo UK (I live in the UK) they don't show up for me.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

ChristinePope said:


> That's really weird. I see them on both the US and UK sites when I do a search on my name. (We need a head-scratching smiley for this sort of situation!)


How are you searching the UK store? Are you using a proxy?


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> How are you searching the UK store? Are you using a proxy?


No -- I just realized that it's probably seeing me with a U.S. ISP, so they're not being blocked.

Not that it really matters, since I don't sell squat on Kobo anyway.


----------



## Peter Salisbury (Mar 3, 2010)

To quote what I said earlier about the Smashwords response:



Peter Salisbury said:


> I have just notified Smashwords for each of the twenty books of mine they have on site that none of them contain any covers or content relating to this issue.


I have only a short time ago received an email from a Smashwords Service Team member who referred me to a link (see below) and said that if all is well with my books and they do not violate the policies as Kobo sees them, the books will be live again in a week's time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24533915

I expect this refers to everybody.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Peter Salisbury said:


> To quote what I said earlier about the Smashwords response:
> 
> I have only a short time ago received an email from a Smashwords Service Team member who referred me to a link (see below) and said that if all is well with my books and they do not violate the policies as Kobo sees them, the books will be live again in a week's time.
> 
> ...


For those who have been selling well on Kobo, a week is a serious dent in the bank account.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

> The company said that titles that did not violate its policies would go back on sale in a week's time


Of course, the big question is what violates their policies?

Their policy:



> vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise objectionable


They could cut a wide swath with that, even extending outside of erotica.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Working on the problem? Shutting down the whole place solves the problem. The Daddy problem is gone. Results trump intentions.


I respect that there's lots of room for opinion on whether the censorship was good at all (I'm not sorry to see those particular books go), and on how bad an issue it was, but you're still going back to the J&J thing. People weren't fearing for their lives over this. And just because the problem was solved doesn't mean it was solved well; they had other options for dealing quickly with this, and took decidedly the worst one. Then they blew up at their business partners and a community that has undoubtedly provided them considerable income. They didn't think this through at _all_.

Meanwhile, shutting down in a panic causes all kinds of other problems. It makes your customers who were going to buy all kinds of other, perfectly legitimate content have to turn elsewhere. You may not get those customers back. It causes huge and immediate losses in revenue, likely far more so than would be lost by damage to the brand for inaction, and definitely more than would be lost by brand damage after taking far more moderate action. Business relationships are hurt in the process, too, especially with the distributor they fobbed all the blame onto. And all that lost revenue, damaged relationships, and clear inability to handle the situation gracefully translates to shareholder poison.

Solving a problem by creating others of at least as big a magnitude isn't really a solution at all--not if you could have avoided it. For saying results trump intentions, you're looking at only the most immediate result, not all the others that will fall out of this.



> Why will the public will blame WHSmith for shutting down to make sure Daddy is kicked out? Independent authors might not like it, but the public will see the company obviously fixed the problem immediately. It also may have some effect on potential legal problems. I don't know enough about the UK law on that.


You speak of "the public" as if they're all 100% on the same side of this and demanded the books be taken down immediately, and that each and every one of those customers were willing for the store to go down if it meant seeing this done. I know that sounds like a strawman, but I really don't see how a lot of your arguments for "immediate and drastic action" stand up without that assumption being made. We're still on the J&J recall merry-go-round. But this was probably _not_ the first priority for most of their customers. And nobody believes the company needed to shutdown all online sales to do this, any more than you'd expect Walmart to shutter its doors in response to someone buying a moldy tangerine.



> We hear lots of folks telling us it's panic, so it's wrong. I prefer to simply look at the actions and forget about the names being attached. Attaching a name to an action is not evidence it's the wrong action.


Amazon did things completely differently. They usually know what they're doing. They handled the situation and kept most of their authors happy, by having a lot fewer false positives, and kept their customers happy by leaving the store up. The fact that there's an obviously right action and somebody else took it is pretty solid evidence WH Smith's super-extreme reaction was the wrong one. But it's also valid to say that, just as a rule of thumb, the most extreme reaction is pretty much always the wrong one. Also, so is pointing fingers publicly and blaming all of self-publishing, as they did.

How does the word "unprofessional" keep sliding out of this conversation? I mean can we at least acknowledge that WH Smith dropped the ball on how they communicated this, if nothing else?



> To whom do they have to justify it?


Their shareholders. Their other customers who are so inconvenienced they'll take their business elsewhere. Their distributor, who they basically flipped off. WH Smith does not exist in a vacuum where they and the specific customers who are fired up on this issue are the only people who matter. And even among those customers, many wouldn't want the site shutdown outright. Among everyone else, they've just displayed an extreme lack of professionalism and made blatantly bad decisions that can only be justified by tortured analogy.



> Amazon does seem to be doing a better job. However, they operate in a different legal environment and have the advantage of letting WHSmith and Kobo hang out there while they fix things.
> 
> I do note there is a long thread here about Amazon taking down lots of erotic books. People were reporting lots of books being pulled prior to the Kernal stuff. The thread started Sep 27. So something was already in play. It would be interesting to know what.


The fact that Amazon exists in a different legal environment is largely immaterial. The British legal system isn't so backwards it would demand such an immediate and extreme response; it might well have demanded something heavier-handed than removing the specific titles, if there even were any legal issues at stake, but they had to have an option short of pushing the Big Red Button. I will of course grant you that Amazon is in a better position, but when their competitors shoot themselves in the foot that makes things pretty easy on them. Besides, Amazon would have been in a much better position to survive an extreme response, like for example Kobo's, which was almost as terrible as WH Smith's.

I share your curiosity, though, regarding Amazon's apparent preemptive strike. I suspect something was in the wind long before the Kernel blew this up--not just by a couple of weeks but by several. It takes time to implement a policy change without a call to urgency. This means whatever was brewing probably started in early September at the latest.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Yesterday only one of my three sweet romances was missing from Kobo UK - today all three are!  They are all through Smashwords so I guess I'd better go and put in a help request to get them re-sent.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> You speak of "the public" as if they're all 100% on the same side of this and demanded the books be taken down immediately, and that each and every one of those customers were willing for the store to go down if it meant seeing this done.


The complaints didn't come from "the public," they came from the Daily Mail, and others have said that the majority of comments on the Mail article opposed censorship of legal content. The idea that "the public" were going to be outside WH Smith stores with pitchforks and burning torches over this is just ludicrous.

And yes, I agree that WH Smith have probably made a far bigger problem for themselves than they would have by acting in a calm and rational manner. They've annoyed their customers, annoyed their distributors, annoyed authors who sell through them, and made themselves look horribly guilty of Bad Stuff.


----------



## Nathalie Hamidi (Jul 9, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> Yesterday only one of my three sweet romances was missing from Kobo UK - today all three are! They are all through Smashwords so I guess I'd better go and put in a help request to get them re-sent.


I guess that's because they're sick and ghiarrrrlglglgllgl and repulsive! SOOOO not like my tentacle stories!  
Which seem to be still there, by the way.

Seriously, this is so beyond ridiculous.

Hugs, don't despair, I hope they put them back up quickly!


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Nathalie Hamidi said:


> I guess that's because they're sick and ghiarrrrlglglgllgl and repulsive! SOOOO not like my tentacle stories!
> Which seem to be still there, by the way.
> 
> Seriously, this is so beyond ridiculous.
> ...


Oh, I'm devastated. I'm selling nothing there instead of... nothing! 

Still, it's the principle of the thing.


----------



## portiadacosta (Feb 28, 2011)

I put in a help request at Smashwords, for my non taboo erotica. But was told that just because they *are* erotica, Kobo deem some elements of them objectionable.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Actually - the British law *does* require that response.

W.H. Smith could still be prosecuted over those titles even though they took them down immediately - the law there still holds retailers *criminally responsible* for obscene material. The equivalent to the DA has said they aren't going to prosecute, but the fact remains that they have to be 100% certain the don't sell anything that might remotely be deemed as obscene.

Also, their contract with Kobo means Kobo gives them commission on sales in the UK - so Kobo, despite not having a physical presence in the UK and thus being protected somewhat - has to 100% guarantee nothing obscene will ever be found by anyone. I DO think that taking down the entire site was stupid, but it may have been the only way they could avoid prosecution.

Which means that Kobo's market share worldwide is going to go down if they actually stop publishing any erotica (as opposed to region-locking, which they may be legally obliged to do). They were already in trouble

In the long run, it's Kobo and WH Smith's this hurts, not us.

Smashwords is trying to get my titles back up (the only "sex" in either book is non-explicit partial female nudity).


----------



## Mysterio (Jul 31, 2013)

But what was actually illegal about this content? Maybe the rape stories occupy a grey area, but none of them were real incest or had underage characters. Even the worst offender with the Daddy rape books, See You Next Tuesday Press, has disclaimers in their books stating all characters are over 18 and not blood related.

The media blatantly lied claiming these works were "pedophilia." I haven't found a single book they linked in their stupid articles proving this. They just made up their story as they went along and blew things out of proportion.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Heads up: BN is deleting accounts. No appeal. No resubmission, just boom gone.

I haven't been hit yet, thank goodness but you can bet I'm going in and scrubbing everything clean.

I suggest you do the same.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Jennifer R P said:


> W.H. Smith could still be prosecuted over those titles even though they took them down immediately - the law there still holds retailers *criminally responsible* for obscene material. The equivalent to the DA has said they aren't going to prosecute, but the fact remains that they have to be 100% certain the don't sell anything that might remotely be deemed as obscene.


You really think the British government would prosecute WH Smith over 'dirty books'?

That would seem like a great way to finally put an end to the Victorian-era 'obscenity' laws.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Per the Obscene Protections Act of 1959 Wiki:

"The Act created a new offence for publishing obscene material, repealing the common law offence of obscene libel which was previously used, and also allows Justices of the Peace to issue warrants allowing the police to seize such materials. *At the same time it creates two defences; firstly, the defence of innocent dissemination, and secondly the defence of public good.* The Act has been used in several high-profile cases, such as the trials of Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley's Lover and Oz for the Schoolkids OZ issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene_Publications_Act_1959

Not a lawyer, and definitely not a solicitor, but it sounds like it would be a hard prosecution. They would have to prove negligence.

B.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2013)

Just to be a conspiracy theorist for a moment (this is not based on any actual evidence or insider knowledge. Just speculating wildly for purposes of my own general amusement):

Amazon started to clean up it's listings of erotica months ago (as we all know from the ongoing threads here on KB). Almost as if they were preparing for something big to happen. 

Now if I recall correctly, wasn't it Amazon that actually "alerted" the justice department to the whole Apple price fixing thing? I seem to remember there being some controversy 

Wouldn't it be interesting if the concerned citizens who alerted the media to all this erotica actually were linked to Amazon? Kobo has a much stronger presence in Europe than the U.S. and is a serious competitor to Amazon there. And while all of their competitors are blindsided as the hounds start sniffing out all the erotic books on their sites, Amazon has already "cleaned up" their house in advance...


----------



## SandraMiller (May 10, 2011)

You're a scary good conspiracy theorist, Julie...


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Just to be a conspiracy theorist for a moment (this is not based on any actual evidence or insider knowledge. Just speculating wildly for purposes of my own general amusement):
> 
> Amazon started to clean up it's listings of erotica months ago (as we all know from the ongoing threads here on KB). Almost as if they were preparing for something big to happen.
> 
> ...


Ha! Actually...hmmm, this really sounds plausible.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2013)

SandraMiller said:


> You're a scary good conspiracy theorist, *****...


We Sith usually are...


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

The conspiracy angle is interesting, but realistically I don't think Amazon would do something that could hurt them in unpredictable ways down the line. Filtering objectionable content has to be a very difficult task for them, and it's not one they'd want to see expanded.

What I suspect to be true is that Amazon had some really clever people keeping an eye on trends in the market, and saw the first stirrings of the uproar before it really went big via the Kernel and the Daily Mail.

Another possibility here is that those goofy dino porn books going viral is what triggered this landslide. I hadn't heard of them till a few weeks ago, around the time that it would have made sense for Amazon to start moving on a new policy. If Amazon took a look at the state of their erotica marketplace and noticed they had some really horrific titles lurking there (not the dino porn per se, but the even ickier stuff), they might have realized others would do the same and there'd be an inevitable backlash. Hence the policy change, and hence the inevitable backlash.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

With most major shifts in the way a company does business, it's a case of following the money.  Wasn't the last erotica crack down due to the payment providers?  I would suspect that they've been making rumblings again and that Amazon have just been quicker on the ball than the other companies when it comes to preparing for a possible ultimatum.

The now banned material has been making a lot of money for the companies.  I may be wrong but I don't think they'd implement such a blanket ban/policy change just for PR.


----------



## Jack C. Nemo (Jul 5, 2013)

What Kobo should have done:

1. Reiterate that erotica involving those below 18 is forbidden.
2. Specify that erotica revolving around incest, PI, bestiality, non/dub con etc has to be placed in the Taboo section. Advise aggregators/distros and KWL publishers that books placed outside of the category will be blocked, and may be grounds for account closure.
3. Give the partners the ability to block entire (sub)categories. If this applies to both trade and the indies complaints should be few. Publicly list which categories are blocked by which partners.
4. Advise suppliers that categories or titles may be region blocked to comply with that regions laws. (duh) Responsible corporation, blah blah blah 
5. Add a Mature Materials filter. Default existing database --outside of children's books-- to being flagged. Let suppliers update, and change upload process to include flag setting. *Provide coherent guidance as to what Kobo expects to have the flag on*. Even better if the filter returns a response advising you to change settings for mature flagged stuff when you search the way Drive Thru does.

I'm not an MBA or anything, but this seems like it would have worked a heck of a lot better. Might even have improved their market share based on how many people Amazon has aggravated lately.

Unless Zelah's right and it's Mastercard again. In which case, a class action lawsuit for tortious interference should teach Mastercard to mind their place.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon has already "cleaned up" their house in advance...


Not quite. The purge going on now at Amazon is at full bore. Every day more lists of authors are having their catalogs decimated over ticky-tacky crap that would not have been remotely considered a problem a week ago.

There is no 'advance' here. If Amazon was in on it, then they didn't prepare adequately.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I respect that there's lots of room for opinion on whether the censorship was good at all (I'm not sorry to see those particular books go), and on how bad an issue it was, but you're still going back to the J&J thing.
> People weren't fearing for their lives over this


.

I am still going back to the J$J case. That's because it posed a sudden threat to the company and involved pulling instances of products from a much larger set. That isn't negated by the fact that books didn't kill people.



> And just because the problem was solved doesn't mean it was solved well; they had other options for dealing quickly with this, and took decidedly the worst one. Then they blew up at their business partners and a community that has undoubtedly provided them considerable income. They didn't think this through at _all_


How do we know their decision making process? I'd suggest it doesn't matter. Only the action matters. This isn't a personal thing. How they arrived at their decision is immaterial. We may never know.



> Meanwhile, shutting down in a panic causes all kinds of other problems.


Again. We have no basis to call panic. And even if it was panic, who cares? Action matters, not the names we call it. Good and bad decisions can both be made in a panic. Good and bad decisions can both be made through serious deliberation. Labeling a process panic tells us nothing about the relative effectiveness of the action. Labels are evidence of nothing.



> It makes your customers who were going to buy all kinds of other, perfectly legitimate content have to turn elsewhere. You may not get those customers back. It causes huge and immediate losses in revenue, likely far more so than would be lost by damage to the brand for inaction, and definitely more than would be lost by brand damage after taking far more moderate action


.

I agree about customers and revenue. But I have no reason to presume taking down a dozen books and announcing the company will host Daddy while it thinks about the rest would lead to less brand damage.



> Business relationships are hurt in the process, too, especially with the distributor they fobbed all the blame onto. And all that lost revenue, damaged relationships, and clear inability to handle the situation gracefully translates to shareholder poison


.

I agree about relationships. I haven't checked stock prices.



> Solving a problem by creating others of at least as big a magnitude isn't really a solution at all--not if you could have avoided it.


I agree. What we don't know us if taking down a dozen books and thinking about the rest would have avoided it.



> For saying results trump intentions, you're looking at only the most immediate result, not all the others that will fall out of this.


Of course I'm looking at immediate results. That's where the immediate threat is. Looks like they have neutralized that one. Would taking down a dozen boks and announcing thoughtful consideration have done the same?



> You speak of "the public" as if they're all 100% on the same side of this and demanded the books be taken down immediately, and that each and every one of those customers were willing for the store to go down if it meant seeing this done


No. I haven't said anything like that. Straw man.



> . I know that sounds like a strawman, but I really don't see how a lot of your arguments for "immediate and drastic action" stand up without that assumption being made.


Agree. Strawman.



> We're still on the J&J recall merry-go-round. But this was probably _not_ the first priority for most of their customers


.

Agree. I'm sure they all have higher priorities. I sure do.



> Amazon did things completely differently. They usually know what they're doing. They handled the situation and kept most of their authors happy, by having a lot fewer false positives, and kept their customers happy by leaving the store up.


Amazon did do things differently. They were purging books before this stuff hit the media. Threads here demonstrate that.



> The fact that there's an obviously right action and somebody else took it is pretty solid evidence WH Smith's super-extreme reaction was the wrong one.


If WHSmith had already initiated a purge campaign, I agree they would have been facing a different challenge. I also recognize a difference in the legal liability of the two companies.



> But it's also valid to say that, just as a rule of thumb, the most extreme reaction is pretty much always the wrong one. Also, so is pointing fingers publicly and blaming all of self-publishing, as they did.


I don't rely on rules of thumb when faced with a specific situation.



> How does the word "unprofessional" keep sliding out of this conversation? I mean can we at least acknowledge that WH Smith dropped the ball on how they communicated this, if nothing else?


I don't know. I haven't used the word. I don't know what it means.



> Their shareholders. Their other customers who are so inconvenienced they'll take their business elsewhere. Their distributor, who they basically flipped off. WH Smith does not exist in a vacuum where they and the specific customers who are fired up on this issue are the only people who matter.


Disagree. The legal system is not a customer and can never dismissed.



> And even among those customers, many wouldn't want the site shutdown outright. Among everyone else, they've just displayed an extreme lack of professionalism and made blatantly bad decisions that can only be justified by tortured analogy.


I agree customers are inconvenienced. Again, I don't know what professional means. I look at actions, not self-selected tags people wear.



> The fact that Amazon exists in a different legal environment is largely immaterial. The British legal system isn't so backwards it would demand such an immediate and extreme response; it might well have demanded something heavier-handed than removing the specific titles, if there even were any legal issues at stake, but they had to have an option short of pushing the Big Red Button.


There is a significant difference in terms of the First Amendment. One of the reasons the First Amendment was included in the Constitution was a dissatisfaction with the British treatment if books. That works differently in the two countries. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the UK laws to conclude what option provided the best legal protection.



> I will of course grant you that Amazon is in a better position, but when their competitors shoot themselves in the foot that makes things pretty easy on them. Besides, Amazon would have been in a much better position to survive an extreme response, like for example Kobo's, which was almost as terrible as WH Smith's.


I agree Amazon is in a better position.



> I share your curiosity, though, regarding Amazon's apparent preemptive strike. I suspect something was in the wind long before the Kernel blew this up--not just by a couple of weeks but by several. It takes time to implement a policy change without a call to urgency. This means whatever was brewing probably started in early September at the latest.


Agree. As I mentioned in some other posts, filters cannot be applied unless there is data for the filter to look at. Thats why an adult opt-in is so difficult. The similar actions by WHSmith and Kobo are consistent with a lack of such data. I wonder if Amazon has been quietly working on the data files so a filter can deliver up the books they want to purge. If so, they have another powerful competitive advantage. But I have to acknowledge, they don't call to confide anymore.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

portiadacosta said:


> I put in a help request at Smashwords, for my non taboo erotica. But was told that just because they *are* erotica, Kobo deem some elements of them objectionable.


Several of your books were previously published by Black Lace, weren't they? Which means that they would have been available at W.H. Smith anyway, because - to repeat it - W.H. Smith has no problem selling erotica in their brick and mortar stores.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Not a lawyer, and definitely not a solicitor, but it sounds like it would be a hard prosecution. They would have to prove negligence.


I'd be interested in a UK opinion of whether they lost the "innocent distribution" defense as soon as the titles were publicly listed. I doubt the public good defense would do too well.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

There lies the conspiracy, because as you say, W.H. Smith sell trad published erotica in store.

W.H Smith has no affiliation with self-published books, which work counter to them selling trad published books and has in truth eaten into their shop sales with low cost eBooks. While they are keen to get into the digital age, maybe they don't want their brand to be associated with self-publishing... full stop. It really was crazy to clear out all self-published books.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Jack C. Nemo said:


> What Kobo should have done:
> 
> 1. Reiterate that erotica involving those below 18 is forbidden.
> 2. Specify that erotica revolving around incest, PI, bestiality, non/dub con etc has to be placed in the Taboo section. Advise aggregators/distros and KWL publishers that books placed outside of the category will be blocked, and may be grounds for account closure.
> ...


Good ideas. But they all revolve around that little flag being accurately set in a few hundred thousand books. Millions? It sounds simple, but getting that flag in the files in manner that can be trusted is a very difficult task. The responses of WHSmith and Kobo lead me to suspect they don't have it or can't trust it.

But just consider the flag. If it was to be implemented, we would have unending controversy about which books should be flagged, and which ones should not. Add to that the problem that when a supplier or retailer says he us using a flag that can be relied on he's taking on a huge responsibility.

It's not impossible, but it is a very difficult management challenge. I'd love to hear how any of them intend to do it.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

Just wondering if WH Smith will purge E.L. James or is FSOG literature?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Harriet Schultz said:


> Just wondering if WH Smith will purge E.L. James or is FSOG literature?


On the contrary, their brick and mortar stores have _Fifty Shades of Grey_ and similar books display tables or at least they did last year. Including one book, _Gabriel's Inferno_, which details a BDSM laced relationship between a college student and her professor, i.e. not all that far from the "teacher" books being banned.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm tempted to name my next fairy tale collection "Daddies and Demons" <g>


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Anyone remember the protests over _American Psycho_? The National Organozation Of Women (NOW) didnt want it published.

_The first shock waves hit last August when female employees at Simon & Schuster, the book's original publisher, caught wind of its content and began to protest its publication. _

(Two separate quotes from the same article. My quote key doesnt work.)

_ From L.A., Bruce plans to expand her NOW chapter's boycott to all-out Psycho warfare. ''The boycott is just one element of the protest,'' she says. ''You won't see books being burned or fireworks when the novel is published. What you will see is our attempt...to show the gatekeepers of this culture...that the women of this country will no longer tolerate gratuitous violence for the sake of profit and entertainment.'' _

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,313573,00.html


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Anyone remember the protests over _American Psycho_? The National Association Of Women didnt want it published.
> 
> _The first shock waves hit last August when female employees at Simon & Schuster, the book's original publisher, caught wind of its content and began to protest its publication. _
> 
> ...


I was working at a B. Dalton when that all went down. The manager asked me if we should stock it. I told her of course we should stock it. We kept having to re-order the damned thing it sol out so fast.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I am still going back to the J$J case. That's because it posed a sudden threat to the company and involved pulling instances of products from a much larger set. That isn't negated by the fact that books didn't kill people.


WH Smith didn't pull a subset; they shutdown an entire distribution channel. That's insane. Kobo a least did something much more analogous. But the threat to the company was in a much different form here. This was simply bad press, which companies can take steps to deal with. J&J had to act to make sure nobody actually got _poisoned_. Glossing over this distinction doesn't make it go away.



> I agree about customers and revenue. But I have no reason to presume taking down a dozen books and announcing the company will host Daddy while it thinks about the rest would lead to less brand damage.


The company had specific information to work with pointing to specific titles they could have taken down right away. They could have also done a narrow-net search to find a number of other titles to delist along with it as an additional measure. That part is perfectly reasonable. Obviously they wouldn't "announce" they were hosting anything objectionable; if they learned of it after having to purge something similar, they'd want to take care of that too. But look, we're in agreement these books were awful. If they dealt with an immediate problem and started casting wider and wider to root out the rest, that would be a good proactive way of dealing with things. Again you act as if taking down this specific book you keep coming back to is the only thing that matters in this process, and any collateral damage made as a result of any action they took to do so is just fine. They could have taken lots of actions that would have taken it down, that wouldn't have caused nearly so much collateral damage; based on our discussion to this point I'm sure you'd be just as happy with those outcomes.



> Of course I'm looking at immediate results. That's where the immediate threat is. Looks like they have neutralized that one. Would taking down a dozen boks and announcing thoughtful consideration have done the same?


Those books were the immediate threat--again this is a threat to the company's PR, not to the public--and no other. Removing those books would definitely have undercut any tide of anger from consumers who were upset--which again was by no means all of them. But if we can stop exaggerating the level and nature of the threat and the ire of customers for a bit, I think we can at least agree that indeed, taking down just a few dozen named books would have only done part of the job. It would have been fairly sensible to go after secondary threats, any books that would have come up in related searches that were clearly a problem, so those dozen could be the vanguard of hundreds of delisted titles. It's proactive, it's sensible, and it would have sated the vast majority of those infuriated. From there they could have segued into dealing with any books that missed their first round and hammering out a better policy with the distributor.



> Disagree. The legal system is not a customer and can never dismissed.


You disagree that the company has to justify its actions to its customers, shareholders, and business partners? That just doesn't fly. Or were you inferring that I meant those were the only parties who would hold WH Smith to account? For the sake of clarification, I didn't mean that list to be all-inclusive. If there is any legal culpability here, that obviously can't be ignored, but one way or another the company absolutely has to face the music with everyone else. If this was their only feasible course of action for legal reasons, they could and should have said so; it would certainly help them when it came time to explain everything to the other parties involved. I didn't see anything of the sort in their statement, however, which suggests to me that legal issues didn't force this particular outcome.



> I agree customers are inconvenienced. Again, I don't know what professional means. I look at actions, not self-selected tags people wear.


I don't have the patience to humor the pretense that words don't mean things. Are we not writers? A company calling out its business partners in public for something that was no more the partner's fault than their own, and blaming all of self-publishing for those woes, is unprofessional. Simple as that.

Let's be reasonable and just disagree on the degree of overreaction WH Smith achieved. But let's also be reasonable and agree that going out of their way to blame their suppliers, by name, was just plain bad behavior no matter how justifiable their other actions were.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd be interested in a UK opinion of whether they lost the "innocent distribution" defense as soon as the titles were publicly listed. I doubt the public good defense would do too well.


Unless they were obviously well beyond the pale (child porn, etc), I doubt the government could have found twelve jurors willing to convict them for selling dirty books. I rarely met anyone in the UK who thought the obscenity laws were anything other than ludicrous.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> WH Smith didn't pull a subset; they shutdown an entire distribution channel. That's insane. Kobo a least did something much more analogous. But the threat to the company was in a much different form here. This was simply bad press, which companies can take steps to deal with. J&J had to act to make sure nobody actually got _poisoned_. Glossing over this distinction doesn't make it go away.


I agree WHS didnt pull a subset. They couldnt identify the subset of bad products. They couldnt pull it. So they pulled the larger set. That is the same situation J&J faced. They couldnt identify the subset of bad products. They couldnt pull it. So they pulled the larger set.

I agree the distinction does not go away. It is not being glossed over. Let me say it again. Killing people with pills is not the same as selling Daddy books. However, that does not change the fact that both companies faced a threat, and both faced a problem in figuring out how to handle the unidentifiable subset of bad product instances.



> The company had specific information to work with pointing to specific titles they could have taken down right away.


I agree. Media pointed out a dozen titles.



> They could have also done a narrow-net search to find a number of other titles to delist along with it as an additional measure.


What does that mean?



> That part is perfectly reasonable. Obviously they wouldn't "announce" they were hosting anything objectionable; if they learned of it after having to purge something similar, they'd want to take care of that too.


Why wouldnt they announce it? The media was reporting they sold that stuff. Do they deny it? No comment as bloggers and newspapers gleefully splash one title after another on their pages?



> But look, we're in agreement these books were awful.


Im looking at is as a problem where a company faces a threat and has to get an unidentifiable subset of product instances off the market. My opinion on the product doesnt matter.



> If they dealt with an immediate problem and started casting wider and wider to root out the rest, that would be a good proactive way of dealing with things. Again you act as if taking down this specific book you keep coming back to is the only thing that matters in this process, and any collateral damage made as a result of any action they took to do so is just fine.


No. I didnt say that.



> They could have taken lots of actions that would have taken it down, that wouldn't have caused nearly so much collateral damage; based on our discussion to this point I'm sure you'd be just as happy with those outcomes.


There are lots of things they could have done. But I question if any would have been as effective. Im not happy with anything I dont know about. I measure outcomes by both effect on the problem and degree of collateral damage. What outcomes?



> Those books were the immediate threat--again this is a threat to the company's PR, not to the public--and no other. Removing those books would definitely have undercut any tide of anger from consumers who were upset--which again was by no means all of them.


Removing all of the offending books from inventory would be sufficient. That would include the books publicly named and the ones not named. It appeared it was necessary to remove all books in order to get rid of the offending books. (Like J&J) The few books identified in the media do not constitute the whole problem.



> But if we can stop exaggerating the level and nature of the threat and the ire of customers for a bit, I think we can at least agree that indeed, taking down just a few dozen named books would have only done part of the job.


I dont agree Im exaggerating it. I agree taking down a few dozen would be only part of the job.



> It would have been fairly sensible to go after secondary threats, any books that would have come up in related searches that were clearly a problem, so those dozen could be the vanguard of hundreds of delisted titles. It's proactive, it's sensible, and it would have sated the vast majority of those infuriated.


I doubt it. The company would be taking inadequate steps in gettng rid of a few dozen while continuing to sell many more. Continued sales of the subject books would not be excused by a fig leaf of a few dozen removals.



> From there they could have segued into dealing with any books that missed their first round and hammering out a better policy with the distributor.


Any books they missed? I suspect there are lots of them they missed, and they would be happily making money off them as they continued to sell and think about them. That would be an obvious problem. They would gain nothing. There would be no change in behavior other than a pledge to think about it.



> You disagree that the company has to justify its actions to its customers, shareholders, and business partners?


The company does not have to justify these actions to customers. It does not have to justify anything beyond what is covered by contract to other parties. It does have to answer to stockholders. I expect they are doing that.



> That just doesn't fly.


Why not?



> Or were you inferring that I meant those were the only parties who would hold WH Smith to account? Thats why I asked. For the sake of clarification, I didn't mean that list to be all-inclusive.


I didnt infer anything. Too lazy. Its easier to just ask when I dont know what people mean..



> If there is any legal culpability here, that obviously can't be ignored, but one way or another the company absolutely has to face the music with everyone else.


I agree. And I recognize that their actions from the time the titles were publicly announced could have an effect on legal liability. Immediately stopping sales of the subject books could put them in a different situation than continuing to sell them to avoid collateral damage to themselves while they think about Daddy..



> If this was their only feasible course of action for legal reasons, they could and should have said so; it would certainly help them when it came time to explain everything to the other parties involved.


I dont know if that would have helped them legally. i still dont know enough about UK law.



> I didn't see anything of the sort in their statement, however, which suggests to me that legal issues didn't force this particular outcome.


I dont see any basis for that. Again, I lack the knowledge of UK law. In the US, lawyers routinely tell individuals and companies to shut up while they negotiate with authorities on their behalf.



> I don't have the patience to humor the pretense that words don't mean things. Are we not writers? A company calling out its business partners in public for something that was no more the partner's fault than their own, and blaming all of self-publishing for those woes, is unprofessional. Simple as that.


I doubt anyone involved gives a hoot if we are writers. I have no reason to think they are blaming all of self-publishing. I recognize the feed came from Kobo, and have no problem with WHS describing it. I still dont know what unprofessional means.



> Let's be reasonable and just disagree on the degree of overreaction WH Smith achieved. But let's also be reasonable and agree that going out of their way to blame their suppliers, by name, was just plain bad behavior no matter how justifiable their other actions were.


 First, I dont recognize an overreaction. So I dont recognize degrees of it. Second, I have no problem saying what a supplier provided.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Unless they were obviously well beyond the pale (child porn, etc), I doubt the government could have found twelve jurors willing to convict them for selling dirty books. I rarely met anyone in the UK who thought the obscenity laws were anything other than ludicrous.


Coud be. I was asking about the safe harbor provision. And Im not nearly smart enough to know what juries would do in a case like this.


----------



## portiadacosta (Feb 28, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Several of your books were previously published by Black Lace, weren't they? Which means that they would have been available at W.H. Smith anyway, because - to repeat it - W.H. Smith has no problem selling erotica in their brick and mortar stores.


Most of my self published stuff is longish shorts and novellas that have previously been published in anthologies, but not Black Lace ones. BL tend to hang on to rights. The rest of my self pubbed stuff is original material, with the exception of a republished Ellora's Cave novel. I was going to self publish some stuff I got rights back from Total-e-Bound... But I'm wishing I'd left them there now.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

I will begin by saying I know nothing about the British legal system. I'm just musing here. There are two big differences between brick and mortar stores and on-line stores:
1- In a physical store a clerk *sees* the customer and can determine if they are underage. This is not possible on-line. Asking for age often doesn't get an honest answer.
2- In a physical store, the customer actually handles the book in question. They have a much better idea of what they are buying. Now, don't remind me there are "look inside" features and "previews" available on-line. You have all read many threads that a lot of people don't avail themselves of these features, don't do the extra clicks. Yet, I have never seen someone pull a book off a shelf in a store, carry it to check-out and purchase it, without at least opening it. I suppose an exception could be made for the person buying a specific book, but even then the natural tendency is to open it and thumb through a few pages.
With these two thoughts in mind, wouldn't an on-line book store need to take extra care that erotica not fall into the wrong hands?


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2013)

Decon said:


> There lies the conspiracy, because as you say, W.H. Smith sell trad published erotica in store.
> 
> W.H Smith has no affiliation with self-published books, which work counter to them selling trad published books and has in truth eaten into their shop sales with low cost eBooks. While they are keen to get into the digital age, maybe they don't want their brand to be associated with self-publishing... full stop. It really was crazy to clear out all self-published books.


I like my conspiracy theory better. 

If WHSmith didn't want to be associated with self-publishing, they never had to accept books from Kobo to begin with. They could have done what lots of retailers still do: only accept books through the normal distribution channels.

In this case, it is what it is. WHSmith needed a scapegoat, and _indies are expendable_. Despite all the talk of storming the gates and marketshare, indies have no actual power in the marketplace. We are too fragmented. We have no organized structure. We have no leverage. We are treated as interchangeable commodities that are replaced. The real reason WHSmith felt they could do this is because as soon as Kobo gives them the OK, they will have just as many titles available as they did before the lockdown. Because for every indie that may decide to drop Kobo as an outlet, five more will sign up.

All ebook retailers look at indies the same. They don't need one author selling a million copies. _They only need 100,000 selling ten each_. And there will always be more authors.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

_I can only admire the reserve and good manners of the author of the complaint letter quoted at the start of this thread. A much more satisfying approach was deployed some years ago by a UK customer of the cable company NTL. I reproduce his letter below. There are a few Britishisms (bog is toilet), but I think you will get the general point._

Dear Cretins:

I have been an NTL customer since 9th July 2001, when I signed up for your four-in-one deal for cable TV, cable modem, telephone, and alarm monitoring. During this three-month period I have encountered inadequacy of service which I had not previously considered possible, as well as ignorance and stupidity of monolithic proportions. Please allow me to provide specific details, so that you can either pursue your professional prerogative and seek to rectify these difficulties - or more likely (I suspect) so that you can have some entertaining reading material as you while away the working day smoking B&H and drinking vendor-coffee on the bog in your office.

