Unpublished

[Stella_Omega]

The ways in which people think...

Endlessly fascinating.

 

[PennLady]

It's the same problem. that I would have if for example Amazon stopped selling erotica all together.

If Amazon wants to sell erotica, or not, then that is their right. They could eliminate their entire stock of all books (not likely, I know, since they started as a book store, basically) and it's not censorship, it's a decision of stock.

In their polices(veeeeery loose polices) they say no graphic sexual descriptions.

By enforcement they could take every erotic e-book/book off of their site. There may come a day they may do so and that policy covers their ass. And if it was enforced from day one there can be no issue.

But after years of selling erotica, currently carrying thousands upon thousands of erotic books and making millions off of them for them to suddenly say "okay we are going to enforce this' is a bit weak.

How come we're allowed to complain to PayPal about things, but people aren't allowed to complain to Amazon. If Amazon gets enough people saying, we're taking our biz elsewhere unless you stop this or that, Amazon will make a choice between saying a) all right we'll change or b) see ya.

As big as Amazon is, it is still a business and not an arm of government. They can enforce their rules and I'm sure they reserve the right to change those rules at any time.

I went to Acceptable Use part of the PayPal user agreement, and it says, and I quote:

Prohibited Activities

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.

relate to transactions involving (a) narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety, (b) drug paraphernalia, (c) items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (d) stolen goods including digital and virtual goods (e) items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime, (f) items that are considered obscene, (g) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction, (h) certain sexually oriented materials or services, (i) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (j) ,certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.

Bold emphasis is mine, and I included the last part b/c of the second amendment, as long as we're talking about amendments and the first includes freedom of speech and expression.

They say "certain sexually oriented materials or services," and with their latest actions, as Coker said in the last SW press release, they are clarifying what that means.

At any rate, what they are saying is these are the acceptable uses for the PayPal service. You cannot use our service to purchase these things.

This does not mean you can't purchase those items, you just can't use PayPal to do it. PayPal is enforcing this, which is causing a hardship for Smashwords -- but if SW had been using PayPal and Something Else, then you could use Something Else to purchase the items.

If you have a PayPal account, you agreed to this. If they were vague about it before, then it benefited you (I guess). But they are not obligated to continue to be vague, and now they are not, for whatever reason.

And I'm not "rolling over," thank you very much. I'm looking at the facts and trying to sort things out.

 

[TxRad]

The ways in which people think...

Endlessly fascinating.

Or don't for that matter.

 

[lovecraft68]

Two dozen sales between apple and B&N to go along with close to 30 on SW in the last couple of days. All incest.

I can't imagine what SW's numbers are like across the board right now. I cancelled two of my pen names on SW to prove a point, but left the name up that has all the incest titles.

I was admittedly going to be an ass and not comply and make them pull me, glad I left them up. A friend of mine is kicking himself for un-publishing is on Sunday.

Wonder how the sales are going over on Excessia, they don;t carry incest, but was supposedly going to get chewed into for other "questionable material"

Not only is this beginning to pop in Pay pal's face, but people are making some money off of it.

(this is where the conspiracy theory fans come out and say this was PP's plan all along as this money is all rolling through them)

Whatever, this is turning into as good of publicity as Kitt's "Banned on Amazon" campaign.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is a link to a petition on Smashwords home page.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-censorship-2

They are trying to get 1,000 sigs. they have 122.

So if anyone here would like to do something besides talk, this is one place you can sign along with the one in Selena's blog.

You'll see someone signed from Warwick RI, that's me. I never call out others to do what I will not.

 

[lovecraft68]

If Amazon wants to sell erotica, or not, then that is their right. They could eliminate their entire stock of all books (not likely, I know, since they started as a book store, basically) and it's not censorship, it's a decision of stock.



How come we're allowed to complain to PayPal about things, but people aren't allowed to complain to Amazon. If Amazon gets enough people saying, we're taking our biz elsewhere unless you stop this or that, Amazon will make a choice between saying a) all right we'll change or b) see ya.

