# Amazon banning content and removing purchased books from kindles



## fuschiahedgehog (Feb 23, 2010)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/0153255/Amazon-Taking-Down-Erotica-Removing-From-Kindles


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I read an article about this a few days ago. They are removing books that have references to pedophilia, no doubt related to the brouhaha last month.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> I read an article about this a few days ago. They are removing books that have references to pedophilia, no doubt related to the brouhaha last month.


What happened last month?


----------



## Teinouji (Dec 13, 2010)

To each his/her own, I guess.


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

In my mind either Amazon has to inspect books on the front end, or be open to removing books that violate TOS or other issues on the back end.  I would rather have a more open front and have to deal with the occasional back end problems. 

But it sounds to me like they are handling it better.  Not deleting off of devices, just removing from servers, so no future downloads.  I would hope they also have an email out to everyone and an automatic refund.  But I don't think they do.

In general I am not a fan of corporate content guidelines, but it is a business and to refuse to take down a guide to pedophilia is business suicide.  Especially for a company that works hard on their family image.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> What happened last month?


An author put their book up for sale on Amazon, entitled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct." There was an uproar, Amazon initially stated they don't censor the content of books and would not remove the book, and a day or two later they finally removed the book, obviously caving to media pressure.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

sabinfire said:


> An author put their book up for sale on Amazon, entitled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct." There was an uproar, Amazon initially stated they don't censor the content of books and would not remove the book, and a day or two later they finally removed the book, obviously caving to media pressure.


Oh. Wow. I can see that as a tongue-in-cheek book on rehabilitating sex offenders, but if they were serious... ::speechless::


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Not commenting on the actual subject matter, but I find this rather disturbing. Remember back in 2009 when Amazon remotely removed purchased content from customer's Kindles? There were lawsuits that resulted in Amazon paying $150,000 to two plaintiffs and making good with users who had their books deleted.

From Wikipedia:

_On July 17, 2009, Amazon.com withdrew certain Kindle titles, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, from sale, refunded the cost to those who had purchased them, and remotely deleted these titles from purchasers' devices after discovering that the publisher lacked rights to publish the titles in question.[82] Notes and annotations for the books made by users on their devices were left in a separate file, but "rendered useless" without the content they were directly linked to.[83][84] The move prompted outcry and comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four itself. In the novel, books, magazines and newspapers in public archives that contradict the ruling party are edited or destroyed, long after being published; the removed materials go "down the Memory Hole", nickname for an incinerator chute.[85] Customers and commentators noted the resemblance to the censorship in the novel, and described Amazon's action in Orwellian terms. Some critics also argued that the deletion violated the Kindle's Terms of Service, which states in part:[86]

"Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."

Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener stated that the company is "&#8230; changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."[87] On July 23, 2009, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos posted an apology about the company's handling of the matter on Amazon's official Kindle forum. Bezos said the action was "stupid", and that the executives at Amazon "deserve the criticism received."[88]

On July 30, 2009, Justin Gawronski, a Michigan high-school senior, and Antoine Bruguier, a California engineer, filed suit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Gawronski argued that Amazon had violated their terms of service by remotely deleting the copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four he had purchased, in the process preventing him from accessing annotations he had written. Bruguier also had his copy deleted without his consent, and found Amazon "deceit[ful]" in an email exchange. The complaint, which requested class-action status, asked for both monetary and injunctive relief.[84][89] The case was settled on September 25, 2009, with Amazon agreeing to pay $150,000 divided between the two plaintiffs, on the understanding that the law firm representing them, Kamber Edelson LLC, "...will donate its portion of that fee to a charitable organization...".[90] The settlement also saw Amazon guaranteeing wider rights to Kindle owners over their eBooks:

For copies of Works purchased pursuant to TOS granting "the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy" of each purchased Work and to "view, use and display [such Works] an unlimited number of times, solely on the [Devices]. . . and solely for [the purchasers'] personal, non-commercial use", Amazon will not remotely delete or modify such Works from Devices purchased and being used in the United States unless (a) the user consents to such deletion or modification; (b) the user requests a refund for the Work or otherwise fails to pay for the Work (e.g., if a credit or debit card issuer declines to remit payment); (c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification; or (d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer or the operation of a Device or network through which the Device communicates (e.g., to remove harmful code embedded within a copy of a Work downloaded to a Device).[91]

On September 4, 2009, Amazon offered affected users a restoration of the deleted ebooks, an Amazon gift certificate, or a check for the amount of $30.[92]_


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Just to clarify my point:

Amazon did not initially remove the "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" book.  In fact, they had defended it via the free speech argument.