My initial installation was cancelled without warning, resulting in my spending an entire Saturday sitting on my fat arse waiting for your technician to arrive. When he did not arrive, I spent a further 57 minutes listening to your infuriating hold music, and the even more annoying Scottish robot woman telling me to look at your helpful website. HOW?

I alleviated the boredom by playing with my testicles for a few minutes - an activity with which you are no doubt both familiar and highly adept. The rescheduled installation then took place some two weeks later, although the technician did forget to bring a number of vital tools - such as a drill-bit and his cerebrum.

Two weeks later, my cable modem had still not arrived. After 15 telephone calls over four weeks my modem arrived, six weeks after I had requested it - and begun to pay for it. I estimate your internet server's downtime is roughly 35% - the hours between about 6 pm and midnight, Monday through Friday and most of the weekend. I am still waiting for my telephone connection.

I have made nine calls on my mobile to your no-help line and have been unhelpfully transferred to a variety of disinterested individuals who are, it seems, also highly skilled bollock jugglers. I have been informed that a telephone line is available (and someone will call me back); that I will be transferred to someone who knows whether or not a telephone line is available (and then been cut off); that I will be transferred to someone (and then been redirected to an answering machine informing me that your office is closed); that I will be transferred to someone and then been redirected to the irritating Scottish robot woman. And several other variations on this theme.

Doubtless you are no longer reading this letter, as you have at least a thousand other dissatisfied customers to ignore and also another one of those crucially important testicle moments to attend to. Frankly I don't care. It's far more satisfying as a customer to voice my frustrations in print than to shout them at your unending hold music. Forgive me therefore if I continue.

I thought British Telecom was crap; that they had attained the holy piss-pot of god-awful customer relations; and that no one, anywhere, ever, could be more disinterested, less helpful or more obstructive to delivering service to their customers. That's why I chose NTL and because, well, there isn't anyone else is there?

How surprised I therefore was when I discovered to my considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment what a useless shower of bastards you truly are. You are sputum-filled pieces of distended rectum, incompetents of the highest order. BT - wankers though they are - shine like brilliant beacons of success in the filthy mire of your seemingly limitless inadequacy.

Suffice to say that I have now given up on my futile and foolhardy quest to receive any kind of service from you. I suggest that you cease any potential future attempts to extort payment from me for the services which you have so pointedly and catastrophically failed to deliver. Any such activity will be greeted initially with hilarity and disbelief and will quickly be replaced by derision and even perhaps bemused rage.

I enclose two small deposits, selected with great care from my cat's litter tray, as an expression of my utter and complete contempt for both you and your pointless company. I sincerely hope that they have not become desiccated during transit - they were satisfyingly moist at the time of posting, and I would feel considerable disappointment if you did not experience both their rich aroma and delicate texture. Consider them the very embodiment of my feelings towards NTL and its worthless employees.

Have a nice day. May it be the last in your miserable short lives, you irritatingly incompetent and infuriatingly unhelpful bunch of twits.

May you rot in Hell,

Robert Stokes


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2013)

Sapphire said:


> I will begin by saying I know nothing about the British legal system. I'm just musing here. There are two big differences between brick and mortar stores and on-line stores:
> 1- In a physical store a clerk *sees* the customer and can determine if they are underage. This is not possible on-line. Asking for age often doesn't get an honest answer.


There is actually a lot of psychology in the placement of products in a store. I work in contract packaging. Your mind would spin if you saw the amount of research that went into deciding how to place products on a shelf. Product placement is a soft form of restriction. The act of putting 'adult" books at adult eye level keeps most kids from looking at them. It is natural inclination to focus on what is in front of you. You see this, for example, on the cereal aisle. Children's cereals are always on the lower shelves and child's eye level. Healthy cereals tend to be on the top shelves at adult eye level.

Even watch people browsing a magazine rack. Adult themed magazines tend to be on the very top shelves. Pop culture and teen magazines on the middle shelves. Magazines for family and kids on the lower shelves. And in general, each group gravitates toward those shelves.

In bookstores, erotica tends to be in a strategically positioned location in the store. Not a dark back corner per se, but generally in an area surrounded by books most kids don't read. Different age groups move through stores differently. Once you know that, you can use this soft form of segregation to restrict access without actually restricting access. It is science as much as it is art.

But online retail hasn't figured out how to do this yet. If you go up to a clerk at a bookstore and ask "where can find books on fathers and daughters?" the clerk is going to direct you to the family section of the bookstore. Retail search engines just search for words with no context. So plug "fathers and daughters" into a sloppy search engine and...well...we get the problem we have now.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Steeplechasing said:


> _I can only admire the reserve and good manners of the author of the complaint letter quoted at the start of this thread. A much more satisfying approach was deployed some years ago by a UK customer of the cable company NTL. I reproduce his letter below. There are a few Britishisms (bog is toilet), but I think you will get the general point._


The cat poop was a nice touch.


----------



## Leanne King (Oct 2, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In bookstores, erotica tends to be in a strategically positioned location in the store. Not a dark back corner per se, but generally in an area surrounded by books most kids don't read. Different age groups move through stores differently. Once you know that, you can use this soft form of segregation to restrict access without actually restricting access. It is science as much as it is art.


Keeping filth away from Disney princesses? Nah....








[/URL]

Looks like some of these stores could do with hiring a certain Sith.


----------



## 71089 (Jul 12, 2013)

Pelagios said:


> Keeping filth away from Disney princesses? Nah....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like that strategically placed 'caution - wet floor'. Puts a kind of weird thoughts in my head as to why that floor is wet right in front of those books ...


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Steeplechasing said:


> How surprised I therefore was when I discovered to my considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment what a useless shower of bastards you truly are. You are sputum-filled pieces of distended rectum, incompetents of the highest order. BT - wankers though they are - *shine like brilliant beacons of success in the filthy mire of your seemingly limitless inadequacy*.


Oh my God that letter is hilarious. I mean, I was looking for highlights, but the whole thing is one big highlight. I do particularly like the above though.

Thank you for posting that. You made my week! I've not laughed that hard in a long time. I'm still laughing now!


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2013)

Pelagios said:


> Looks like some of these stores could do with hiring a certain Sith.


lol, Actually, this is the sort of thing our company does when we go on store checks for our displays. Employees don't always follow directives (I know, surprise!). That doesn't even look like a display, though. It looks like someone just pushed the shelf over into another shelf, probably during a clean-up. Since it is obvious the shelf is blocking the other shelf, it is clear the shelf is not normally there.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "All ebook retailers look at indies the same. They don't need one author selling a million copies. They only need 100,000 selling ten each. And there will always be more authors."


Exactly. While each book is unique, they become substitutes depending on the needs of the user. In this case, the retailer sees a zillion authors offering substitutes for each title. The supply is so large he has no trouble meeting his needs. Most independent books are expendible and will not have an effect on his earnings.

It's this effect that got all our books up on Amazon. God Bless the free market.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sapphire said:


> I will begin by saying I know nothing about the British legal system. I'm just musing here. There are two big differences between brick and mortar stores and on-line stores:
> 1- In a physical store a clerk *sees* the customer and can determine if they are underage. This is not possible on-line. Asking for age often doesn't get an honest answer.
> 2- In a physical store, the customer actually handles the book in question. They have a much better idea of what they are buying. Now, don't remind me there are "look inside" features and "previews" available on-line. You have all read many threads that a lot of people don't avail themselves of these features, don't do the extra clicks. Yet, I have never seen someone pull a book off a shelf in a store, carry it to check-out and purchase it, without at least opening it. I suppose an exception could be made for the person buying a specific book, but even then the natural tendency is to open it and thumb through a few pages.
> With these two thoughts in mind, wouldn't an on-line book store need to take extra care that erotica not fall into the wrong hands?


Online stores require a credit card or Paypal account with a bank account or credit card attached to the account which generally means you are not a minor or, if you are a minor, implies parental approval, so I don't think so. (Certainly in my family the 6 and 10 yr olds are NOT given their own credit cards) The main concern I have is inappropriate covers and samples. There are covers out there I would honestly prefer my grandkids not see yet.


----------



## georgette (Sep 4, 2013)

Latest letter from Draft 2 Digital, I just got it a few minutes ago: 

We have new information concerning the recent removal of titles from distribution through Kobo. I’ve been working directly with Kobo staff to resolve the matter, and have already seen dozens of Draft2Digital titles returned to sale.

Of course, that’s just a small step toward fully reinstating all the books that meet Kobo’s content guidelines. However, we’re making progress now, and we have a clear path to resolving this unfortunate matter.

We expect all non-erotica titles to be live again by the end of this week, while erotica will undergo a more extensive review process. Ultimately, we expect all works that conform to Kobo’s content guidelines to return to sale.

If you’ve been waiting to publish new titles (or push changes) to Kobo, you may resume both at this time. These new changes may also experience an extended delay, but we’ll make sure they are preserved and pushed to the live site as soon as possible.

The material that sparked this incident consisted of erotica falling into several specific categories. Kobo provides clear guidelines concerning acceptable content in their Content Policy.

While we recognize that there’s a proven market for the more extreme material, our sales channels are increasingly unwilling to carry those titles in their stores. If you are intent on publishing such material through Draft2Digital, we ask that you clearly mark it as such using your categories, search keywords, and product description.

Furthermore, we encourage you to refrain from publishing it to sites that are known to reject such material. At this time, that includes three of our four available sales channels; Apple, Amazon, and Kobo have all begun an extensive campaign to remove and block these titles from their stores.

For all our users who carefully subscribe to the content guidelines of their selected sales channels, we once again offer our sincere apologies that your titles were caught up in this mess. We continue to do everything we can to see the matter resolved quickly. Thank you for your patience.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> It's very unfortunate that this happened. I hope they get their act together and redeem themselves. My only real experience with them was a pretty frustrating one. Took one of my books off their site because I wanted to give it a shot in KDP Select for a little experiment. My dashboard on WritingLife was showing that it was delisted, so I enrolled the book in Select. Apparently *the book was still showing up on Kobo anyway, and it turned into a three-ring of awful customer service with KDP Select* (a thread topic for another day) that, if it had happened a few days later, would have destroyed my BookBub promo and lost me money. So I'm not super-thrilled with Kobo, either. The site itself clearly has bugs that need to be fixed.


This also happened to me as well.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I still dont know what unprofessional means.


un·pro·fes·sion·al [uhn-pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
adjective
1. not professional; not pertaining to or characteristic of a profession.
2. at variance with or contrary to professional standards or ethics; not befitting members of a profession, as language, behavior, or conduct.
3. not belonging to a profession; nonprofessional.
4. not done with professional competence, as a play staged or an opera performed by amateurs; amateurish.
5. _Sports._ nonprofessional ( def 2 ) .

Specifically we're talking definitions 2 and/or 4. When a company damages a business relationship that it doesn't have to, that's unprofessional. Even taking the stance that WH Smith's extreme reaction was warranted (which aside from possible legal issues they never even mentioned, doesn't hold up very well), they could have simply said they were getting books they didn't want in an automated feed from their suppliers, and they were working with them to ensure the feed was clean in the future. What they said instead meets no reasonable standard of decorum.

The censorship of these books seems like it's a really personal issue for you, and I respect that, but it's silly pretending words don't mean things just for the sake of making excuses for the company--particularly when the behavior you're excusing (going out of their way to point their finger at their supplier by name) wasn't even necessary to deal with the problem. They dealt with the problem to your satisfaction, which we've pretty well established, but they obviously didn't comport themselves well in the process.


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

They removed more than just erotica.

A young adult book with zero sex or bad words.
A new adult with no erotica
A suspense with no erotica

They removed them all.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

ClarissaWild said:


> I like that strategically placed 'caution - wet floor'. Puts a kind of weird thoughts in my head as to why that floor is wet right in front of those books ...


I know! Me too. I thought the same thing. haha.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2013)

Lummox JR said:


> Specifically we're talking definitions 2 and/or 4. When a company damages a business relationship that it doesn't have to, that's unprofessional.


I would also assume that it could violate contractual obligations (non-disclosure agreements and Good Faith clauses specifically). Generally, bad-mouthing your business partners in public to save face tarnishes Kobo's brand.

Having been involved in product recalls, rule one is NOT to name names. When a recall happens, everyone from the CEO down to the line workers are instructed to avoid any type of statement that could be construed as placing blame or otherwise making statements that can do damage to your own company's brand or the brand of your business partners involved in the recall. Avoid inflammatory language. Maintain a neutral tone. Yell, scream, and throw tracking sheets at each other in the privacy of the office, but to the public you present a uniform front. If we threw our business partners under the bus like this, we'd be in violation of our contractual obligations to those business partners.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would also assume that it could violate contractual obligations (non-disclosure agreements and Good Faith clauses specifically). Generally, bad-mouthing your business partners in public to save face tarnishes Kobo's brand.
> 
> Having been involved in product recalls, rule one is NOT to name names. When a recall happens, everyone from the CEO down to the line workers are instructed to avoid any type of statement that could be construed as placing blame or otherwise making statements that can do damage to your own company's brand or the brand of your business partners involved in the recall. Avoid inflammatory language. Maintain a neutral tone. Yell, scream, and throw tracking sheets at each other in the privacy of the office, but to the public you present a uniform front. If we threw our business partners under the bus like this, we'd be in violation of our contractual obligations to those business partners.


Exactly my point. There's room for disagreement on how far WH Smith should have taken their actions as far as dealing with the squicky titles, but none at all where it comes to what they said about Kobo. That said, I had no trouble trashing Kobo for their sloppy handling of this either; but I'm not their business partner.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

ClarissaWild said:


> I like that strategically placed 'caution - wet floor'. Puts a kind of weird thoughts in my head as to why that floor is wet right in front of those books ...


I like the way you think.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

> The material that sparked this incident consisted of erotica falling into several specific categories. Kobo provides clear guidelines concerning acceptable content in their Content Policy.


No they don't. If they did, their reviewers would have known what to exclude and they wouldn't be in this situation. Like Amazon, their guidelines are purposefully vague, so they retain the maximum discretion when deciding what to accept or reject.

The way D2D is wording this is an attempt to blame the authors, when all the authors did was submit a book that was accepted by both D2D and Kobo.


----------



## 71089 (Jul 12, 2013)

swolf said:


> I like the way you think.


hehehe, goes with the profession


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

The fun part is going to be when they are done with this.. and books make it through that they missed..... how they handle them. Customers are going to be  like "You closed your store to check all these, so why is this book here?" heh.


----------



## CrystalVeeyant (Oct 16, 2013)

"Serbinis insists that Kobo supports freedom of expression"
If I punch you in the face will you believe me if I insist I'm not trying to hurt you?

"Amazon and Barnes & Noble have removed several abuse-themed e-books from their stores, but neither have taken their sites offline or are conducting proactive reviews of their catalogues."
This is a lie. Once a few of my books were under review, the notorious Carlos F. started looking at other titles and peering between between covers. They are censoring based on the appearance of content and the only way to escape being blocked is by self-censoring material that is even close to the puritanical line.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> un·pro·fes·sion·al [uhn-pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
> adjective
> 1. not professional; not pertaining to or characteristic of a profession.
> 2. at variance with or contrary to professional standards or ethics; not befitting members of a profession, as language, behavior, or conduct.
> ...


I still dont know what the word means. The definition defines the word using the same root. I also look to usage in trying to find what a word means. The usage of the root has become so loose, I dont know what people mean when they use it. It often appears to be self-praise and mutual admiration..



> The censorship of these books seems like it's a really personal issue for you, and I respect that, but it's silly pretending words don't mean things just for the sake of making excuses for the company--particularly when the behavior you're excusing (going out of their way to point their finger at their supplier by name) wasn't even necessary to deal with the problem. They dealt with the problem to your satisfaction, which we've pretty well established, but they obviously didn't comport themselves well in the process.


I dont discuss individual KB posters personal issues or their work here. I apply that to myself, too. I am happy to engage on other issues.



> Exactly my point. There's room for disagreement on how far WH Smith should have taken their actions as far as dealing with the squicky titles, but none at all where it comes to what they said about Kobo. That said, I had no trouble trashing Kobo for their sloppy handling of this either; but I'm not their business partner.


Disagree regarding what they said about Kobo. Im taking the room.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

"The end of self-publishing?"

A bit of a sensational headline...


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

This is my favorite part:

'_It has had staff working around the clock since Saturday to remove offensive material that violates the terms and conditions of Kobo's content policy_.'

Perhaps their staff should have been working instead in the 72 hour review process. That might have made matters better.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

"An author or a small publishing press that both use the self-publishing service to upload their content may start out by having a series of content that does not violate the policy and is of a certain genre or certain flavour, and then what happens later is they start introducing content that is completely different and either in the form of new titles *or by going back and changing the titles that they originally submitted*," said Serbinis.

So...we unwashed self-published are submitting sweet romance and then coming back and changing it to taboo porn.  Haha I don't think so. I seriously doubt that authors went back and changed titles in an effort to deceive Kobo. Kobo accepted these titles and content as they were. And if he's saying something different, he's not telling the truth.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I seriously doubt that authors went back and changed titles in an effort to deceive Kobo. Kobo accepted these titles and content as they were. And if he's saying something different, he's not telling the truth.


I have worked enough with the public to fully believe that some authors would try this. In fact, maybe I am jaded by my years in customer service and my time in tech support, but I would be SHOCKED to find out some authors are NOT doing this.

Overall bet most authors would not... but it only takes a small percent to wreck the show.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

But that's a problem with the review process used on updates... not all self-published authors.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

portiadacosta said:


> Most of my self published stuff is longish shorts and novellas that have previously been published in anthologies, but not Black Lace ones. BL tend to hang on to rights. The rest of my self pubbed stuff is original material, with the exception of a republished Ellora's Cave novel. I was going to self publish some stuff I got rights back from Total-e-Bound... But I'm wishing I'd left them there now.


Thanks for the clarification, Portia. Nonetheless, the fact remains that W.H. Smith was happy to sell your Black Lace books in their physical stores, but refuse to sell your self-published erotica, even though you are still the same author.

As for damage to the W.H. Smith brand, you know in whose eyes the W.H. Smith brand is severely damaged? In mine. Now I spent a lot of money at W.H. Smith over the years. Just last month I was in the UK and spent approx. fifty GPB at W.H. Smith. I am their customer, just as much as those Daily Mail readers who clutch their pearls over some miscategorized taboo erotica e-books. And at the moment, I am so furious that it's unlikely I'll ever set foot in a Smith store again, let alone buy anything there. So they lost a customer over this. And I doubt I'm the only one, since - surprise, indie authors buy books, too. Never mind the people who wanted to use the W.H. Smith website and couldn't, the people who actually want to read Daddy erotica (cause if there wasn't demand, there wouldn't be so much of the stuff around). Do the customers W.H. Smith lost outweigh the ones they would have lost, if they hadn't chosen the nuclear option to deal with the erotica debacle? That's difficult to say. But you can't claim that W.H. Smith averted damage to their brand, cause in the eyes of some W.H. Smith is now synonymous with "censoring jerks".

Ditto for Kobo. Now I own a Kobo Glo, purchased last year, largely due to seeing a demonstration model in a display at a W.H. Smith store. However, for my next e-reader I will reconsider whether buying a Kobo reader again. As for the store, I don't need to buy e-books for my Kobo reader at the Kobo store. I can always sideload.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

brie.mcgill said:


> But that's a problem with the review process used on updates... not all self-published authors.


I do not think there is a review process on updates. The times I pushed updates to Kobo they went through instantly.

But I agree, not all, nor even most.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

It's nice to know that books they deem okay will be back in the store, so they're not going after all indies indefinitely.

But it's also completely unclear how much censorship they're going to impose, for how long, and how they'll enforce it. So, not much of an interview as far as overall answers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> But you can't claim that W.H. Smith averted damage to their brand, cause in the eyes of some W.H. Smith is now synonymous with "censoring jerks".


Agree. I have yet to see the claim made. They certainly sustained damage, and would have no matter what direction they took.

It appears Amazon, B&N, and Apple will be joining them in the ranks of censoring jerks. That should indicate a market opportunity for Smashwords. God Bless the Sideloaders.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

None of my novels would violate their guidelines, but this cements going forward my previous decision not to sell through them. There is no reason on earth why their process is so difficult and time consuming, much more so than other retailers which made me decide not to previously. Now take a look at the lying comments from their CEO Mike Serbinis who is actually accusing authors of publishing material and then going back to change it in order to "sneak" in material that wouldn't have been approved. I do not believe this for even a second and trying to blame authors for Kobo's own mishandling has me furious.

I will never do business with Kobo.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> None of my novels would violate their guidelines, but this cements going forward my previous decision not to sell through them. There is no reason on earth why their process is so difficult and time consuming, much more so than other retailers which made me decide not to previously. No take a look at the lying comments from their CEO Mike Serbinis who is actually accusing authors of publishing material and then going back to change it in order to "sneak" in material that wouldn't have been approved. I do not believe this for even a second and trying to blame authors for their own mishandling has me furious.
> 
> I will never do business with Kobo.


As soon as all my titles are back up, I plan on taking them down, all at once, just like Kobo did to me. Take a look at the covers in my siggy? Anything offensive there? Oh, yes, one woman is wearing a low cut dress. And there's an actual DOG on another cover. And how could I forget the horse? <shudder>

They have a right to decide what they want to sell on their website and I have a right to decide who can carry my books.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> ...
> So...we unwashed self-published are submitting sweet romance and then coming back and changing it to taboo porn.  Haha I don't think so. I seriously doubt that authors went back and changed titles in an effort to deceive Kobo. Kobo accepted these titles and content as they were. And if he's saying something different, he's not telling the truth.


I get that you're joking, but from what I've heard, that's exactly what happens. Where there are rules, there are gamers. Where there are beans to be harvested, people will find a way. Not saying my fellow indies all do that, but it only takes a few.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> They have a right to decide what they want to sell on their website and I have a right to decide who can carry my books.


And that is exactly how the free market works. Go for it.


----------



## A. Rosaria (Sep 12, 2010)

I did like going through Kobo, but since this month I've been making zero sales where sales were steadily growing before.

They pulled my books from their UK store and who knows where more, while I write nothing remotely like erotica. I don't really see any reason anymore to continue with them and I believe more self-publishers should think hard about if they should trust them. Maybe we shouldn't consider them anymore as an valid alternative to amazon.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I guess I'm confused. We talk a lot about diversifying, and yet we run in the opposite direction at the drop of a hat? This isn't punishing Kobo, it's punishing yourself. I'm all for protesting what was unquestionably a terribly managed and insensitively executed knee-jerk reaction to a problem they had a hand in creating, but pulling your books from Kobo seems like a knee-jerk reaction.

I respect one's decision to tend one's business where and how they wish, but I've been getting the feeling from this and other threads that the reasons for pulling out of Kobo have less to do with legitimate business risks outweighing any benefits and more with anger.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

I've said it before: I put my books anywhere I think a reader might stumble over them--and work like heck to get them to sign up for my newsletter so I can convert them to direct sales.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> I guess I'm confused. We talk a lot about diversifying, and yet we run in the opposite direction at the drop of a hat? This isn't punishing Kobo, it's punishing yourself. I'm all for protesting what was unquestionably a terribly managed and insensitively executed knee-jerk reaction to a problem they had a hand in creating, but pulling your books from Kobo seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
> 
> I respect one's decision to tend one's business where and how they wish, but I've been getting the feeling from this and other threads that the reasons for pulling out of Kobo have less to do with legitimate business risks outweighing any benefits and more with anger.


It isn't a matter of protesting. Not for me anyway.

They treated their suppliers, us, like crap. I don't choose to do business with a business that treats its suppliers like that. Some people, perhaps most, will feel differently. That's their choice. I have found in the past that Kobo has poor business practices, such as having a terrible dashboard and their mess ups with pricing a couple of years ago were infamous.

No, I do not consider that a knee-jerk reaction. I have had a poor opinion of Kobo for a long time and this confirms it. Diversification is good, but so is being picky about who you do business with.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm just happy it only happened with Kobo and not other retailers.  A couple weeks ago everyone was up in arms about how Amazon was doing the purge, but I'll tell you, it seems they did a much better job than these blokes.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## portiadacosta (Feb 28, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Portia. Nonetheless, the fact remains that W.H. Smith was happy to sell your Black Lace books in their physical stores, but refuse to sell your self-published erotica, even though you are still the same author.


Oh, absolutely! Last August when my In Too Deep was reissued on the back of the Fifty Shades wave, my local WHS had a six foot high poster of it in their front window! And yet, as you so rightly point out, they've deemed my self published work - written with exactly same voice and to exactly the same heat level - to be inappropriate for sale in their digital store.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Just for clarification on the Kobo guidelines thing... they didn't provide clear guidelines before... at least no one I can find ever saw them (in view of erotica,) but now they do with a rehashed list of guidelines that has popped up like magic...

So, since the Chief exec has blamed authors (even though they have a supposed review process,) it now looks as if we didn't follow them, or they were totally incompetent in not enforcing them.

Even when they are trying to screw us, they do it badly.

Addition/Edit: Their 'Taboo' category kind of equals... well... taboo! P.I is taboo, bearing in mind they had cats for multiples and BDSM too. They asked for it, they got it.


----------



## ShellyArbogast (Oct 18, 2013)

WHSmith can kick and scream all they like. Like all other major bookstores, they're going the way of the dinosaur.

Let them throw their fit while they still can.

Of course, that doesn't make their handling of the situation any less ridiculous. It's a shame that authors should have to suffer this sort of thing.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

MarenHayes said:


> The comments in the Telegraph piece were a lot more intelligent and honest than the whingy spin spouted by the CEO.


I think that's because most of them are from people on here.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

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


----------



## iheartwords (Jun 12, 2013)

Selina Fenech said:


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


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


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

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


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Selina Fenech said:


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


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

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


----------



## KurtCarlson (Mar 12, 2012)

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


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

AnitaDobs said:


> Here's a petition that was begun: http://www.change.org/petitions/amazon-barnes-and-noble-kobo-leave-our-self-published-and-or-indie-authors-alone
> 
> It's at 12,500 signatures which is quite impressive bearing in mind 12 hours ago it was at 4,000 when I looked.


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

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



> What happened to freedom of speech?!


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

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

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


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

KurtCarlson said:


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


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


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


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


Regardless, someone asked, and I answered Julie.


----------



## cvwriter (May 16, 2011)

ShellyArbogast said:


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


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


----------



## KurtCarlson (Mar 12, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


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


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


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


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


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



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


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



> Last night the Ministry of Justice said the retailers would be liable for prosecution if a judge deemed that the ebooks breached the Obscene Publications Act.
> 
> The National Crime Agency said: 'There is a need to think about criminalising the paedophilic written word in the same way as child abuse imagery and virtual images of children.
> 
> 'In the meantime, businesses who are aware that they are involved in the sharing of potentially paedophilic material can of course look to their consciences or consider the impact on their reputation.'


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

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

B.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

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


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

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

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


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

B. Justin Shier said:


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


Which I would agree with if the government statements_ had come in advance_ of this issue and WHSmith was responding to the government. But the statements, as I understood them, were in response to questions from reporters about something that already happened. Unless someone can produce an official summons or warning letter to WHSmith telling them they are in violation, it is all woulda/coulda/shoulda and can't be factored in to a response. In reality, the Obscene Publications Act was already law decades before WHSmith agreed to sell digital books. Unless they were working on the "it isn't illegal until we get caught" theory, I have to assume they are functioning from a PR perspective and not a legal perspective (though considering how poorly the PR perspective has been applied, I guess anything is possible!)


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


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


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


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Unless someone can produce an official summons or warning letter to WHSmith telling them they are in violation, it is all woulda/coulda/shoulda and can't be factored in to a response.


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


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is not a First Amendment issue.


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


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

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


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

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

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


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

swolf said:


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


Free speech also includes the right not to listen. You are free to write whatever you want. But I am free not to buy it or sell it. Free speech is not a one-way road. It works both ways. Otherwise, YOU are infringing on my free speech by forcing me to financially support positions I don't agree with.

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

Insofar as people uploading new files after approval: again, while I doubt it was that widespread, I can completely see it happening. Particularly if they were aware that the revision would be automatically approved without review. Or it could have been completely innocent. Someone decided to rewrite their story to make it steamier to attract a different audience but didn't want to lose their sales rank and reviews. Authors are CONSTANTLY revising and uploading new versions of previously published work. I can completely see this happening.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Seems like they are talking about the Constitution.


I was referring to them talking about the free speech of the writers of the books.

I thought that was made clear by the context, but it seems some aren't quick to follow.


----------



## @Suzanna (Mar 14, 2011)

Kobo's business model is such that they rely on bookstore partners in different countries around the world in order to establish a presence in those countries. Unlike Amazon, that opens its own bookstores in those countries and answers only to themselves, Kobo has to develop a good working relationship with these different bookstores. That means they need to make them happy. It doesn't matter whether Kobo itself, headquartered right here in Toronto, allowed those taboo erotica titles on its site in the past. What matters is that their partner in the UK - their main entry into selling ebooks in that country - isn't happy. And yesterday Whitcoulls in New Zealand took down their ebook store and left a similar message to that of WH Smith (here.)

As we speak, you can bet that Kobo is actively trying to establish partnerships with booksellers in other countries - they just recently formed such partnerships with bookstores in Spain, Italy and India. Authors being upset with Kobo and trying to get them to stop filtering content on their website is pointless if doing so means their current partnerships, and their negotiations with other bookstores, would be placed at risk.

One, just because a retail store used to stock a certain product in the past does not mean that they are obligated to continue to stock that product moving forward.

Two, in order to continue to sell books Kobo needs to keep their retail partners happy, and that's what they're attempting to do. It's a shame that their bookstore isn't set up in such a way that they can just filter certain ebook categories to those different partners, but hindsight is 20/20. Petitioning Kobo isn't going to do anything. You need to make their partners (particulary WH Smith and Whitcoulls atm) stop putting pressure on Kobo to "clean up" their catalog of ebooks. Kobo isn't going to put its retail partnerships at risk because authors are unhappy about not being able to sell some of their books through Kobo.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Free speech also includes the right not to listen. You are free to write whatever you want. But I am free not to buy it or sell it. Free speech is not a one-way road. It works both ways. Otherwise, YOU are infringing on my free speech by forcing me to financially support positions I don't agree with.


I've already said that these publishers are within their right to choose not to publish anything they want. Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over?



> Insofar as people uploading new files after approval: again, while I doubt it was that widespread, I can completely see it happening. Particularly if they were aware that the revision would be automatically approved without review. Or it could have been completely innocent. Someone decided to rewrite their story to make it steamier to attract a different audience but didn't want to lose their sales rank and reviews. Authors are CONSTANTLY revising and uploading new versions of previously published work. I can completely see this happening.


Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with what's going on with authors responding to Amazon's adult filter.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Which I would agree with if the government statements_ had come in advance_ of this issue and WHSmith was responding to the government. But the statements, as I understood them, were in response to questions from reporters about something that already happened. Unless someone can produce an official summons or warning letter to WHSmith telling them they are in violation, it is all woulda/coulda/shoulda and can't be factored in to a response. In reality, the Obscene Publications Act was already law decades before WHSmith agreed to sell digital books. Unless they were working on the "it isn't illegal until we get caught" theory, I have to assume they are functioning from a PR perspective and not a legal perspective (though considering how poorly the PR perspective has been applied, I guess anything is possible!)


Fair points all, but this is how I see it. Under the OPA, convictions depend on what judges and juries _perceive_ as obscene. In olden days, obscene was insulting the king or his church. In the 1960's, obscene was a maid getting it on with a member of the upper class. In the 1980's, it was chasing teens around with chainsaws. In modern times, it is pooping on your boyfriend's head. Basically, content isn't illegal until it is unpopular, and the present media %^&storm risked making some rather profitable content unpopular. Faced with the realization that rather than riding the FSOG zeitgeist they might be riding on a runaway train, some sellers freaked and jumped.

These events didn't occur in a vacuum, either. Remember that the UK government has been in talks with ISPs to (somehow) filter out obscene internet material, alter search results, and monitor what digital content UK (and other) citizens are consuming. With their toes now entering the ISP puddle, Amazon may have been more sensitive to the changing political winds. That would explain their banning of many titles months prior to Kobo and Smiths. But I suppose that I am treading into the land of conspiracy talk. It's not like Amazon is in the spy business or anything.

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> I was referring to them talking about the free speech of the writers of the books.
> 
> I thought that was made clear by the context, but it seems some aren't quick to follow.


OK. I agree I am one of the slower folks here, and I appreciate the patience extended my way.

Even when they refer to the free speech of authors it seems in a constitutional sense. They obviously reserve the right to censor what appears in their own stores.

As Julie noted above, we have freedom to speak, but nobody has to listen. That has nothing to do with censorship


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

This conversation might be aided by placing the word "government" or "corporate" ahead of censorship.

B.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Let me preface my remarks by saying I don't read erotica. There was one exception. I did read Fifty Shades of Gray after every women's group in which I took part was talking about it. I read only the first book and never read the others. I'm not a prude, but it's not my cup of tea.

Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?

I know I just put myself out there for attack. I'm not condemning anyone or passing any judgment. I'm simply asking a question. So don't tear into me. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't write.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. I agree I am one of the slower folks here, and I appreciate the patience extended my way.
> 
> Even when they refer to the free speech of authors it seems in a constitutional sense. They obviously reserve the right to censor what appears in their own stores.
> 
> As Julie noted above, we have freedom to speak, but nobody has to listen. That has nothing to do with censorship


What I said in the post you quoted and responded to:

[quote author=swolf]Yes, they have the legal right to censor what they sell.[/quote]

So yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I shall continue to try to be patient.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Sapphire said:


> Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?


There are some out there who think that 50 Shades is porn.

Who gets to draw the line for everyone else? And if there are people out there writing and reading things that are beyond our personal 'limits', what business is it of ours?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> This conversation might be aided by placing the word "government" or "corporate" ahead of censorship.
> 
> B.


Best idea I have heard in all of this. But I would suggest givernment and private censorship. That covers everything.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

B. Justin Shier said:


> It's not like Amazon is in the spy business or anything.


I'm all about the conspiracy theories...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> So yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I shall continue to try to be patient.


OK. So what do you mean by the concept of free speech that exists outside the Constitution? How does it differ from constitutional free speech. What is it?


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Sapphire said:


> Here's what I'm wondering. Edges tend to get erased. Someone bumps up against them, the next person pushes a bit, the next bends them, another bows them way out, and eventually they distort, break and disappear. Is it possible erotica has pushed the edges in this way and much of it has evolved into porn? Do writers need to take a serious look at what they're publishing?


Perhaps. I take a serious look at what I am publishing after composing every page. But the opposite must also be asked. Why do certain segments of society feel inclined to establish such edges? Why does it matter what others read? Are their "deviant" thoughts somehow intrusive? What sort of odd predilections lie at the heart of this drive to impose one's will on others? This need seems to appear in every society. What interests does it serve?

B.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. So what do you mean by the concept of free speech that exists outside the Constitution? How does it differ from constitutional free speech. What is it?


First of all, all the rights we have, we were born with. They weren't granted by the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution does is restrict government from infringing upon them. Some of the founders were against the Bill of Rights, because they were afraid people would take it as a granting of rights.

That includes the right to free speech. It is our right whether the Constitution exists or not. But our rights only extend until they infringe upon the rights of others. That's why we can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, because we're infringing on others' right to safety. And that's why we can't force others to give us a platform for our speech, because that's infringing upon their rights.

So when publishers talk about free speech in terms of authors, and not wanting to violate that right, it's the same right the Constitution protects. So while they're within their own right to free speech to print what they choose, they also support others' right to free speech by not censoring them unreasonably. (We'll, most of the time.)

And as authors we should always advocate free speech, no matter who is infringing upon it. Because once it becomes okay to censor one kind of speech, all free speech is in danger. And again, that's not to say that Amazon and Kobo don't have the right to choose what to sell, but if they're out there advocating for free speech, they should be walking the walk too.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

*Christian Science Monitor: Readers rally to protest online censorship of erotic books*



> Online booksellers like Amazon and Kobo have begun banning self-published titles featuring themes like incest and bestiality. But now, some readers complain, other erotic titles are disappearing as well [...] A petition at Change.org titled "Amazon, Barnes and Noble, KOBO: Leave our self-published and/or Indie authors alone" is addressed to Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos and claims that taking down the erotic titles that aren't harmful, by the petition writers' definition, is a violation of freedom of speech.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/1018/Readers-rally-to-protest-online-censorship-of-erotic-books


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Suzanna Medeiros said:


> Kobo's business model is such that they rely on bookstore partners in different countries around the world in order to establish a presence in those countries. Unlike Amazon, that opens its own bookstores in those countries and answers only to themselves, Kobo has to develop a good working relationship with these different bookstores. That means they need to make them happy. It doesn't matter whether Kobo itself, headquartered right here in Toronto, allowed those taboo erotica titles on its site in the past. What matters is that their partner in the UK - their main entry into selling ebooks in that country - isn't happy. And yesterday Whitcoulls in New Zealand took down their ebook store and left a similar message to that of WH Smith (here.)
> 
> As we speak, you can bet that Kobo is actively trying to establish partnerships with booksellers in other countries - they just recently formed such partnerships with bookstores in Spain, Italy and India.* Authors being upset with Kobo and trying to get them to stop filtering content on their website is pointless if doing so means their current partnerships, and their negotiations with other bookstores, would be placed at risk. *
> 
> ...


WHO said they shouldn't filter content?

Filtering content is quite different than taking down *ALL CONTENT* in a country as they did in the UK.

ETA: I happen to think filtering content is a good idea. Most people don't really think it is a good idea for young kids to look at extremely violent or highly explicit sexual content. But that may just mean putting in an adult filter. It may mean deleting content with very specific sexual behavior such as bestiality. Then as far as I am concerned WHSmith can do whatever they like, but being totally hypocritical such as putting soft porn directly in front of the kid's section while screeching about sexual content in their online store isn't very convincing, but that is for their customers to react to.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

B. Justin Shier said:


> *Christian Science Monitor: Readers rally to protest online censorship of erotic books*
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/1018/Readers-rally-to-protest-online-censorship-of-erotic-books


I officially no longer trust the media...not that I ever did.



> CSMonitor said: The petition notes that the petition creator and its signers do not endorse *fiction* featuring bestiality, incest, pedophilia, "or other things of such an 'extreme' nature."


Uh, no the petition doesn't say that. The petition says they don't endorse *nonfictional* portrayals of those themes. Is it that this CSMonitor has a reading comprehension problem or is this a deliberate effort to mislead?



> CSMonitor said: Meanwhile, a Kobo spokesperson told Publishers Weekly, "We are additionally taking steps to ensure that compliance to our policies - and *international law* - is met by all authors and publishers.


Uhm, are they serious? This isn't some Star Trek episode where we have a Federation which governs all nations. There is no international law governing fiction, writers, and the publishing industry. Oh God, I need a drink...and I don't even drink!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm pretty sure international law covers issues like war crimes and genocide and not books that some people find objectionable. What the Kobo spokesperson might have meant is that they want to comply with local laws in the countries where they or their affiliates sell books.

It's also interesting how the mainstream media coverage keeps talking about books featuring pedophilia and bestiality, when the objectionable books did not contain underage sex or bestiality (the dog was on the cover, because there is a dog in the story. However, said dog is not a sex partner) nor did most of them contain actual incest. So why does the mainstream media keep repeating the incorrect reporting by _The Kernel_ and the _Daily Mail_? On the other hand, scratch that. After all, the German press gleefully repeated _The Sun_'s lies about the Hillsborough disaster 24 years ago.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

DDark said:


> How long are they going to hold our books hostage?


Until you pay the ransom. That of your immortal soul.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Perhaps. I take a serious look at what I am publishing after composing every page. But the opposite must also be asked. Why do certain segments of society feel inclined to establish such edges? Why does it matter what others read? Are their "deviant" thoughts somehow intrusive? What sort of odd predilections lie at the heart of this drive to impose one's will on others? This need seems to appear in every society. What interests does it serve?
> 
> B.


Extremes often help with these issues. Do the Germans ban material supporting National Socialism? If so, I think they do that to prevent the resurgence of a group that led the country down a disastrous path. I dont know if it is effective, but I believe thats the reason.

I dont know if its reasonable to call that intent an odd predilection. It may be criticized as being ineffective, but I don't question the intent. I also support inhibiting the return of National Socialism.

In the US, womens groups tried to suppress _American Psycho_ in the Nineties. Their stated objective was to prevent violence against women from becoming entertainment because they felt it led to social attitudes more accepting of that conduct. Again, I dont see the intent as odd.

If the intent is not odd, then we might ask if the means are odd. I think the Germans employ law as a means. The American groups used speech as a means. I will let the Germans speak for themselves on that one, but I dont see much wrong with the Americans using speech to oppose things.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> First of all, all the rights we have, we were born with. They weren't granted by the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution does is restrict government from infringing upon them. Some of the founders were against the Bill of Rights, because they were afraid people would take it as a granting of rights.
> 
> That includes the right to free speech. It is our right whether the Constitution exists or not. But our rights only extend until they infringe upon the rights of others. That's why we can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, because we're infringing on others' right to safety. And that's why we can't force others to give us a platform for our speech, because that's infringing upon their rights.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything until the last sentence. It all seems a good description of the right guaranteed under the Constitution. It looks like Amazon and Kobo are walking the path you described. That path includes the right to sell what one chooses.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Extremes often help with these issues. Do the Germans ban material supporting National Socialism? If so, I think they do that to prevent the resurgence of a group that led the country down a disastrous path. I dont know if it is effective, but I believe thats the reason.
> 
> I dont know if its reasonable to call that intent an odd predilection. It may be criticized as being ineffective, but I don't question the intent. I also support inhibiting the return of National Socialism.
> 
> In the US, womens groups tried to suppress _American Psycho_ in the Nineties. Their state objective was to prevent violence against women from becoming entertainment because they felt it led to social attitudes more accepting of that conduct. Again, I dont see the intent as odd.


True. Being (what at least some people consider) ineffective or even counter-productive isn't necessarily odd. In fact, from an internal point of view, it may look perfectly sensible.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I find any attempt to prune the thoughts of others rather odd. I cannot even manage my own thought processes during my dormant hours and struggle to do so during my wakeful ones. That anyone would presume to hold their peers to an unachievable standard is odd. That anyone would seek to prosecute and jail them is the height of peculiarity.

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I find any attempt to prune the thoughts of others rather odd. I cannot even manage my own thought processes during my dormant hours and struggle to do so during my wakeful ones. That anyone would presume to hold their peers to an unachievable standard is odd. That anyone would seek to prosecute and jail them is the height of peculiarity.
> 
> B.


I think that is in the realm of means and practicality. Prosecution and jail may be an odd means of achieving a rational intent. But the intent of preventing a return of Nazis or suppressing violence against women is not odd.

It is reasonable to ask if speech can influence to an extent that people can be led to action. I think history shows they can. Leaders can rouse people to act. Persuasion works. Whatever happens in the psyche of an individual may forever be a mystery, but there is a strong correlation between persuasive speech and action. Its not odd to recognize that.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Terrance and everyone else

Although I agree with some of your points, disagree with others, and haven't participated in much of the discussion, I just wanted to pop in the thread to mention how refreshing it is to read what has been a long but very civil and polite debate. Regardless of the differing views on this subject in all the various threads about, a great deal could be learned by how this community has handled itself as they have discussed.
Thank you for that


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

Just wondering if anyone who had their books removed has now had them reinstated. I'm particularly interested in those of you who publish through Smashwords. I'm trying to decide if I should contact Smashwords or just keep waiting.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I find any attempt to prune the thoughts of others rather odd. I cannot even manage my own thought processes during my dormant hours and struggle to do so during my wakeful ones. That anyone would presume to hold their peers to an unachievable standard is odd. That anyone would seek to prosecute and jail them is the height of peculiarity.
> 
> B.


I agree about the thoughts. There seems to be a beast inside each one of us that, if uncontrolled, can think rather extreme thoughts. Yesterday, while writing a horror scene after midnight in my attic, I just about terrified myself to death. I can't control those thoughts, and I don't want anyone to do so.

But I do take issue seeing some of those Thoughts of the Beast (haha) in print. Rape for pleasure? Girls violated by animals? Children violated? Hatred against people? Texts like these shouldn't appear in print, in my opinion.

I was browsing Pinterest yesterday, looking at documentary photos from the Nazi concentration camps. Those images must be there, with thoughtful commentary, because they show the _human consequences_ of hateful speech.

As a writer, and as someone who used to live in a Communist "dictatorship", I'm the last person to enforce censorship. But I do advocate the humanity of books we write. We're accountable, not our sales partners, for producing books that are compatible with being human.

Like it or not, words are the most powerful thing in this world. I believe the cries about the "freedom of speech" to write and distribute violent porn through mainstream channels are misguided.

ETA: having said that, I believe the actions of Kobo and other stores to ban the whole category of books, while they took their time to sort out the issue, are fully justified. Yeah, they share accountability by having had lack of controls. Yes, they've pointed fingers at all self-publishers as a class, which is wrong. Yes, they hurt our sales (one of my children books is still being blocked). But stopping sales was the right thing to do.

Now, as they put in place better control, the non-offending books will return. It's a natural part of our development as an industry.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2013)

Rlyon said:


> Just wondering if anyone who had their books removed has now had them reinstated. I'm particularly interested in those of you who publish through Smashwords. I'm trying to decide if I should contact Smashwords or just keep waiting.


Interestingly enough, my small press title was reinstated this morning. The Smashwords ones are still unavailable.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.

I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the damn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).

My sales have gone from 5-10 a day to 2 a week. I could cry.

Kobo is 70% of my income.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Patty Jansen said:


> My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.
> 
> I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the d*mn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).
> 
> ...


So sorry to hear that, Patty.

Not one of my sweet romances have been restored through D2D. Anyone had their D2D titles reinstated? I just published a new book and I opted out of Kobo.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Austin_Briggs said:


> As a writer, and as someone who used to live in a Communist "dictatorship", I'm the last person to enforce censorship. But I do advocate the humanity of books we write. We're accountable, not our sales partners, for producing books that are compatible with being human.


This is what I was attempting to say in an earlier post. Austin says it so much better.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.
> 
> I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the d*mn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).
> 
> ...


OH man that stinks. I sell almost nothing at Kobo, so being off line there does not effect me... but that freaking sucks for you.  Sorry


----------



## Writer1000 (Jul 28, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.
> 
> I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the d*mn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).
> 
> ...


Hugs, Patty.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Austin_Briggs said:


> We're accountable, not our sales partners, for producing books that are compatible with being human.


Okay&#8230; and who is going to decide what exactly is compatible with being human?

Is there a list I can check off?

Alternatively, give us a few examples of what is _*not*_ compatible with being human.

===​
What actually happened is this.