As big as Amazon is, it is still a business and not an arm of government. They can enforce their rules and I'm sure they reserve the right to change those rules at any time.

I went to Acceptable Use part of the PayPal user agreement, and it says, and I quote:



Bold emphasis is mine, and I included the last part b/c of the second amendment, as long as we're talking about amendments and the first includes freedom of speech and expression.

They say "certain sexually oriented materials or services," and with their latest actions, as Coker said in the last SW press release, they are clarifying what that means.

At any rate, what they are saying is these are the acceptable uses for the PayPal service. You cannot use our service to purchase these things.

This does not mean you can't purchase those items, you just can't use PayPal to do it. PayPal is enforcing this, which is causing a hardship for Smashwords -- but if SW had been using PayPal and Something Else, then you could use Something Else to purchase the items.

If you have a PayPal account, you agreed to this. If they were vague about it before, then it benefited you (I guess). But they are not obligated to continue to be vague, and now they are not, for whatever reason.

And I'm not "rolling over," thank you very much. I'm looking at the facts and trying to sort things out.

People can feel free to challenge amazon. They do not. Personally I would love to start a petition asking them to create an adult section in their kindle store to avoid all these head aches of kids running into pornographic material. They are stupid not to.

But Imagine starting that petition would most likely backfire in the face of erotica somehow.

as for your terms of service points. I have never disputed them. The basic problem here is up until now they have never enforced them. They have been plenty happy to sit around and collect big dollars off of every aspect of the pron industry (I pay for my naughty America membership, with my debit card from paypal, wonder why I have not gotten a charge back?)

Way back in this thread Dark mentions how they wait until they collect a ton of money, then make up a rule, then back off the rule when they are ready to sit back and get more money.

They folded too fast on this one, to continue arguing business over censorship. End of the day you may be correct that it is all business. I am not so stubborn that I cannot see that point.

However, I am savvy enough to know that yelling "business practice!" or "Policy enforcement" gets no attention.

"Yelling censorship is like yelling fire or rape, it brings people running. Even people with no interest whatsoever in the topic at hand.

Selena Kitt is yelling censorship. Why? because she has proven time and again to be a smart savvy business woman. Coker is using censorship every other word out of his mouth.

Argue with them. Bottom line is whatever works. And back to the terms of service point. By not enforcing them all along, it gives the opening to call this out as being unfair or whatever word you would like to use.

Obviously the point your arguing is not the point that is being taken up by those who actually have a vested interest in this and care about more than just themselves. And their point has already caused a lot of waffling on Pay pal's account.

Would it if they truly felt they were right, or really wanted to accomplish something?

No. They did not expect a fight.

they expected everyone to just say okay. Like what is happening here.

 

[sr71plt]

Or they are working at it in increments. After the shock, when they hit hardcore products with hefty added fees for servicing, the preliminary softening-up work will already have been done.

Selena (and you) use the false "censorship" charge because it gets the masses riled up to carry water for her (you).

There were folks on this thread running around with pitchforks who don't write anything close to the material involved--and probably don't buy it and read it either.

Manipulation is the name of this particular game.

Simpleton you seem to think that (A) what has happened this week is the first of it; (B) that it's all of it; (C) that it's the last of it; and (D) that you personally had anything to do with any cosmetic change of the stage it's in.

 

[StephanieDraven]

If the government tells you not to write it, or say it, then it's censorship.

That is true, but the definition of censorship is not that narrow. Part of the problem in this discussion is that people bandy about terms in ways that have them talking past one another. For this purpose, I have begun to compile a primer for the debate so that we can all discuss it rationally:

http://stephaniedraven.com/2012/02/28/a-primer-in-the-debate-about-smashwords-and-paypal/

 

[PennLady]

That is true, but the definition of censorship is not that narrow. Part of the problem in this discussion is that people bandy about terms in ways that have them talking past one another. For this purpose, I have begun to compile a primer for the debate so that we can all discuss it rationally:

http://stephaniedraven.com/2012/02/28/a-primer-in-the-debate-about-smashwords-and-paypal/

I read this and found it interesting, and when I get the chance I was going to link to it from my blog if you don't mind.

