backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by WyldFyre.. on Aug 1 at 10:40 AM


  (Source: Barnesandnoble.com)
Apple said Amazon is its competitor, so the name cannot be mentioned in potential iBooks submissions

Apple recently refused to carry an ebook in its popular iBooks store because it mentioned a huge ebooks competitor -- Amazon. 
 
Apple rejected a book called "How To Think Sideways Lesson 6: How to Discover (Or Create) Your Story's Market" by Holly Lisle. Lisle is an author that typically creates online writing guides.
 
Lisle submitted her book to Apple's iBooks store, and received a rejection letter stating that she wasn't allowed to have live links to Amazon inside. She then removed the links and resubmitted the book, only to receive yet another rejection letter. The reason? She wasn't allowed to mention Amazon at all in the book because it is an Apple competitor. 
 
"This is not professional behavior from a professional market," said Lisle. "And cold moment of truth here -- you cannot write a writing course that includes information on publishing and self-publishing and NOT mention Amazon. It's the place where your writers are going to make about 90 percent of their money."
 
Apple is currently in the middle of an ebooks-related battle that concerns Amazon. In April of this year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Apple and five book publishers over anti-competitive practices concerning ebook sales. More specifically, the book publishers were accused of partaking in an agency sales model with Apple in an effort to stifle Amazon's success.
 
Some, however, are in favor of Apple's added competition against Amazon. Earlier this month, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) wrote a memo to the U.S. Department of Justice via The Wall Street Journal in an effort to put a stop to the eBooks lawsuit filed against Apple and two other book publishers.

According to Schumer, the lawsuit will destroy the publishing industry because Amazon needs the competition in order to have better offerings (regarding book selection and price) for consumers. 
 

Source: Boing Boing



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And this is why
By Motoman on 7/31/2012 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
Go to Walmart and try to buy a gangsta rap CD. All the naughty words have been edited out, because Walmart doesn't want to carry music with naughty words in it.

Perfectly legal...Walmart gets to set the standards for products they sell, based on whatever they want.

Censorship only comes into play if the government is the actor. If a private business is the actor, it's not censorship.

Take for example Chick-fil-A. Reckon you could force them to sell copies of Brokeback Mountain in their stores against their will?

Nope.


RE: And this is why
By Reclaimer77 on 7/31/2012 4:37:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Perfectly legal...Walmart gets to set the standards for products they sell, based on whatever they want.


That's only because they, being the record labels, agreed to this to increase their profits.

If they didn't agree, they could have potentially sued Walmart etc etc. Maybe win, maybe lose, who knows.

I don't see this as being a good analogy. The key difference is Walmart wasn't competing AGAINST these record companies.

Apple is already under investigation by the DOJ over it's iBooks, for anti-trust violations. This is an anti-trust issue. Apple just can't seem to help itself, no matter what market it enters, it attempts to stack the deck against it's competitors. Moto, last time I checked that was illegal. The DOJ apparently thinks so. And where there is smoke, there is fire.

quote:
Take for example Chick-fil-A. Reckon you could force them to sell copies of Brokeback Mountain in their stores against their will?


Huh? Chick-fil-A doesn't sell books. This isn't a very good analogy either. Nobody is forcing Apple to publish books, they chose to do so. And to have a policy where they will not publish any book that even mentions a competitor, is absurd and probably illegal.

quote:
Censorship only comes into play if the government is the actor. If a private business is the actor, it's not censorship.


"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet , or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. "


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


RE: And this is why
By Motoman on 7/31/2012 6:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
Your quote on the definition of censorship is the general-use version, not the legal version which is what's at stake here.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
quote:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.


Naturally anyone can engage in "censorship" but in legal terms the only kind of censorship that is illegal is that done by a governmental actor.

Apple isn't competing against book publishers...it's selling their wares, in exactly the same way that Walmart sells the wares of record producers. And there's nothing illegal about Walmart's own form of censorship because, as noted before and above, they're not a governmental agency and therefore they can do as they please. The record companies remove "offensive" language from their CDs to sell to Walmart because of the impact not doing so would have on their bottom line - capitalism in it's purest sense.

What's going on here has nothing even vaguely similar to being anti-trust - in fact, it's clear you have no idea what that is granted that you think it does. Apple may well be in deep doody for anti-trust issues - but the idea at hand here in this article isn't one of them.

The Chick-fil-A is a perfect example, despite the fact that they don't, currently, sell books. First of all you can't force them to sell books in the first place if they don't want to - and you couldn't force them to sell a particular book if they did. It should be obvious that I picked on Chick-fil-A and Brokeback Mountain to show that, clearly, the homophobic restaurant chain most certainly would never want to sell anything that showed homosexuality in any kind of positive light.

...reckon you could force Chick-fil-A to sell hamburgers? They do sell food, after all. Just not hamburgers. You can't force them to do that.

...all in the same manner that you can't force Apple to sell an ebook - or anything else - that it doesn't want to sell. For any reason that it doesn't want to sell them. What about all the other apps and books that Apple declined to sell in their online store? Does everyone who has an app, book, whatever have some kind of legal basis to *force* Apple to sell their product, against their will?

No.Your quote on the definition of censorship is the general-use version, not the legal version which is what's at stake here.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship


RE: And this is why
By Reclaimer77 on 7/31/2012 7:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to just agree to disagree on this one. I went through some mighty fine mental gymnastics to portray Apple as the villain here, and I can live with my effort as-is.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki