Kobo throws out self published books

[lovecraft68]

I didn't bring up any vetting program. Again, your reading comprehension is close to nil. Point out where I said there was a vetting program here (this is the second of your muddleheaded confusions I've challenged you to point to. You can't do it, because they aren't there.) I said I was vetted with the moderators. Where did I say there was a program here for doing that?

And you read the copy of writers here for clarity?

(You're beginning to be sort of fun to play with. )

This is so sickening it is not funny.

There is no such thing as vetted with moderators either, okay dipshit?

Why would there be? What purpose would it serve?

Any editor here, no matter what level of experience they have in the real world are all on the same level in the VE program.

Period.

And for everyone reading this let's get this straight once and for all.

"vetted by the moderators" simply means that this arrogant asshole that 95% of the boards are sick and tired of listening to allegedly showed what is supposed to be his "professional" website to his personal lit body guard Mistress Lynn

That is his "vetting" here.

And we all no how unbiased ML is when it comes to her little friend Pilot so take the vetting with a grain of salt.

 

[lovecraft68]

You're vetted with the moderators? That's something to really brag about.

You're flirting with me.

You can say whatever you want about my editing. My writers seem to like it. That's what matters. I've gotten several editing requests from my discussions with you.

I once had a mod here tell me she thought I was good looking.

Guess I must be lined for the next cover of GQ then.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, sure, I showed them that I actually did have credentials. I can see why that would upset you both.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Last word.

 

[lovecraft68]

Last word.

Only, if I don't post again, then he'll be back.

 

[LadyVer]

I once had a mod here tell me she thought I was good looking.

Guess I must be lined for the next cover of GQ then.

It's been a while since I go so many laughs off a Lit thread.

Hey LC!

 

[lovecraft68]

It's been a while since I go so many laughs off a Lit thread.

Hey LC!

Hey LV!

hey I heard some one here used you for an off lit editing project, does that mean you're vetted to?

 

[LadyVer]

Hey LV!

hey I heard some one here used you for an off lit editing project, does that mean you're vetted to?

I'm about as vetted as any other Lit editor.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm about as vetted as any other Lit editor.

Hey, me too and I never edited anything!

 

[LadyVer]

Hey, me too and I never edited anything!

...

 

[sr71plt]

That was the point I was making.

Wrongly, though, of course. Which has been pointed out to you.

You can certainly keep repeating it if you like, but in the real world something doesn't become true just by repeating it a lot. "Censorship," in fact, is government and expectation of rights based. Where it is wrongly applied to publishing and denial of publishers to publish and/or distributors to distribute on a selective basis has been connected with freedom of speech. One's freedom of speech, however, doesn't negate either a publisher's or distributor's right not to carry the burden of publicizing/promoting someone else's beliefs or opinions.

You further misuse it in connection with news sources. They have no responsibility to either cover all the news or to do so without putting their own slant on it. It's not censorship of a particular version of the "truth." It's managing their product (choosing what to report and how to report it) as they have a right to do. As Zeb has told you (repeatedly), it only becomes censorship when a government entity tells them what they can and cannot issue as news.

Now we can continue to go around in circles on this, but while we do, publishers and distributors--and news sources--are going to just go on picking and choosing what they represent and what/how they report. At some point the little light bulb should go on over your head that they are doing this because of their business rights, not because they are exercising censorship. Since censorship is government and rights based, they could be taken to court and sued successfully for those actions in they were engaging in censorship. Do be sure to let us know when/if you ever see this happening. (And, again, if you don't, that should give you a clue.)

 

[LadyVer]

"You can certainly keep repeating it if you like, but in the real world something doesn't become true just by repeating it a lot." You're just copying what I said.

 

[sr71plt]

Do let us know when someone with half a brain actually gets some movement out of claiming that publishers and distributors deciding to handle this and not that are engaging in censorship. Until then, you're just one of the half wits who float around this forum.

 

[LadyVer]

Do let us know when someone with half a brain actually gets some movement out of claiming that publishers and distributors deciding to handle this and not that are engaging in censorship. Until then, you're just one of the half wits who float around this forum.

We all know about your knowledge on censorship, ad nauseum, with your constant belittling of anyone who doesn't think the way you do.

You seem to like talking to half-wits. You must not have enough to do.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As I posted before...

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.

 

[lovecraft68]

We all know about your knowledge on censorship, ad nauseum, with your constant belittling of anyone who doesn't think the way you do.

You seem to like talking to half-wits. You must not have enough to do.

Hey, you never know, seeing Pilot claims to have helped write the current US copyright laws(a lie even he must be regretting by now) he may also have been involved in censorship cases, after all only a lawyer can write laws so I guess he must be one in addition to his 40 other careers.

and you struck gold on the word "constant" as in he is constantly here, 24/7 all times of the day and night because as a retired put out to pasture nobody, all he has is time to try to get people to think he is important.