What I'm thinking, though -- and I don't have legal training or anything -- is that for one thing, PayPal put this kind of thing in their acceptable use policy, which I linked to in a previous post. So I guess they weren't enforcing it, but it is on the record and people agreed to it when they created their accounts. What I see is Paypal saying, you cannot use our service in this manner, and now they're being tougher about enforcing that.

Whether they can or should, or whether that violates any laws, I have no idea.

With Smashwords, the problem seems to me to be that PayPal is their only payment processor. If they had another then they could continue to carry the items in question, and consumers could use that other method to buy them. But they don't, so is it PayPal's fault, or Smashwords' for not having another option?

 

[Stella_Omega]

That is true, but the definition of censorship is not that narrow. Part of the problem in this discussion is that people bandy about terms in ways that have them talking past one another. For this purpose, I have begun to compile a primer for the debate so that we can all discuss it rationally:

http://stephaniedraven.com/2012/02/28/a-primer-in-the-debate-about-smashwords-and-paypal/

Yeah, the definition of censorship is that narrow-- at least, until the corporations do manage to take over our government entirely and we live under fascist rule.

But until then, and -- Once more:

Paypal does not prevent anyone from creating porn, or disseminating it in any manner. It does not prevent people from buying or selling it-- or reading it for free.

If you want to offer porn to the public, go right ahead. If you want to sell it, find another transaction method to do so. Money orders. Cash. A different card processor

 

[StephanieDraven]

I read this and found it interesting, and when I get the chance I was going to link to it from my blog if you don't mind.

Thanks. If you think it will be helpful, link away!

What I'm thinking, though -- and I don't have legal training or anything -- is that for one thing, PayPal put this kind of thing in their acceptable use policy, which I linked to in a previous post. So I guess they weren't enforcing it, but it is on the record and people agreed to it when they created their accounts. What I see is Paypal saying, you cannot use our service in this manner, and now they're being tougher about enforcing that. Whether they can or should, or whether that violates any laws, I have no idea.

Paypal is almost certainly not violating any law simply by virtue of enforcing their Terms of Service. They may be in trouble insofar as arbitrary and capricious enforcement brings to light their influence as a potentially unregulated monopoly--the disturbing stories about freezing accounts with the apparent benefit of getting free float from the money inside them could open a nasty can of worms. Banks are regulated in ways that Paypal is not (due to lobbying on their part), and this move has convinced many people that Paypal's status as an unregulated gunslinger of the internet should come to an end.

With Smashwords, the problem seems to me to be that PayPal is their only payment processor. If they had another then they could continue to carry the items in question, and consumers could use that other method to buy them. But they don't, so is it PayPal's fault, or Smashwords' for not having another option?

I'm not sure fault is the problem here. It may be no one's fault and just an unfortunate confluence of events that creates a troubling public precedent. We are allowed, after all, as citizens, to make new law or throw out laws that don't work for us.

However, presuming that Paypal's actions are not being dictated higher up the chain through the credit card companies, it could very well be Paypal's fault. The reason we have anti-trust law is to avoid situations where a company's private policies stifle competition or have such a huge impact in the public sphere that their actions adversely impact the freedoms of citizens. I cannot say if Paypal is a de-facto monopoly; I can only say that we're about to find out.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Paypal is not a monopoly.

Google gives me almost two thousand results for online payment gateway

 

[StephanieDraven]

Yeah, the definition of censorship is that narrow-- at least, until the corporations do manage to take over our government entirely and we live under fascist rule.

I'm sorry, but the idea of censorship as a practice that only the government can participate in is simply not supported either by the dictionary or by legal precedent.