But then they apparently changed their mind.  Through Amazon changing their mind at any time, they can go through and remotely remove books from your Kindle, ones that you had purchased.

Why does a book that references pedophilia get removed and deleted from Kindles after the fact?  Because it's 'criminal activity' and 'immoral'?  Why is it okay to write in great detail about murdering people?  Or torturing people?  Rape?  Or illicit drug use?  Obviously, most people (including our system of law) considers murder and brutal torture to be a greater crime than pedophilia.  Is there a measuring stick here?  Is it okay to write about the murder of a child?  How long will it be before we have books remotely removed from our Kindles that reference all of these things?


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

For some odd reason, my mind immediately flew to _Lolita_.

Actually, I seem to remember OJ preparing to write a book called _If I Did It_, until there was a public outcry against it. I'm sure you could guess the subject matter.

Do you think that part of it had to do with the fact that it's touted as a "how-to guide" and not a fictional work, like _A Clockwork Orange_?


----------



## RiddleMeThis (Sep 15, 2009)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Actually, I seem to remember OJ preparing to write a book called _If I Did It_, until there was a public outcry against it. I'm sure you could guess the subject matter.


 He did write it....

http://www.amazon.com/O.-J.-Simpson/e/B0034PJ1K8/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1292471012&sr=8-1


> Do you think that part of it had to do with the fact that it's touted as a "how-to guide" and not a fictional work, like _A Clockwork Orange_?


Yes I believe that was the part most people had a problem with. It wasn't meant to be fact. It was meant to be real and to be used.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Obviously a non-fiction work, especially How To guides, would be seen as more harmful, I suppose.  

But think about it: how difficult would it be to re-write a book like that into a fictional work, while dispensing the same content? The original link in the OP's post states that fiction is being removed from Kindles, though.  Not just non-fiction.

Amazon still supports their sale of a work like "The Anarchist Cookbook".  One could easily argue that a pedophile doesn't need a book to tell them how to be sick.  But most people would need reference material to build bombs and explosives.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Here is the post I read about this a few days ago.... According to this article, Amazon is not removing the books from Kindles, but they are deleting it from their servers, and as such they will no longer be available in customers' archives.

Amazon removes incest-related erotica titles from store, Kindle archive


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

I wish we had someone with first-hand knowledge to tell us what is actually happening, but I doubt we'll have anyone stepping up to talk about their incest-related books.

If Amazon is not removing content from Kindles, that is certainly less invasive, but still leaves me wondering why they can defend something one day, and then be washing their hands completely clean the next day.  As Kindle users, we seem to be at the mercy of Amazon telling us what content we can read, which can change from day to day.

At best, this still leaves a localized copy on your Kindle.  With no archives available, the book(s) you paid for could be lost with no retrieval.

Edit: 

sorry, just read that article again and noticed that Amazon might be offering refunds, while letting customers keep the book.

Great, now Amazon is distributing incest-related books for free to their customers.  They can't win for losing!


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

Amazon isn't deleting the books from kindles so it isn't in violation of the settlement agreement.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

I think all bookstores pick and choose what they want to sell. And they stop selling things for their own reasons. The majority of times probably without questions or explanations.  The only difference between Amazon no longer having any book available, and a brick and mortar store, is that Amazon advertises that they will store your books for you. So, unlike Barnes and Noble (for example) they are not only controlling what they sell, but also what is on my bookshelf, if I choose to use them for storage. You can store it on your Kindles, but can not move it between Kindles without Amazon having a backup. 
There is going to be growing pains in this kind of situation, and I think this is an example. I don't think Amazon is attempting to really control my bookshelf, I think they are trying to control their store, but now the two seem to  blend.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Personally as long as they refund the consumer, I don't really see an issue.

However, it would be nice if they could warn you before removing the book from the device that it's no longer available. I remove books all the time, and keep everything in my archive, so this would be a pain.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

TheRiddler said:


> Personally as long as they refund the consumer, I don't really see an issue.
> 
> However, it would be nice if they could warn you before removing the book from the device that it's no longer available. I remove books all the time, and keep everything in my archive, so this would be a pain.