He should try going to bingo once in awhile.

Than again, never mind he would sit there and try to tell everyone he invented the game.

 

[lovecraft68]

Unlike others I am not going to say I know the law.

What I do know is semantics and censorship and policy are good examples of one dancing around the other.

When something like this happens, any type of book, movie, music,art etc being banned- it always first gets looked at from the seller point of view so in this case, we the authors.

I look at it fro the purchasers point of view.

I, not the site, should be able to decide what I want to purchase or not or what I deem offensive or not.

Kobo has taken this a notch past amazon by literally throwing off everything indy including kids books and other harmless material. But only if it is an indy author. Established authors under big six publishers can do whatever they want. to me, that is censorship.

In fact I would not be surprised if the big six were behind this latest indy witch hunt, planting articles and paying people to complain. When dealing with anyone on their or Bezo level of sleaze there are no limits.

But I come back to the fact that was is being overlooked here is Amazon/Kobo and anyone else involved falsely placing the blame on the authors.

Amazon and co. screened NOTHING they are supposed to filter books and do not. They are supposed to "hide" adult material and they don't. They were totally irresponsible in their duties, did not give a rats ass if your kid saw pornography because it was the #1 selling category on kindle by far

now, caught with their pants down, god forbid they own up and say that is was they who made no effort to enforce their policy, they that did not properly filter the books and it is their fault all this stuff is right out in plain site.
No, they blame those irresponsible, reprehensible authors!

What should be coming out of this is a massive defamation of character civil suit.

You ever hear of e-bay having this issue? Hell no! In fact some people don;t even know E-bay sells adult items. Why? because they have an adult verification system. You have to log into it separately to list an adult item and log in separately to view adult items. Even if you are already logged i, you need to do it again meaning if your kid wanders over they can;t just start viewing.

amazon and their ilk could do this as well

Smashwords has a box on their template to publish a book "does your book contain adult material" if you click it, it is automatically hidden to anyone with their adult filter on.

That complex adult filter that has that complicated on/off button

yeah, I know amazon is not that tech savvy

Whatever comes out of this the main point is amazon and friends are getting away with nothing short of slander and dodging any and all responsibility when in fact they are 100% responsible.

 

[PennLady]

Seems to me there are multiple arguments going on here at cross purposes.

I, not the site, should be able to decide what I want to purchase or not or what I deem offensive or not.

You get to decide that within the confines of what any site decides to offer for sale. Is it censorship, for example, if Overstock continues to sell Donna Karan clothes, but stops selling LL Bean? (And I have no idea if Overstock is a) still in existence or b) sells those brands.) No, it's a business decision. It may be driven by good or bad motives, but it's business.

Amazon, big as it is, does not have to offer every thing. They don't have to offer self-publishing in any category at all. They do. The problem now strikes me less as censorship -- and I will take a broad definition of that word here for this discussion -- than as a lot of CYA moves, and doing it badly.

Amazon could, if they wanted, simply stop all the self-publishing tomorrow. They don't seem too beholden to the mainstream publishers, although perhaps they are. But still, if they decided for whatever reason that it was too much trouble, they could stop. And even though they are the biggest platform for self-publishing (at least I'm guessing they are), that isn't censorship. They aren't saying you can't write your porn or your mysteries or whatever, they're just saying they won't sell them.

Amazon and co. screened NOTHING they are supposed to filter books and do not. They are supposed to "hide" adult material and they don't. They were totally irresponsible in their duties, did not give a rats ass if your kid saw pornography because it was the #1 selling category on kindle by far

And that comes under sleazy, poor business practices. I get the feeling even Amazon didn't foresee how big self-publishing would get, or how much porn/erotica would be part of it. And now they're panicking and unfortunately, the self-published authors, especially those in the less mainstream categories, are taking the heat.

What should be coming out of this is a massive defamation of character civil suit.

Where has Amazon stated anything defamatory about the authors? Any specific author? I could possibly, possibly see a class action suit on some grounds, but not this; but I'm no lawyer.

Anyway, it seems there are arguments about whether Amazon and Kobo, et al, are censoring, and arguments about their business practices. They aren't all the same.

Signed,
One of the Lemmings

 

[lovecraft68]

@ the lemming

A suit could be brought to bear based on the simple cutting off of income with no justifiable cause or warning.

Authors who were publishing for years and submitting the same content were suddenly and with no warning thrown off with no reason-amazon has yet to give one BTW all we know is through other sources as they are to arrogant to think they need to explain anything.

Now could such a suit hold up in a court of law? Of course not.

