Kobo throws out self published books

[DeYaKen]

I don't see what's factually incorrect. The article just says there was an "outcry in Britain." This is true, although they don't specify who's outcrying about what. That's perhaps vague, but not incorrect.

.

What was factually incorrect was that the article claims the action was in RESPONSE to an outcry. There was no outcry, just a single newspaper article.

The outcry came from the authors, AFTER the unilateral action by Kobo. Hence it is factually incorrect to say that the action was in response to an outcry which at that point hadn't happened.

One time I have to agree with SR. But the OP is from the UK where they think everything it there right to have and to hold.

No one has a right to have their book sold in any store anywhere.

If the government come in to the store and removes the books in question, that's censorship.

If the bookstore removes the books from the shelf, it's their right.

What you are talking about is discrimination, but that is the book stores right also. Well, at least here in the US.

Zeb you do yourself and your country a great disservice.
Throughout the world Americans are seen as parochial and insular. Why else would they call a tournament with only US teams the world series?

Your comments about the UK only reinforce that stereotype. UK citizens don't, on the whole expect anything they haven't paid for or been promised.

Skipping to the main point here, Authors were encouraged to offer their wares through Kobo with the promise of an open market. Kobo, without any warning or consultation, broke that promise and singled out indie authors.

Yes any bookseller has the right to stock what they want to stock, just as every customer has the right to take their business to whichever store they wish. I started this thread asking everyone to exercise that right and show their support for the indie authors by taking their business to bookstores other than the one that has treated these authors so shabbily.

As for censorship, you seem to think that is the realm of governments only. Your news is censored on daily basis. Probably why you hold the views you do about the UK. Every editor will go through stories removing bits that might upset political friends or advertisers. Changing the wording here and there to put a different slant on it. If it didn't happen like that, Al-Jazeira and NBC would agree on what is happening in the middle east.

If Kobo do not feel any pain from what they have done, other booksellers will yield to the pressure of the mainstream publishers and follow suit and we will all be poorer for it.

I am picking up a vibe here that it's not happening in the US so it doesn't matter. I'll leave you with a little bit of German philosophy.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[LadyVer]

Interesting thread. I'm not an author, but I tend to side on the op on this issue.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What was factually incorrect was that the article claims the action was in RESPONSE to an outcry. There was no outcry, just a single newspaper article.

The outcry came from the authors, AFTER the unilateral action by Kobo. Hence it is factually incorrect to say that the action was in response to an outcry which at that point hadn't happened.



Zeb you do yourself and your country a great disservice.
Throughout the world Americans are seen as parochial and insular. Why else would they call a tournament with only US teams the world series?

Your comments about the UK only reinforce that stereotype. UK citizens don't, on the whole expect anything they haven't paid for or been promised.

Skipping to the main point here, Authors were encouraged to offer their wares through Kobo with the promise of an open market. Kobo, without any warning or consultation, broke that promise and singled out indie authors.

Yes any bookseller has the right to stock what they want to stock, just as every customer has the right to take their business to whichever store they wish. I started this thread asking everyone to exercise that right and show their support for the indie authors by taking their business to bookstores other than the one that has treated these authors so shabbily.

As for censorship, you seem to think that is the realm of governments only. Your news is censored on daily basis. Probably why you hold the views you do about the UK. Every editor will go through stories removing bits that might upset political friends or advertisers. Changing the wording here and there to put a different slant on it. If it didn't happen like that, Al-Jazeira and NBC would agree on what is happening in the middle east.

If Kobo do not feel any pain from what they have done, other booksellers will yield to the pressure of the mainstream publishers and follow suit and we will all be poorer for it.

I am picking up a vibe here that it's not happening in the US so it doesn't matter. I'll leave you with a little bit of German philosophy.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Get off you high horse. Censorship can only be done by the government. True, the liberal media in the US does play favorites as to what stories they run or how they slant the news they do print or report, but that is not censorship, that being a lackey to a political parties view.

And I as the consumer of that news have an obligation to determine for myself if what they print or report is believable. And for that reason, I never watch CNN or MSNBC (except when I want a good laugh) or any other news agency of their ilk.

As for being led to the trough. Boo Hoo. Except that you had a free ride and now your fellow citizens have turned against you and aren't going to read porn no more. But if they do want to read what you write, they will find it.

And someone mentioned they don't do business with Kobo. If you publish with Smashwords you do, unless you opted out of having you works sent to Kobo.

cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun
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.

of·fi·cial [uh-fish-uhl]
noun
1. a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties.

 

[DeYaKen]

Get off you high horse. Censorship can only be done by the government. True, the liberal media in the US does play favorites as to what stories they run or how they slant the news they do print or report, but that is not censorship, that being a lackey to a political parties view.

And I as the consumer of that news have an obligation to determine for myself if what they print or report is believable. And for that reason, I never watch CNN or MSNBC (except when I want a good laugh) or any other news agency of their ilk.



And someone mentioned they don't do business with Kobo. If you publish with Smashwords you do, unless you opted out of having you works sent to Kobo.

cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun
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.

of·fi·cial [uh-fish-uhl]
noun
1. a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties.

Crippled by your own definitions No mention of governments in either if them.
A person elected or appointed by whom and in what organisation.

These definitions can be equally applied to a company or any organisation.

As for this bit.

As for being led to the trough. Boo Hoo. Except that you had a free ride and now your fellow citizens have turned against you and aren't going to read porn no more. But if they do want to read what you write, they will find it.

I'm struggling to understand it

Are you saying it's right for companies to break promises when they have no justfication to do so.
Do you just accept that in the US. Is that why one lot of elected politician shut the country down in order to prevent another elected politician from keeping the promises that got him elected?

I'm also puzzled by the language, I know double negative are acceptable in Romanian but I thought that even in American English it was not correct. The true meaning of your sentence as written is that I am going to continue to read porn.

As I said you do yourself and your country a great injustice.

 

[sr71plt]

Can't say we didn't try, DeYaken.

By all means trot down your little "won't face reality" path. That's not going to hurt anyone but you. Apparently there will be others walking the path with you. Bullheaded stupidity knows no country.

 

[PennLady]

Crippled by your own definitions No mention of governments in either if them.
A person elected or appointed by whom and in what organisation.

These definitions can be equally applied to a company or any organisation.

Okay then, let's say that Amazon or Kobo is censoring. They are allowed; they are private businesses, not governmental organizations. They are allowed to say that will carry this, or that, but not those. And they are also allowed to change their minds about what they carry, whether or not we think it's two-faced (and it does seem to be).

Are you saying it's right for companies to break promises when they have no justfication to do so.

But I'll bet they do have a justification. I am willing to bet that if you look at the agreement Amazon or Kobo gives to self-publishers, there is a line or two that they reserve the right to pull the book for whatever reason, and probably without having to explain it to you or perhaps even notify you. If they are now doing this, I'd say it's bad PR, but it's not breaking a promise.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Amazon says they do not accept pornography, which we all know is a laugh. However, it does cover their corporate asses when they arbitrarily reject stories.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Crippled by your own definitions No mention of governments in either if them.
A person elected or appointed by whom and in what organisation.

These definitions can be equally applied to a company or any organisation.

As for this bit.

As for being led to the trough. Boo Hoo. Except that you had a free ride and now your fellow citizens have turned against you and aren't going to read porn no more. But if they do want to read what you write, they will find it.

I'm struggling to understand it

Are you saying it's right for companies to break promises when they have no justfication to do so.
Do you just accept that in the US. Is that why one lot of elected politician shut the country down in order to prevent another elected politician from keeping the promises that got him elected?

I'm also puzzled by the language, I know double negative are acceptable in Romanian but I thought that even in American English it was not correct. The true meaning of your sentence as written is that I am going to continue to read porn.

As I said you do yourself and your country a great injustice.

So you really don't understand English? Never mind, I'm tired of trying to inform you of how things really work in the world you live in.