I expect anyone who bought the books in question will receive an e-mail.

Early in Kindle History, someone posted for sale a copy of _The Little Prince_. I bought it in good faith. It was subsequently determined that the person who offered it for sale did not have the right to do so. . .this was after the Orwell debacle when I think Amazon was reviewing a number of titles. The issue with the Orwell books was the same: they who published it for sale as a Kindle book did not have the right to do so. Anyway, I received an e-mail saying that the book was being pulled as it hadn't been legally offered, I'd receive a refund of the price I paid (I did in fact receive the refund) and would I please remove it from any Kindle device I'd loaded it on. Which, I did. 

This is a case of a book that was published that Amazon subsequently determines is content in violation of it's stated terms of service for digital uploads. I would expect anyone who purchased the book to receive an email similar to the one I did, except referencing the terms of service violation rather than lack of publishing rights.


----------



## MiniDave (Nov 30, 2010)

I might be asking the dumbest question ever, but if you download the books to your computer couldn't you have them forever?  Every book I've downloaded so far has been downloaded to my computer then I just synced the kindle to my computer and linked them that way.  If amazon decided they didn't want me to have a book couldn't I just keep loading it on my kindle, or simply shut off wifi and keep my loading books the long way?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, you can back them up and keep them forever. However, note that the file is DRMd to the Kindle device you downloaded it for, so you cannot use that file on a different device.


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

If have alot of incest books on my Kindle...but none of them were purchased from Amazon   They are free books, made available by the authors.  But thanks for the info, I'll make sure to never to purchase anything controversial off Amazon.  As a double precaution, I also never ever turn on my Wifi on my Kindle...


----------



## hankw (Aug 25, 2010)

Question--- I Have a store, do I have the freedom to stock my store with whatever I want?  Or must I  "cave"  and give up the freedom to run my store as I see fit.


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

hankw said:


> Question--- I Have a store, do I have the freedom to stock my store with whatever I want? Or must I "cave" and give up the freedom to run my store as I see fit.


You have the freedom to run your store as you feel fit and people have the freedom to shop there if they want or not shop there if they want. You do not have the freedom to run your store as you wish but keep it open without customers unless you have an independently source of income. Which is why I think this is not an issue of freedom, but an issue of business. (And why I think this is not an issue of censorship, but an issue of corporate decision making.) People do not buy from Amazon because they have the ability to remove a book from their store. But I know people that would not ever buy something again from Amazon if they kept that pedophilia book in the store. Both sets of people can do what they want.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

arshield said:


> this is not an issue of freedom, but an issue of business. (And why I think this is not an issue of censorship, but an issue of corporate decision making.


Precisely.

Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action. Amazon, and this board for that matter, can preclude whatever speech it would like. The only consequence is the impact on its business.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Censorship does not apply only to the government. If a book is not available elsewhere, removing it from Amazon is effectively censoring it from the world. 

It does not seem they are removing it from Kindles. This is still sad and a bit upsetting, though.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Censorship does not apply only to the government. If a book is not available elsewhere, removing it from Amazon is effectively censoring it from the world.


I do not disagree that the effect is the same - we cannot buy the book - but this is not censorship, it is unavailability. It does, unfortunately, add one more to the pile of out-of-print books.

I do not like that Amazon caved to customer protestations and removed the book, regardless of its content. Yes, it is offensive - but so are many other books.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Just a couple of clarifications:

I agree that only governments may censor material, not Amazon. Amazon is not "banning" anything: they're not prohibiting you from getting that book elsewhere, and it's not like Amazon is anywhere near a monopoly. B&N could still choose to carry it, your local indie bookstore could, and the author could sell it direct from their own website. You could even put it on your Kindle if the author sold a MOBI version directly, or through Smashwords. Amazon is only deciding what they want to and do not want to carry/sell, for business reasons. The local B&N does not stock a copy of my books, but that is not censorship, just a business decision on their part.

Here, Amazon is damned if they do and damned if they don't, because some people will be very upset if Amazon is helping to distribute, _and profit from_, a book on such a topic, which most people find morally repellent. Those people will stop buying ALL books from Amazon -- and that will cost Amazon much more than whatever they'll earn from sales of one indie title with (hopefully) a very small niche audience.