But...

Amazon proves with just this situation they are more than concerned with the court of public opinion.

If, for example these tens of thousands of affected authors were somehow unified behind one spokes person and one attorney hell bent on making a name for themselves something would come out of it.

the moment the story went viral and a savvy spokes person started interviewing indy authors who for years were feeding their kids and clothing them with this money are suddenly left with out the means to do so under amazon's hypocrisy things would look bad for Amazon regardless of legality.

The attorney would post amazon's answer to people's question of what is objectionable?
that answer BTW?

"If you find it objectionable, we probably do as well"

better yet they can post amazon's policy of no sexually explicit material then ask a amazon spokesperson how tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of sexually explicit material just happened to land on their site?

Who was allowing it?

better yet, who was making monye off it? well amazon was. $350 per Thousand in sales they were making.

They made tens of millions off of these authors who in turn were providing a better quality of life for their families.

Now amazon is exposed and shutting it down while acting like it was the authors just breaking the rules. They of course will continue to have millions, but the guy feeding his kid? Fuck him.

If it all came to light in that manner, the big A would be facing heavy heat from a country full of people who are sick and fucking tired of billionaire pricks like Bezos screwing everyone.

They would pay through their nose and I hazard to bet even grow the fuck up and create an adult kindle store which they should have had from day one.

But that will never happen because lemmings don;t get together like that. That petition can;t even get 15k signatures even though many times that number have been affected.

This country provides the rights and means to stop what goes on, but no one will ever take up the charge-or not enough will-

They are to busy wondering who likes what on face book and who Doc. Phil's next guest is.

So, oh, well.

 

[PennLady]

@ the lemming

A suit could be brought to bear based on the simple cutting off of income with no justifiable cause or warning.

Authors who were publishing for years and submitting the same content were suddenly and with no warning thrown off with no reason-amazon has yet to give one BTW all we know is through other sources as they are to arrogant to think they need to explain anything.

If the first sentence was true, then tons of people could sue their bosses or former places of employment for the same thing when they are fired or laid off. But you can't, and if you do, you need tons of documentation and corroboration.

Also, again, I bet if you look at whatever agreement you sign with Amazon when you self-publish, they reserve the right to pull the book, probably for any reason. So if you agree to that, you've lost any standing to file such a suit.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, go ahead and bitch and whine ineffectually, LC. It's kind of entertaining.

The bottom line though, is that this is all a business decision that Amazon and Kobo have every right to make. If you want to do something effective about it, you'll need to do something that changes the business decision--screaming civil rights violation or moral turpitude (really pretty funny when you're screaming about incest porn) aint gonna do it. It just makes you look stupied. But, it's fine with me if your record gets stuck in that grove.

 

[PennLady]

FWIW, here are Amazon's KDP guidelines:

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A1KT4ANX0RL55I

Note the following, first paragraph. It is vague, and probably intentionally so, but it covers Amazon. Emphasis is mine.

Your books and other content (such as book titles, cover art and product descriptions) must adhere to these content guidelines. We reserve the right to make judgments about whether content is appropriate and to choose not to offer it. We may also terminate your participation in the KDP program if you don't adhere to these content guidelines.

 

[lovecraft68]

Showing your lack of reading ability. I didn't say I wasn't a professional editor, did I?

You certainly are a goofball.

And you do seem to enjoy your inane discussion board games. Which you now are free to play by yourself.

The amount of time you spend here makes it obvious you are a professional nothing.

I know this and many others do as well, you're here far to much to be doing much of anything for a living.

That used to be painfully obvious on the "writing goal of the day thread" where day after day we were subjected to your "wrote two stories, edited a third, working on an editing project for a mainstream publisher"

all that yet you post 24 seven.

maybe some other people who see this should post as well rather than leaving it with just me again.

the more you post the more all your lies become apparent. You're not an editor and your writing is limited to publishing crap on your half assed co-op website and the books you give away for free with excessia.

You are not published in the mainstream, nor have you ever edited for the main stream.

You sit around all day and copy and paste shit from google to make people think you know something about everything.

You're fraud, a charlatan. and most of all lits biggest joke. Its just too bad we all have to keep hearing the punchline over and over again.

 

[sr71plt]

I can aways count on your keeping my ass channel warm with your nose, LC. Thanks.

(I only read the first couple of words of your post, by the way. I'm not all that interested in your rabid obsessions with me.)

 

[lovecraft68]

So something dawned on me as I was looking at my Smashwords page today.

For those of you who publish there you know there is a place where you can see what you have coming to you from each affiliate.

Between UD/CA/AUS I have a little over $240 in my Kobo "account"

gee I wonder what the odds of them paying that out to SW is?