But, hey, on one note, you did get me to agree with Pilot. So there is that.

Other than that though, everything you have said is "Null Program".

 

[DeYaKen]

As for being led to the trough. Boo Hoo. Except that you had a free ride and now your fellow citizens have turned against you and aren't going to read porn no more. But if they do want to read what you write, they will find it.

Zeb, inadvertently I'm sure, brings up another of the authors arguments here. He, like many people reading about this fiasco, assumes that the de-listed books were porn. The facts are that ALL independently published books were de-listed using the excuse shown in the LA times article. These included historical novels and even children's books. By their action KOBO branded all independently published books as obscene and offensive. Why else would Zeb have come to the conclusion he did. Mud sticks.

Yes the authors could have grounds to sue for defamation but, as the chair of the law board of my university used to say, "The law is like the Ritz hotel, It's open to everyone but very few can afford to dine there."

Okay then, let's say that Amazon or Kobo is censoring. They are allowed; they are private businesses, not governmental organizations. They are allowed to say that will carry this, or that, but not those. And they are also allowed to change their minds about what they carry, whether or not we think it's two-faced (and it does seem to be).

But I'll bet they do have a justification. I am willing to bet that if you look at the agreement Amazon or Kobo gives to self-publishers, there is a line or two that they reserve the right to pull the book for whatever reason, and probably without having to explain it to you or perhaps even notify you. If they are now doing this, I'd say it's bad PR, but it's not breaking a promise.

Yes they do have terms and conditions just like amazon and they could have behaved like Amazon and deleted offending titles from their stock list. However, Kobo, in a knee jerk response to a single newspaper article, deleted all indie authors, no matter what their books contained. They also made no reference to the fact that the organisation that purchased the offending books, supports censorship as a means of protecting public decency.

The damage is now done and can't be undone. People like Zeb, have formed the opinion that all independent authors write porn. The trust that once existed between the authors and Kobo has been destroyed.

Zeb is correct in saying that publishing through Smashwords automatically means being listed on Kobo (in the US at any rate). Many of the authors who, rightly it seems, didn't expect public support are using that to fight back. As Kobo gives way and starts re-introducing their books, they are setting the price ridiculously high. This will distort the average price per book and destroy Kobos claim to have the edge on price. It sounds like cutting off their nose to spite their face, but they no longer have a wish to sell through Kobo.

 

[PennLady]

Yes they do have terms and conditions just like amazon and they could have behaved like Amazon and deleted offending titles from their stock list. However, Kobo, in a knee jerk response to a single newspaper article, deleted all indie authors, no matter what their books contained. They also made no reference to the fact that the organisation that purchased the offending books, supports censorship as a means of protecting public decency.

The damage is now done and can't be undone. People like Zeb, have formed the opinion that all independent authors write porn. The trust that once existed between the authors and Kobo has been destroyed.

Zeb is correct in saying that publishing through Smashwords automatically means being listed on Kobo (in the US at any rate). Many of the authors who, rightly it seems, didn't expect public support are using that to fight back. As Kobo gives way and starts re-introducing their books, they are setting the price ridiculously high. This will distort the average price per book and destroy Kobos claim to have the edge on price. It sounds like cutting off their nose to spite their face, but they no longer have a wish to sell through Kobo.

I think you're wrong here. I don't think that we all assumed that the removed books were porn, and in part that's because the article (the LA Times one, at least) said all books were removed regardless of content. If Kobo wants to take all the books and sort through them, I don't have a great problem with that in principle. I do feel badly that the non-erotic authors will lose some potential sales, but it seems to me that some of the obviously non-erotic books will go back up quickly, or at least I hope so.

The pricing issue is another issue all together.

I can't say I'm surprised at a knee-jerk response. Businesses are sensitive to public opinion, perhaps too much so, but I can see when an accusation like this is made that a company will overreact. I don't like it myself, but I get it.

And what kind of site/organization is "the Kernel?" I was googling and I kept finding things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-kernels-back-to-make-new-enemies-8640597.html

It is/was a tech site?