The title of this thread is misleading, and uses the "fear-mongering" tactic I've seen people use as their #1 argument against using Kindles: that Amazon will swoop in and steal your books away from you. Everyone knows about the _1984_ thing, and Amazon has stated they won't do that again. They are not doing that here (to the best of my knowledge) -- they are just removing the books from their servers. Local copies will stay on your Kindle (and your computer, if you backed it up there). It will no longer show up in your "Archived Items," which is just a list of what Amazon is storing on its servers for you, but they're not "removing" anything from anyone's Kindles.


----------



## splashes99 (Aug 11, 2010)

Elk said:


> Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action.


Not true: Definition of CENSOR from dictionary.com:
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

There are a few more definitions listed, but these show that the government is not the only one who can be considered a censor. Amazon removed the book because of the content, thus "supervising the manners or morality of others" by deciding the topic was not suitable for people to read.

Censoring does NOT mean that the material has to be completely unavailable anywhere. It means that someone has decided that they object to a particular topic and thus, you cannot read (in this case) the topic either - and that they have made it unavailable within their sphere of influence.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Excellent post, David.  You have identified and described the issue superbly.

Splashes, are you serious?  You really want to argue semantics?  I can easily respond, but do you really not understand the nuances here?  Read David's post above yours as a wonderful start.  (Also keep in mind that my original statement was "Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action.")


----------



## splashes99 (Aug 11, 2010)

Elk said:


> Excellent post, David. You have identified and described the issue superbly.
> 
> Splashes, are you serious? You really want to argue semantics? I can easily respond, but do you really not understand the nuances here? Read David's post above yours as a wonderful start. (Also keep in mind that my original statement was "Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action.")


How is that semantics? I was not the one saying that only a government can censor. As you can see by the above definition, that is incorrect. Your original post is exactly why I posted the definition. Just because you are stating an incorrect definition does not make it valid.

Nice job being civil on the board simply because you disagree with a dictionary 

I have read david's post, thanks - and thanks for so kindly suggesting I read it to educate myself.  Unfortunately, it does not negate the definition of a censor. I agree with David that not carrying a book is one thing, and can be considered a business decision depending on the reason. However, carrying it and then removing it because of the content IS censoring, as it would be if they made a statement that "we are not carrying the book because of the content."


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Amazon has every right to determine the kind of content it will and will not sell. My problem is that they very vague about what they deem inappropriate. They need to clarify that before taking this step again.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

A school could censor the material that it allows its students to see. A TV channel could censor program material that it delivers to viewers. Obviously, Amazon can and does censor books.

In this case, the censorship is blatant because Amazon has *directly stated* that they are engaging in censorship here. Not even sure why there is argument.

_"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."_

_"Our goal is to support freedom of expression and to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any title they might be seeking."_


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Would you be comfortable with your library having this book available for checkout? Because the library does not want to censor, but must withold the values of its community. When a patron objects to a title in their catalog they have to examine and justify why the book can stay. Amazon can wait until they hear from the masses.

Back in the 80s and perhaps the 90s, Wal-mart would not carry any Gun n'Roses albums. My father, who ran the local K-Mart would. Until 9 out of 10 would be stolen. Censorship? Perhaps, The cds were still available somewhere else, but his bottomline was better. And while we are talking about different things, some parents at the time, would object the GnR based on the lyrics so we might be talking different varieties of apples.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I co-host a show called Book Chatter with Stacey Cochran, along with author Zoe Winters. On tonight's episode Zoe is going to be talking about this issue. If you're interested in joining the discussion via instant chat, here's the link:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bookchatter

Tonight at 9:00 PM, Eastern Time Zone.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

splashes99 said:


> I was not the one saying that only a government can censor.


Nor is that what I posted.

Rather, I wrote: "Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action. Amazon, and this board for that matter, can preclude whatever speech it would like."

That is, only the government is prohibited from censoring. Expressed yet another way, legal claims of a right to free speech or to be free of censorship can be made only against the government (and certainly not Amazon).

Amazon has made a business decision as a result of community pressure. We have no claim against Amazon for this decision; Amazon is not prohibited from censoring.

Additionally, I would not call this censorship; Amazon's motive is commercial - not the control of ideas. You certainly may label this censorship, but I disagree with you.



> Nice job being civil on the board . . .


I did not insult you, call you names nor otherwise engage in a personal attack. I merely asked you to re-read my original language and David's exposition on the issue. Was that so scary?