Only the government can violate your First Amendment rights. Almost anyone in a position to stifle expression in any way can censor you.

For example, when a television program beeps a word from its telecast, it has not prevented the speaker from speaking. It has also not violated the person's rights. It has, however, indulged in an act of censorship. And usually, we're all very grateful for them for having done so.

I'm a writer; words matter to me. Let's not abuse them to suit our own purposes.

 

[sr71plt]

They may be in trouble for arbitrary and capricious enforcement that brings to light their influence as a potentially unregulated monopoly--the disturbing stories about freezing accounts with the apparent benefit of getting free float from the money inside them--could open a nasty can of worms. Banks are regulated in ways that Paypal is not, and this move has convinced many people that the free ride Paypal has been given in terms of its status as an unregulated gunslinger of the internet should come to an end.

I don't know who in authority they would be in trouble with for this and they aren't a monopoly--there are other banking processes out there doing the same thing. There's no impediment to others entering that market that I can see.

The ironic thing here is that the targeted material as a whole has been benefiting from this "arbitrary and capricious enforcement." Enforcement has been extremely spotty and, up to now, when challenged, it often has been reversed. (I know; it happened with one of my books, and even when the Kindle version of the book was being banned, the printed Amazon offering wasn't). A slavish enforcement of the Paypal (and Amazon and lots of other) terms of service would have choked off this whole industry from the getgo. So, the people who have been benefiting from their prior loose enforcement are the ones now hefty the pitchforks. (Coker mentions that in his last e-mail. The noise has been more of a hindrance than a help.)

Fascinating.

 

[StephanieDraven]

Paypal is not a monopoly.

Google gives me almost two thousand results for online payment gateway

I'm sure that you will find, if you studied anti-trust law, that the issue is more complicated than that.

 

[StephanieDraven]

I don't know who in authority they would be in trouble with for this and they aren't a monopoly

I am quite certain that I'm not qualified to make this determination and I doubt you are either. (If you are an anti-trust lawyer, however, I'm very happy to cede the argument to you.)

However, I would submit that Anti-trust law is not as simple as a google search. If it were, a lot of lawyers would be out of a job.

The ironic thing here is that the targeted material has been benefiting from this "arbitrary and capricious enforcement." A slavish enforcement of the Paypal (and Amazon and lots of other) terms of service would have choked off this whole industry from the getgo. So, the people who have been benefiting from their prior loose enforcement are the ones now hefty the pitchforks.

Fascinating.

I cannot speak to this issue as nothing that I write falls afoul of their Terms of Service.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sorry, but the idea of censorship as a practice that only the government can participate in is simply not supported either by the dictionary or by legal precedent.

The root word specifies "official."

And censorship denotes both the power and effectiveness of choking something off.

The issue here is the choice not to represent something. It's not official and it only closes down operations that choose to let it be the final say (or to rabble rouse in the hope that they won't actually have to face the real issues). The censors have no power to prevent the activity to use alternate paths.

Beyond that, however, it's a wheel-spinning activity to base argumentation on. It's neither accepted by the opposition as applicable (and has no teeth even if the word were accepted) nor does it correctly define what the issue is.

So, what it is is a scare word by those manipulating you to become indignant over false flame terms and to just yammer and brandish pitchforks.

The people really working the issue are off somewhere else doing that.

 

[sr71plt]

I am quite certain that I'm not qualified to make this determination and I doubt you are either. (If you are an anti-trust lawyer, however, I'm very happy to cede the argument.

Sure I can. It's easy. There are other businesses in that business. So, ipso facto, it ain't a monopoly.

(You used the dictionary on "censorship." It works on "monopoly" too.)

Smashword's problem is that it didn't sign up to use any of the other banking processes in addition to Paypal. (both Stella and PennLady have constantly made that point on this thread). Other e-book distributors have.

You and others are wasting ammunition by trundling down the wrong paths.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sorry, but the idea of censorship as a practice that only the government can participate in is simply not supported either by the dictionary or by legal precedent.