 

[lovecraft68]

But if they re publish indie books in every genre but erotica then that is 100 percent censorship.

My point through all of this is all these sites Amazon, Kobo, etc...allegedly have content rules.

well if they ever enforced them these books would never have been there. They had no issue with all the money, but will now finger point and lie to the public leaving the authors to take the fall.

Can anyone say witch hunt? The crops are dying, it must be that weird woman with all the cats, she must be responsible lets burn her!

What the public-all the public-needs to see is amazons content guidelines. They should first be asked "so you decipher this for us"

secondly they should be shown where amazon claims they allow no sexual content. Then be told how amazon has made tens of millions selling adult content for years.

I guess everyone of us slippery conniving authors somehow hacked their system and got our books up there without their knowledge.

What should come out of this, is that it was amazon(and others) who sat there and allowed all these books because they were making a fortune and that they, not the authors are at fault.

Fat chance of that happening, Bezos would buy off any media outlet that would try to publish it, just like he's bought off Judges and politicians to allow amazon to operate in totally unethical and at times illegal fashion.

 

[lovecraft68]

Okay then, let's say that Amazon or Kobo is censoring. They are allowed; they are private businesses, not governmental organizations. They are allowed to say that will carry this, or that, but not those. And they are also allowed to change their minds about what they carry, whether or not we think it's two-faced (and it does seem to be).



But I'll bet they do have a justification. I am willing to bet that if you look at the agreement Amazon or Kobo gives to self-publishers, there is a line or two that they reserve the right to pull the book for whatever reason, and probably without having to explain it to you or perhaps even notify you. If they are now doing this, I'd say it's bad PR, but it's not breaking a promise.

You are a true lemming, you know that right?

They do have the right to allow/not allow, but those rules should exist from day one, not change on a dime and with no notice.

If you are going to allow certain content for years then you have lost the right to claim "policy" you can try to say, well okay we didn't handle this right and its on us and we're going to fix it, etc....

But what is being said is to an affect "Oh, its these pesky authors we didn;t know."

Even when they started clamping down, amazon was not saying why they were simply rejecting books saying content guidelines when the same content was being passed through for years with no issues.

Their quote to publishers is "whatever you deem as objectionable probably is."

How would you like to go to work one day and start your job and have your supervisor say hey you're breaking the rules?

You say, How, I do this every day!

They say, things have changed.

What things

Things

well, how do I know what things.

You don't, but do it again and you're out of here.

That is what amazon did

and weak willed cattle like lemmings like you nod like the living bobble heads you are and go "Oh, okay, youright, we bad, so sorry, I will now tell my kids they have to starve because amazon just took all our money and are telling people we're bad.

Of course what you write is watered down romance so you have no worries and of course if you have none why should anyone?

Maybe if they said hockey fights are promoting violence and the sport should be banned someone would get a rise out of you.

You're a microcosm of how this shit gets passed with no fight whatsoever. Your little world is what matters to you nothing else, no big picture, no, well this is the start of something else and no support whatsoever for authors like yourself

People like you prove the works of Crowley and levay to be nothing short of genius.

My father had a saying "You going to put your hands up, or go stand there and watch with the rest of the bitches?"

There's two or three here who seem to want to do something to fight this the rest of you would just assume keep posting about TV shows and where to put your lit story.

If you want to lie down and roll over its your right, but stop trying to spread your weak willed bullshit to others.

lie down and die but don;t take others with you.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you're wrong here. I don't think that we all assumed that the removed books were porn, and in part that's because the article (the LA Times one, at least) said all books were removed regardless of content.

Right. I made the comment about Kobo applying this to all self-published books in post #5.

 

[PennLady]

But if they re publish indie books in every genre but erotica then that is 100 percent censorship.

Fine, but they can do that. They are not government entities.

My point through all of this is all these sites Amazon, Kobo, etc...allegedly have content rules.

well if they ever enforced them these books would never have been there. They had no issue with all the money, but will now finger point and lie to the public leaving the authors to take the fall.