I was unaware that you are so delicate. I will endeavor to keep this in mind for the future.

I am afraid however that if you still do not understand that I am unlikely to be able to explain it to you.


----------



## barryem (Oct 19, 2010)

arshield said:


> Which is why I think this is not an issue of freedom, but an issue of business. (And why I think this is not an issue of censorship, but an issue of corporate decision making.)


Issues of freedom and issues of business aren't mutually exclusive. Nor are issues of censorship and issues of corporate decision making. Any issue can be either one or the other or both.

Barry


----------



## barryem (Oct 19, 2010)

Elk said:


> Excellent post, David. You have identified and described the issue superbly.
> 
> Splashes, are you serious? You really want to argue semantics? I can easily respond, but do you really not understand the nuances here? Read David's post above yours as a wonderful start. (Also keep in mind that my original statement was "Freedom of speech and censorship prohibitions apply only to government action.")


The TV networks have censors and have had for decades. Censorship has been in effect for a long time with respect to movies. Libraries censor. Churches censor. Schools censor. Parents censor. I censor and very likely so do you.

Barry


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

mom133d said:


> Would you be comfortable with your library having this book available for checkout?


I certainly would. Anyone that does not agree with the content does not have to check it out nor allow their children to check it out.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I could care less if pedophilia books get banned or removed from Kindles. Extremism, whether it leans left or right, bothers the


Spoiler



shit


 outta me. The whole idea that we have to protect sexual pedophilia literature because it will lead to worse leaves me cold.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

It's important to worry about government censoring, because it's one of the basic tenets of our freedom that they not be allowed to do so. The constitution makes it clear that government cannot restrict speech. Businesses are in no way beholden to this. So, it's not capital "C" censorship, not Censorship in the way most people mean to invoke the word, when a company declines to carry a book or a network fires someone for saying something as a representative of their company which they feel is a poor reflection. 

I think Amazon has been a little heavy-handed, but they're doing what businesses do all the time, and have every right to do. Walmart routinely declines to carry music they deem unwholesome. I also think that's lame, but lame in the sense of it being their prerogative. Neither of these companies is censoring in a way that is usually associated with the words Big Brother though. 

In any case, I think it's perfectly valid for individuals to not enrich a company for any reason that they like -- including both the materials they carry or don't carry.


----------



## sleepy6553 (Nov 21, 2010)

This might be a dumb question, but can Amazon delete other books on my Kindle. Like those I didn't purchase from Amazon?


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

sleepy6553 said:


> This might be a dumb question, but can Amazon delete other books on my Kindle. Like those I didn't purchase from Amazon?


In theory, Amazon could do whatever it wants to your content whenever a direct connection exists between Amazon and your Kindle.

The question should be: would Amazon delete non-Amazon content on your Kindle? And obviously, the answer would almost certainly be 'no'. It's highly unlikely Amazon would ever do something like that. In fact, it may even be illegal.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

sleepy6553 said:


> This might be a dumb question, but can Amazon delete other books on my Kindle. Like those I didn't purchase from Amazon?


I clarified on the Kindle e-book removal issue and the censorship issue on a recent blog post inspired by this thread:

http://www.davidderrico.com/will-amazon-remove-books-from-my-kindle/

But the short answer is that Amazon has stated that they will never again remove e-books from users' Kindles. They did it once, profusely apologized, and offered users the choice of getting those e-books back or a $30 gift card (in addition to the refund). If you're paranoid, you can back e-books up to your computer, where Amazon can't touch them.

I can't imagine Amazon would ever even consider removing a non-Amazon e-book from your Kindle. I don't know if it's technically even possible for them to do.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> It's important to worry about government censoring, because it's one of the basic tenets of our freedom that they not be allowed to do so. The constitution makes it clear that government cannot restrict speech. Businesses are in no way beholden to this.


Thank you, Michelle! (Your post is otherwise very thoughtful as well.) Where do I send the biscuit?

It appears very few understand this point and instead want to argue over the word itself. Frankly this is disturbing in a group of readers. The word "censor" apparently invokes such strong reactions that reading comprehension diminishes. 

I don't like what Amazon did, especially as it impacts indie authors. I also have no fear of ideas. Censorship in any form has never made sense to me. If you are so certain your ideas are best why be afraid of letting people hear contrary thoughts?


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Why are we talking about government censorship?  Has the government censored something recently or told Amazon to remove books?  As far as I know, this topic was discussing Amazon censoring and banning content from it's marketplace.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

...because people sometimes intertwine the two. And because topics expand.


----------



## fuschiahedgehog (Feb 23, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> But the short answer is that Amazon has stated that they will never again remove e-books from users' Kindles. They did it once, profusely apologized, and offered users the choice of getting those e-books back or a $30 gift card (in addition to the refund). If you're paranoid, you can back e-books up to your computer, where Amazon can't touch them.


As others have pointed out, that file is tied to a specific kindle. If that device is broken, lost or stolen, that file is useless. Not so with the rest of the items still in the archive.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I think Amazon has been a little heavy-handed, but they're doing what businesses do all the time, and have every right to do. Walmart routinely declines to carry music they deem unwholesome. I also think that's lame, but lame in the sense of it being their prerogative. Neither of these companies is censoring in a way that is usually associated with the words Big Brother though.
> 
> In any case, I think it's perfectly valid for individuals to not enrich a company for any reason that they like -- including both the materials they carry or don't carry.


I think this pretty much sums up the discussion about censorship that has gone on for a few days now on this thread. What's interesting is that people panic a lot more over the items that businesses carry when artistic expression is involved. For instance, a market could carry a certain type of cookie for sometime and then drop it because there's a NYT article about the company's shoddy business practices, and the market's owner refuses to support them. How many customers would be outraged that he pulled these cookies from his shelves?

Granted, cookies are not the same thing as books promoting pedophilia, but the concept is the same: companies can sell what they think will serve them best. Don't like it? Shop somewhere else. It's the same reason that I can visit three different grocery stores in the same week -- each one stocks different things.

Sorry for the food analogies. I have dinner on the brain.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> How many customers would be outraged that he pulled these cookies from his shelves?


Are they _really_ good cookies?



> Granted, cookies are not the same thing as books promoting pedophilia, but the concept is the same: companies can sell what they think will serve them best.


Alice, this is an excellent point. For Amazon this is a matter of commerce. It is somewhat nuanced as they are withdrawing a product not because of lack of interest but because it upset its customers. This is directly analogous to your cookie example.

I had never thought of a publisher's decision not to publish a specific book as censorship, or a bookstore's decision not to carry a particular book censorship. This makes Christian bookstores hotspots of censorship. Odd concept; I always thought they were simply serving their customer base.

More importantly however, do they have cookies?


----------



## Trophywife007 (Aug 31, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> I read an article about this a few days ago. They are removing books that have references to pedophilia, no doubt related to the brouhaha last month.


The author of "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" has been arrested... FWIW

http://www.latimes.com/os-obscenity-arrest-polk-county-20101220,0,2835394.story


----------



## Barbiedull (Jul 13, 2010)

They have arrested the author of the book now.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/20/pedophile-guide-author-arrested-obscenity-charges/


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

This should be interesting.  He's being arrested because an undercover cop bought a copy of his book via the internet and decided it was "obscene material."  He (the author) lives in Colorado but he's being charged with violating a law in Florida.  Very bizarre that anyone would go to such lengths over 'obscenity' that they themselves purchased and read, via the internet no less.

As mentioned in the article, it's not even clear that they will be able to extradite him due to First Amendment rights, let alone win a case in another state.

Just when you thought this guy's publicity was over with...


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

I think the crime is he shipped it to a county that had an obscenity law against it.  Another example that is not literary, but would still be a distributing violation, there are counties in Arkansas that are dry. If I  or shipped or sold alcohol there I would be in violation of distributing within there county. Even if I lived out of state.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

It is illegal to ship alcohol anywhere in the US by mail.  It wouldn't need to be Arkansas.

Pardon my earlier questioning of the government censorship discussion.  It seems that the government may actually now be trying to block this book as well, not just Amazon.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

sabinfire said:


> It is illegal to ship alcohol anywhere in the US by mail. It wouldn't need to be Arkansas.


Well, that is strange, because there is a winery in Oklahoma that will ship bottles of wine. Wonder how that works?


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

They are using private carriers, not mail.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

sabinfire said:


> They are using private carriers, not mail.


Well maybe, but if I used a private carrier and shipped it to a dry state I could still be charged with distribution. That was the point I was trying to make, not the US postal service.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

sabinfire said:


> They are using private carriers, not mail.