An incompetent and irresponsible hardware store had chainsaws on display, with the plug left in for demonstration purposes. Additionally they let seven-year olds run around the store unsupervised.

Then the inevtibale happens and one of the youngsters saws off his own toes.

The store management clutches its collective pearls and cries out indignantly, _"What? Chainsaws? In our store? We never knew that. Those evil, evil chainsaw manufacturers. We'll close up shop immediately and make sure our inventory doesn't contain any harmful articles anymore, like sponges and plastic cups."_

Who is to blame?

Certainly not the manufacturer of machinery that is useful to responsible adults who know what they're doing.

More likely candidates are the irresponsible parents who let their kids run around unsupervised in a hardware store, and the hypocrites who manage the store and didn't take the necessary safety measures.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2013)

Austin_Briggs said:


> Like it or not, words are the most powerful thing in this world. I believe the cries about the "freedom of speech" to write and distribute violent porn through mainstream channels are misguided.


I think for the most part nobody is complaining about vendors that refuse to sell rape porn. What everyone is complaining about is that Kobo and others pretended they didn't know rape porn was on their storefronts, and then because someone called them out on it decided to punish EVERYONE by removing everyone's erotic books from the site.

Kobo didn't go throw with a scalpel and get rid of the stuff that simply violated their TOS. Nobody here would be batting an eyelash at that. Kobo did what WHSmith and others have done. They removed EVERYTHING that remotely sounded like it might sort of have some relation to sex in some way, and then threw indies under the bus to boot by saying it was all their fault.

And yes, I say they pretended they didn't know it was there. They either willfully turned a blind eye to the stuff OR they were so incompetent that they didn't know it was there. This is really the root issue. The vendors did not have systems in place, or failed to enforce the systems they had in place, to make sure content that violated their TOS was not on their site. When they were "caught" with the content on their sites, instead of taking responsibility for it and acting like adults, they pitched fits, blamed all indie authors, and removed all all indie books en masse.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

One of my D2D titles is back on Kobo; the other one is still pending. It's mystery, not erotica.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

Austin_Briggs said:


> But I do take issue seeing some of those Thoughts of the Beast (haha) in print. Rape for pleasure? Girls violated by animals? Children violated? Hatred against people? Texts like these shouldn't appear in print, in my opinion.


I know you are possibly just saying in general Austin. But someone popping into the thread and only reading this page might get the wrong idea.

So let me make one thing clear to anyone who's reading into what you posted...

There were NO children violated, not even in the fictional sense, in any of the erotica that started all this.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Good analogy, Andrew.

But the reality is that when a woman bought coffee at McDonald's and put it between her legs in the car to open it, the coffee spilled and burned her. She sued and won. Probably, if she'd caused an accident, the driver of the other car would have also sued McDonald's and would also have won. 

When a woman shopper in a furniture store tripped and fell over a child, she sued despite the fact it was her own child she tripped over.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2013)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Good analogy, Andrew.
> 
> But the reality is that when a woman bought coffee at McDonald's and put it between her legs in the car to open it, the coffee spilled and burned her. She sued and won. Probably, if she'd caused an accident, the driver of the other car would have also sued McDonald's and would also have won.


Sidebar: But the often forgotten fact about this incident is that the coffee WAS hotter than was drinkable. The coffee in question was served at between 180 to 190 degrees, a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Most experts say coffee should be served at around 150-160 degrees to avoid potential injury, because it would take longer skin contact to actually cause real injury. I only bring this up because people often use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts of the case were actually rather interesting.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Austin_Briggs said:


> But I do take issue seeing some of those Thoughts of the Beast (haha) in print. Rape for pleasure? Girls violated by animals? Children violated? Hatred against people? Texts like these shouldn't appear in print, in my opinion.
> 
> I was browsing Pinterest yesterday, looking at documentary photos from the Nazi concentration camps. Those images must be there, with thoughtful commentary, because they show the _human consequences_ of hateful speech.
> 
> ...


Since censorship is defined as excluding books found to be objectionable, and you're advocating that books you find objectionable 'shouldn't appear in print', then you're in favor of censorship. For the most part, books that would fall under your 'compatible with being human' criteria would probably never require protection from censorship.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with what's in a book, or criticizing someone for writing something, or advocating the humanity of books. But when you enter into the 'shouldn't appear in print' area, you're advocating censorship, and attempting to make decisions for others about what they can read.

And no, those pictures aren't the consequences of hateful speech. They're the consequences of hateful actions.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

AnitaDobs said:


> I know you are possibly just saying in general Austin. But someone popping into the thread and only reading this page might get the wrong idea.
> 
> So let me make one thing clear to anyone who's reading into what you posted...
> 
> There were NO children violated, not even in the fictional sense, in any of the erotica that started all this.


Thanks for this clarification, Anita. You're right, I'm stretching the point to make the point. I realize that this can backfire against my own argument if read of out context, which you kindly provide - thanks!


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Okay&#8230; and who is going to decide what exactly is compatible with being human?
> 
> Is there a list I can check off?
> 
> ...


This is a good argument, I believe, and we can take it quite far. Your example is about gross negligence with a physical product.

In my mind, I'm struggling with the impact of the fictional stories I create on my readers. The compatibility with "humanity" is in my own heart when I write my stories -- it's my own definition. When you write your stories, the definition is yours.

A more general definition would probably have to do with "incitement of hate" and "making violence for your own gratification look normal" by repeating stories about pleasure from violating others enough times.

It's an endless argument, but probably a necessary one in a self-regulating industry that sells dreams and ideas.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

swolf said:


> Since censorship is defined as excluding books found to be objectionable, and you're advocating that books you find objectionable 'shouldn't appear in print', then you're in favor of censorship. For the most part, books that would fall under your 'compatible with being human' criteria would probably never require protection from censorship.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with what's in a book, or criticizing someone for writing something, or advocating the humanity of books. But when you enter into the 'shouldn't appear in print' area, you're advocating censorship, and attempting to make decisions for others about what they can read.
> 
> And no, those pictures aren't the consequences of hateful speech. They're the consequences of hateful actions.


Those hateful actions began with hateful speech, my friend. I accept that I missed a step in my argument. Speech => Actions => Consequences. And in that context, we even know exactly the people who started telling harmful stories in the first place, and how those stories led to actions.

And I see your point on censorship. I'm still thinking about that.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Austin_Briggs said:


> Those hateful actions began with hateful speech, my friend. I accept that I missed a step in my argument. Speech => Actions => Consequences. And in that context, we even know exactly the people who started telling harmful stories in the first place, and how those stories led to actions.


You're entering a very slippery slope when attempting to hold the words of one accountable for the actions of others. Even books 'compatible with being human' can inspire people to do bad things, as long as they believe their motives are pure. One has to look no further than the Bible for an example of that.

Getting back to this example, there's no evidence to prove that reading about things like violent rape actually causes the reader to go out and commit that crime.

Also, I'm curious why you're singling out violent porn, and not fictional violence in general.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Sidebar: But the often forgotten fact about this incident is that the coffee WAS hotter than was drinkable. The coffee in question was served at between 180 to 190 degrees, a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Most experts say coffee should be served at around 150-160 degrees to avoid potential injury, because it would take longer skin contact to actually cause real injury. I only bring this up because people often use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts of the case were actually rather interesting.


This.

McD's had been repeatedly warned about this and chose to do nothing differently. In fact, many others had already been injured by their coffee. McD's needed to learn a lesson in order to change their behavior. Printing a snarky warning that "oh, by the way, coffee is hot" on the cup doesn't quite cut it when you are effectively giving people napalm rather than something they can consume. The lady (who was *not* driving, but rather was a passenger in a parked car) required skin grafts and had been willing to settle for $20k to cover that and her lost wages. But the jury was so incensed by what they learned about McD's corporate attitude that they clobbered them with punitive damages well beyond.

An interesting read on the case can be found at https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Austin_Briggs said:


> But I do take issue seeing some of those Thoughts of the Beast (haha) in print. Rape for pleasure? Girls violated by animals? Children violated? Hatred against people? Texts like these shouldn't appear in print, in my opinion.


It is easy to argue for the death of poverty. It is harder to argue for the redistribute wealth. Whenever an advocate argues that something should not be permitted to exist, it is the duty of that advocate to define how the naughting will be achieved. Only then can we begin to weigh the costs of their prescribed actions versus inaction.

Freedom guarantees pain. There is no denying that. Some will abuse their liberties. Some will be harmed by their acts. But if my reading of history has taught me anything, it is that each society must choose to pay freedom's toll or experience the wonders of compounding interest. Creeping tyranny benumbs the senses first, then it steals the breath.*

B.

*I be poaching frome Dryden's _Sigismonda_ here


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Sidebar: But the often forgotten fact about this incident is that the coffee WAS hotter than was drinkable. The coffee in question was served at between 180 to 190 degrees, a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Most experts say coffee should be served at around 150-160 degrees to avoid potential injury, because it would take longer skin contact to actually cause real injury. I only bring this up because people often use this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts of the case were actually rather interesting.


What made the jury so angry in this case, other than the general inhumanity of a huge corporation having refused to pay fairly minor damages which was what she originally asked, was that there had been hundreds of complaints recorded already about the level of heat the corporation required the coffee to be kept at, which they knew was dangerous and was routinely taken into moving vehicles (although that one wasn't) which increased the chances of spills. But McDonalds preferred to have customers injured than risk having customers complain because their coffee might cool off too fast.

I have to say that McDonalds did a textbook job of PR in turning a horrendous corporate attitude into a PR win. Really amazing how they managed to convince the public that THEY were mistreated rather than a woman who had her genitals severely burned.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Okay&#8230; and who is going to decide what exactly is compatible with being human?


I decide.

I decide for myself and the small sliver of the world I control. If I am incompetent, I still decide. I answer to nobody for my standards.

Each individual decides.

If he is a distributor or retailer, he decides for himself what to carry based on his own standards.

If he is a writer, he decides for himself what to write based on his own standards.

If he is a reader, he decides for himself what to read based on his own standards.

If he is a publisher, he decides for himself what to publish based on his own standards.

If he is an advocate, he decides for himself what to advocate for or against based on his own standards.

If he is a preacher, he decides for himself the standard he will encourage others to adopt.

Someone else can make a different decision. Freedom of Speech allows for many different individual standards.

And if I am selling coffee, I decide for myself to make weak, wimpy, tepid drool because of the McDonald's case.

I applaud the fact that people can and do make their own standards and their own decisions. (Except for the coffee, of course.)

Ain't this a great country?


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I'm still missing all 4 of my smashwords titles from kobo. Including a YA Fantasy where the most erotic thing that happens is one very chaste boy/girl kiss.

Kobo was my second best-seller after amazon, although not in Patty's league by any means.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> And if I am selling coffee, I decide for myself to make weak, wimpy, tepid drool because of the McDonald's case.


Must see: http://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-about-the-lady-that-spilled-coffee-on-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions

I totally just came upon this video by coincidence today, after reading this thread earlier.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I decide.
> 
> I decide for myself and the small sliver of the world I control. If I am incompetent, I still decide. I answer to nobody for my standards.
> 
> ...


Perfect! 

One correction, if I may: _countries_, lol. We decide in Europe, too (well, in most of it, anyway).


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> My Smashwords titles have been reinstated a few days ago.
> 
> I have huge catalogue issues with the rest of my books (via KWL). When they changed the site, all my books lost their categories. They have since put most of them back, but have also shunted my bestsellers into "Religious Fiction". Making any changes to this takes the book offline, and still keeps the d*mn religious category. The books also no longer have ratings, and my books had a lot of those (ratings = books are being read).
> 
> ...


I'm awfully sorry to hear this, Patty, especially since you were doing so well at Kobo.

I'm having books miscategorized as religious fiction (usually books that don't have three categories) and books with missing star ratings as well. The Kobo rankings, which were always a mess, now seem messier than usual. And like yours, my Kobo sales have been dead since early October. Though Kobo usually makes up only between 10 and 20% of my monthly sales.


----------