I know. I'm not saying you're wrong. They should have enforced all the rules, from the start, and they didn't. But that doesn't mean they can't start doing it.

You are a true lemming, you know that right?

They do have the right to allow/not allow, but those rules should exist from day one, not change on a dime and with no notice.

Sticks and stones.

I agreed with you above, but that doesn't change the fact that they can change and start enforcing the rules. If you don't like it, don't sell there. Or read all the fine print (let's face of it, most of us don't) and challenge it.

If you are going to allow certain content for years then you have lost the right to claim "policy" you can try to say, well okay we didn't handle this right and its on us and we're going to fix it, etc....

Morally perhaps you have lost the right, but I guess not legally.

Feel better now that you have ranted at someone you don't even know?

 

[sr71plt]

The lemming charge, LC, is an irrelevant charge by the interminably bullheaded and voluntarily blind. The issue is not to do nothing (and I repeat that I was giving suggestions for what to do from the get go in this discussion while you were just "oh woe is us" whining). The issue is that you are wasting all of your shot by shooting the canons in the wrong direction. These are business decisions, made by full right--despite the somewhat hilarious "do what is right" positioning of you and others on incest fiction. You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to make it an irrelevant censorship issue. And on that basis you are--and should be--just given the horse laugh.

It's a business decision, made by right--and, no, they have no obligation not to change their minds about their business decisions. Do your positioning on that reality. Make what you do be based on business reality and not some silly and ignorant personal wish of what should be and isn't. I've made suggestions on that basis. You've done squat. So, who's the lemming?

 

[lovecraft68]

Something I keep forgetting to point out here that I also think would be of great public interest is that amazon still wants us to publish that nasty content that they are supposedly banning.

That's right even as they take their moral high road they are telling us we can still write about PI and beastie and whatever else they are after over there.

If you have not had a book removed from there this is what they are doing. They are telling me I can re publish everyone of my PI books providing I remove any reference of family from the cover. My cover is tame(mine have no issues anyway I never used lewd covers) and here is the good part, change my descriptions.

So amazon wants no mention of a book being PI-going so far as to block a book where I sued "father's second wife" in the description. I can write PI, but they want me to pretty much lie about the content.

so from my end I am not going to do that. They want me to take a step mother book, make it sound like a milf/cougar type story then let the reader find out its PI and get disgusted and return the book. I am not going to mislead anyone.

But big picture is this. Even as they tell the public oh, we're cleaning this up, they are encouraging us to write the same nasty content just wrap it up really pretty so they can still try to make some money off of it.

But yet another thing I suppose no one thinks is worth saying anything about.

And it is not the end. Since I lowered my prices on SW(no longer having to adhere to amazons unethical price fixing) I have sold more books on SW in the last 10 days than all of September (which was a decent month) and have seen many "multiple sales"

I am uploading all my work to tabooreads and so far have a few sales, but its a start

also not sure if B&N US is going to fold, but in the last two weeks I am killing it over there with all my incest titles.

We'll see how it plays out, but there is still money to be made by us authors and a chance for a lot of money to be made by the sites that have the balls to give the zealots of the media the finger and say we'll sell what we choose.

If there was one stat I would love to see its how much money si actually spent on amazon by the bible thumpers and moral majority who always complain. I'm willing to bet its not a lot. People who live to take things from others are generally in a lower income bracket, but then again we know amazon never cares about money, just what's right

 

[sr71plt]

It certainly took a long time for that (that Amazon still wants to profit from distributing incest) to sink in with you, LC.

Right, they want to continue publishing it and profiting from it, and they walk a narrow and circuitous path in getting that done, which means they lean in one direction sometimes to respond to the yammerers on one side and then to the other to deal with what has popped up there.

Guess what you're doing with all your irrelevant screaming?--your going all "moral" (I put that in quotes because I just gotta laugh at the idea of going moral on a self-righteous feeling of entitlement on making a business distribute porn) and "why didn't you enforce the rules on me three years ago?" screamy, shining the light on what they've been letting you get away with despite their rules, and adding ammunition to the vigilante's canon.