I didn't say "mail", I said ship it. The man was arrested for distributing material that was "obscene" into their county. Not US mail violations.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Yes, that is beside the point, I agree.  But I don't think that's a good point.  Distributing a controlled substance is different than distributing an indie book.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

I guess, legally, it isn't different. He is distributing something into their county that is illegal. I would be shocked if he is convicted. Sounds like someone is just attempting to prove a point. I really only started wondering about it because Amazon's decision to not mess with the book makes more sense on a purely business level. Just sounds like way to much trouble for something that will sell very little.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm sorry if I seem testy, this whole situation is unnerving to me.  The act of pedophilia is certainly sick to me, but the thought of someone being arrested because they wrote a book is pretty revolting as well.

This is all about trying to prove a point.  We can agree on that, at least.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

sabinfire said:


> The act of pedophilia is certainly sick to me, but the thought of someone being arrested because they wrote a book is pretty revolting as well.


Yes, scary concept.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Here's an interesting thought: does distributing the book electronically (i.e. Kindle) still fall under the same obscenity laws, as claimed here?  They seemed like they wanted a physical copy of the book delivered to them.

If selling Kindle versions of the book to people in that area is considered obscenity also, wouldn't Amazon potentially be responsible for violating obscenity laws for distributing the book?

And my real question: is it even possible to sell your book on Amazon while restricting access to specific regions of the U.S. (counties within certain states)?


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

He isn't being arresting for writing it. He is being arrested for distributing. There is a difference.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

LauraB said:


> He isn't being arresting for writing it. He is being arrested for distributing. There is a difference.


So it's legal to write a book and stuff it under your bed. But if you actually distribute it to anyone, you might get arrested.

Well, I feel much better now.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

I understand that isn't much consolation. But basically, yes. In the US you can think things, you can write them, but it is what you do that involves others into those thoughts and actions that you are accountable for. Not the thinking, or writing for a personal reason.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

sabinfire said:


> So it's legal to write a book and stuff it under your bed. But if you actually distribute it to anyone, you might get arrested.
> 
> Well, I feel much better now.


Distributing a how-to guide for an illegal and revolting act... Yes, I feel much better. Did you read any of it? Excerpts were posted.. It was truly disgusting. And he sold a printed copy, not the Amazon eBook version.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

Why would I read any of it?  That type of thing doesn't interest me, and I have no doubt that it's vile and disgusting.  I could walk into most bookstores and find several books that are vile and disgusting to my sensibilities.  They don't interest me, so I avoid them.

Is writing the material illegal?  Should an author be arrested over a book, not an action?  Just because an obscure law in some backwater town in America is spun in a way to arrest this guy in another part of the country doesn't actually mean anything yet, but it's still something to think about if you write books.


----------



## RiddleMeThis (Sep 15, 2009)

I wonder if they arrested him for this in the hopes that they may be able to search his home/computer/what have you, and find child **** of some type that they could theoretically put him away for a long time with.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Sabinefire, I think it is only something to "think about" if you distribute books. In this case the writer is the distributor.  I understand the freedom concerns, and I'm very liberal minded on these things. I just can't allow myself to ignore the facthe isn't being charged for writing it. There is a difference. It is just complicated in this case because he wrote and distributed it.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

I don't think there's a difference.  This is a First Amendment argument any way you cut it.  

Freedom of speech isn't the right to write something on a piece of paper and then hide it away.  It's the ability to give that piece of paper to other people who want to see it.

The writer tried to sell the book on Amazon, until they decided to remove it.  Maybe he was forced to distribute the book himself because most businesses were refusing to distribute it for him, which is their right.  Now the message seems to be: you can't show this book to people without the government coming after you.

Whenever I say "being arrested for writing a book", I think that implies that the author is actually making the book available for someone to see.  Writing a book and hiding it from everyone is irrelevant and wouldn't have any place in this discussion.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

My point was whoever sold it to them would/could be charged. He wasn't charged for writing it. He just happened to be the writer as well as distributor.


----------



## sabinfire (Nov 11, 2010)

He was forced into distributing it himself.