Only the government can violate your First Amendment rights. Almost anyone in a position to stifle expression in any way can censor you.

For example, when a television program beeps a word from its telecast, it has not prevented the speaker from speaking. It has also not violated the person's rights. It has, however, indulged in an act of censorship. And usually, we're all very grateful for them for having done so.

I'm a writer; words matter to me. Let's not abuse them to suit our own purposes.

If you are truly concerned about freedom of speech you can publish your words freely on the internet. If you want to read animal play, for instance, you can follow the links in my sig and read it on my blog.

But to be honest, you are less concerned with speech as you are about getting paid for your speech, and in the easiest most convenient way possible. You want to be able to push one easy button and make that money. I don't blame you for that-- but let's not be disingenuous, okay? Paypal is easy-- but it isn't the only.

 

[sr71plt]

But to be honest, you are less concerned with speech as you are about getting paid for your speech, and in the easiest most convenient way possible. You want to be able to push one easy button and make that money. I don't blame you for that-- but let's not be disingenuous, okay? Paypal is easy-- but it isn't the only.

This.

 

[PennLady]

If you are truly concerned about freedom of speech you can publish your words freely on the internet. If you want to read animal play, for instance, you can follow the links in my sig and read it on my blog.

But to be honest, you are less concerned with speech as you are about getting paid for your speech, and in the easiest most convenient way possible. You want to be able to push one easy button and make that money. I don't blame you for that-- but let's not be disingenuous, okay? Paypal is easy-- but it isn't the only.

Agree on all counts, and would also point out that there's no right to getting paid for it.

 

[StephanieDraven]

The route word specifies "official."

And censorship denotes both the power and effectiveness of choking something off.

Yes, as I mentioned in my primer, it derives from ancient Rome. And yet, we are not ancient Romans and it is now an English word, defined in broader ways in the dictionary, in routine life, and in civil court via every day parlance. Censorship does not have to be done by the government. That is a fact.

Censorship is a different animal than the violation of Constitutional Rights. First Amendment law applies in a circumscribed sphere. Censorship can happen anywhere on the globe, even in countries that have no government to speak of.

I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that censorship in this instance is either justified or appropriate or beyond the realm of censure for the very reasons you state, but I will not be persuaded by repeated and totally erroneous assertions about the definition of censorship.

And this is the last comment I'll have on that subject.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, as I mentioned in my primer, it derives from ancient Rome. And yet, we are not ancient Romans and it is now an English word, defined in broader ways in the dictionary, in court, and in every day parlance. Censorship does not have to be done by the government. That is a fact.

When I said the root word (censor) specifies "official," I was using the dictionary, just as you were, not an ancient Roman coin.

And I can guarantee you that the term isn't used in court for anything but government or other entity with authority behind it activity. (Cite a court case to the contrary.)

That's your problem. That's why it's wheels spinning to use it in this context. You lose any common ground from the get go.

But go ahead and play in an irrelevant position. It don't matter to what's really going on.

That's what's so frustrating about this. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot by stubbornly hanging on to a nonstarter argument and looking the wrong way.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Agree on all counts, and would also point out that there's no right to getting paid for it.

This too.

I come from the days when we zeroxed our smut , stapled it into zines and mailed them in envelopes around the world. We found out about them via handwritten lists. We added our own names and addresses and descriptions of what we had to offer to the bottom of those lists and mailed them on. We mailed letters to one another with the cost of the shipping in cash, folded into a cover letter.

The alt:list explosion was a fucking miracle. And then sites like Literotica and livejournal... all the readers I could ever hope for, and all those writers who wrote what I loved! And so much more safer than having to give out my home address.

That's freedom of speech. We have it.

You guys seem to think that getting paid for your porn is a more important freedom than writing it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Agree on all counts, and would also point out that there's no right to getting paid for it.

Because if this gets by, then they will never, ever, ever, go after free sites now will they?

Cute you think that.