Stop. Think. It's business. What can you be doing to help Amazon continue in a mutually beneficial deal with you on your product? Get all screamy and question why your product wasn't denied access for three years and you are being asked to make some adjustments now so you can continue to be distributed?

I think not. And I think anyone who does think that is a naïve dumb bunny and is a menace to those of us trying to work with the narrow line Amazon and others are trying to walk.

If the "rules" remain hard edged over time, you'll only have yourself to blame (but, of course, you'll look for someone else to blame). But don't worry, I'll be blaming naïve dumb bunnies with loud mouths and suffering from false self-righteous indignation like you.

 

[DeYaKen]

Fine, but they can do that. They are not government entities.



I know. I'm not saying you're wrong. They should have enforced all the rules, from the start, and they didn't. But that doesn't mean they can't start doing it.



Sticks and stones.

I agreed with you above, but that doesn't change the fact that they can change and start enforcing the rules. If you don't like it, don't sell there. Or read all the fine print (let's face of it, most of us don't) and challenge it.



Morally perhaps you have lost the right, but I guess not legally.

Feel better now that you have ranted at someone you don't even know?

When I started this thread I did so in a bid to rally support amongst the great family of writers, for those affected by Kobo's actions. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm getting "on my high horse", but I have never been listed on Kobo. Indeed I've never tried to sell any of my work. I spoke out in support of my fellow authors purely because I thought someone should.

I expected some name calling from certain quarters and indeed they did not disappoint. However, now it is others on the receiving end of the name calling and I never intended that.

I can't say I'm not disappointed by the lack of support, but I suppose I should have expected it.

Since I don't want to see the argument degenerate any further I shall withdraw from this thread.

 

[PennLady]

When I started this thread I did so in a bid to rally support amongst the great family of writers, for those affected by Kobo's actions. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm getting "on my high horse", but I have never been listed on Kobo. Indeed I've never tried to sell any of my work. I spoke out in support of my fellow authors purely because I thought someone should.

I expected some name calling from certain quarters and indeed they did not disappoint. However, now it is others on the receiving end of the name calling and I never intended that.

I can't say I'm not disappointed by the lack of support, but I suppose I should have expected it.

Since I don't want to see the argument degenerate any further I shall withdraw from this thread.

I had to check, but I do have a couple of things listed on Kobo via someone else. I didn't even realize. Mine are still there; I have no idea if they were taken down or not.

It's not that I don't support my fellow authors, as best I can. I *do* think it's cheesy of places like Kobo and Amazon to say one thing and do another. Unfortunately, they can do that. But I also think that aside from voting with your virtual feet, or perhaps signing a petition, there's not much to do. But things like public outcry can work -- witness Smashwords a year or so ago, when they were at first forced to censor titles, but then they were able to fight back.

R.Richard is doing probably the most a person can do -- starting a place where people can buy what they want that may not be available elsewhere.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course since you haven't had any involvement at all in the marketing of your work, DeYaKen, that just accentuates that you didn't/don't have a clue about doing it.

It's not a bad idea to combine for support, but it only makes sense to do so if and as you have some sort of idea what can be done that's relevant and effective to improve your position. You haven't indicated that you do. Quite the opposite. You don't seem to have a clue how any business operates and with what rights and responsibilities. By your understanding, your local grocery store is engaging in massive immoral censorship--because it's choosing what products to sell and which ones not to stock.

As I noted, a waste of ammunition (and time and effort).

 

[sr71plt]

I had to check, but I do have a couple of things listed on Kobo via someone else. I didn't even realize. Mine are still there; I have no idea if they were taken down or not.

It's not that I don't support my fellow authors, as best I can. I *do* think it's cheesy of places like Kobo and Amazon to say one thing and do another. Unfortunately, they can do that. But I also think that aside from voting with your virtual feet, or perhaps signing a petition, there's not much to do. But things like public outcry can work -- witness Smashwords a year or so ago, when they were at first forced to censor titles, but then they were able to fight back.