And he didn't "just happen" to be the distributor as well as the writer.  They are specifically targeting the author because of the subject matter of this book.  It's a lot easier to pick on a little-known individual than a giant like Amazon.  Anyone with a decent team of lawyers would have no problem making this go away rather quickly.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

RiddleMeThis said:


> I wonder if they arrested him for this in the hopes that they may be able to search his home/computer/what have you, and find child **** of some type that they could theoretically put him away for a long time with.


I agree with RiddleMeThis -- they probably nailed him on a technicality to see if they could get something more concrete. Otherwise, they really are just grasping at straws.

It's a fine line that we walk between public safety and individual freedom.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

sabinfire said:


> He was forced into distributing it himself.


"Forced" seems like a strong word  . No one made him distribute it. He wanted it out there. He made his choice to distribute it himself. No one made him. There are lots of authors who write books no one will put in stores. Most have no controversy around them at all. Some self publish, some don't. No one "forces" them one way or another. He had choices, he made one, who knows how it will turn out. I don't think he'll do time, and I don't feel sympathy for him being inconvenienced. He's is getting a lot of free advertising and his 15 minutes, probably cheaper than the price of bail than if he had to pay professionals. I think it is good that many of the nations constitutional legal experts are looking at this. But I don't feel sorry for him. Once Amazon pulled it, for the reasons they did, I would have looked into the laws before I tried again, but that is just me.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> I agree with RiddleMeThis -- they probably nailed him on a technicality to see if they could get something more concrete. Otherwise, they really are just grasping at straws.
> 
> It's a fine line that we walk between public safety and individual freedom.


It sounds to me like they have indicted him because they believe him to be in violation of a Florida statue. . .whether that can be extended to some Federal statute -- which I think it would have to be for Florida law enforcement to have any authority to search his personal stuff in Colorado (I think that's where he's located) -- is still a question. Maybe something to do with the fact that he sent the book in question through USMail . . . or something else to do with Interstate commerce. . . . . .like a "Mann act" for things.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Someone was actually arrested for distributing a book in America, in 2010, and people are saying "good, because I disagree with the subject matter." Wow. It is difficult to believe this is actually happening.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

sabinfire said:


> Here's an interesting thought: does distributing the book electronically (i.e. Kindle) still fall under the same obscenity laws, as claimed here? They seemed like they wanted a physical copy of the book delivered to them.


An interesting question.

I don't know the Florida law in question but I suspect it is primarily an issue of proof. A physical copy in a mailing envelope is direct evidence. A link allowing a download is making the material available, but requires the act of the recipient to obtain it. Additionally, it is difficult to establish the chain of custody of an electronic file.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Someone was actually arrested for distributing a book in America, in 2010, and people are saying "good, because I disagree with the subject matter." Wow. It is difficult to believe this is actually happening.


Agreed.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech we violently disagree with. Speech that is comfortable does not need protection.


----------



## MiniDave (Nov 30, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Someone was actually arrested for distributing a book in America, in 2010, and people are saying "good, because I disagree with the subject matter." Wow. It is difficult to believe this is actually happening.


I'm not surprised, Americans (of which I am) have been giving up their rights to feel safer for the last few years. It makes me sick every time I hear about people arguing for the governments right to intervene in our lives to make us "feel" safer.


----------



## originalgrissel (Mar 5, 2010)

While I completely agree that Amazon, as a business entity has every right to choose to carry or not carry any book it likes, I don't see how they have the right to forcibly take back books that have been legally purchased by consumers. If you went into a brick & mortar store & bought a book , then a week later the store stopped carrying that book, would they have the right to break into your home and steal that book off your shelves as long as they left $9.50 on the coffee table? Of course not. Nor should Amazon have the right to remove books from the devices or archives of consumers that purchased them legally in good faith. If they want to stop selling new copies of certain books, I have no problem with that, but they should allow users that have already purchsed the books in question to retain their copies on their devices as well as those stored in the their archives-neither of which are accessible to the general public, so no one can have any objection to it.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

originalgrissel, Amazon does not remove books from your personal device.  But they do remove them from their servers which means they are not in your archives.  They also refund the purchase price (plus tax) so you essentially have the book for free if you don't delete it.  They do ask you to remove the book  This happened with a book I purchased; I deleted it but I could have chosen to keep it.  I don't know what the legal issues would be if Amazon kept a copy of a book on their servers if they did not have a right to distribute it.  Maybe somebody else knows.  I know that wasn't the issue with this book, I was just wondering.


----------