R.Richard is doing probably the most a person can do -- starting a place where people can buy what they want that may not be available elsewhere.

Kobo UK? Kobo U.S. wasn't affected yet the last time I checked.

 

[PennLady]

Kobo UK? Kobo U.S. wasn't affected yet the last time I checked.

Ah, right. Forgot. I don't know if they'd be on Kobo UK... the guy who distributes it is in Australia, so maybe. Hmmmm.

*hold music*

Ok, so the WH Smith site is back up and my ebooks are not there. However, I don't know if they ever were. I'll have to ask my Australian guy...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zeb, inadvertently I'm sure, brings up another of the authors arguments here. He, like many people reading about this fiasco, assumes that the de-listed books were porn. The facts are that ALL independently published books were de-listed using the excuse shown in the LA times article. These included historical novels and even children's books. By their action KOBO branded all independently published books as obscene and offensive. Why else would Zeb have come to the conclusion he did. Mud sticks.

Yes the authors could have grounds to sue for defamation but, as the chair of the law board of my university used to say, "The law is like the Ritz hotel, It's open to everyone but very few can afford to dine there."



Yes they do have terms and conditions just like amazon and they could have behaved like Amazon and deleted offending titles from their stock list. However, Kobo, in a knee jerk response to a single newspaper article, deleted all indie authors, no matter what their books contained. They also made no reference to the fact that the organisation that purchased the offending books, supports censorship as a means of protecting public decency.

The damage is now done and can't be undone. People like Zeb, have formed the opinion that all independent authors write porn. The trust that once existed between the authors and Kobo has been destroyed.

Zeb is correct in saying that publishing through Smashwords automatically means being listed on Kobo (in the US at any rate). Many of the authors who, rightly it seems, didn't expect public support are using that to fight back. As Kobo gives way and starts re-introducing their books, they are setting the price ridiculously high. This will distort the average price per book and destroy Kobos claim to have the edge on price. It sounds like cutting off their nose to spite their face, but they no longer have a wish to sell through Kobo.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

If you have bothered to click the links in my sig you would have found that I just don't write porn and I neither assume that you do or don't. Talk about someone jumping to conclusions.

 

[lovecraft68]

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

If you have bothered to click the links in my sig you would have found that I just don't write porn and I neither assume that you do or don't. Talk about someone jumping to conclusions.

And they are not just chasing down porn.

Someone sent me a link to an article where because some rag mentioned a romance on amazon had a dog on the cover and contained bestiality.

Amazon without even checking the content blocked it. The publisher has contacted them telling them there is no animal sex in the book the dog is simply part of the cover.

The publisher also told amazon they are going to seek legal action because now the author has been slandered as writing beastie.

First off good luck with that. Bezos owns the US legal system as has become apparent in the way they constantly win lawsuits despite being guilty.

But second of all can you truly say "witch hunt" every time a rag complains amazon will listen? But try being an author or publisher and getting a response.

 

[MattblackUK]

Get off you high horse. Censorship can only be done by the government. True, the liberal media in the US does play favorites as to what stories they run or how they slant the news they do print or report, but that is not censorship, that being a lackey to a political parties view.

And I as the consumer of that news have an obligation to determine for myself if what they print or report is believable. And for that reason, I never watch CNN or MSNBC (except when I want a good laugh) or any other news agency of their ilk.

As for being led to the trough. Boo Hoo. Except that you had a free ride and now your fellow citizens have turned against you and aren't going to read porn no more. But if they do want to read what you write, they will find it.

And someone mentioned they don't do business with Kobo. If you publish with Smashwords you do, unless you opted out of having you works sent to Kobo.

cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun
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.

of·fi·cial [uh-fish-uhl]
noun
1. a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties.

In my official capacity as a newspaper editor, I sometimes censor stories before they go into print. Sometimes they are really censored and don't get published at all.