Arch Linux Handbook for Kindle rejected by Amazon(archlinux.me)
archlinux.me
Arch Linux Handbook for Kindle rejected by Amazon
http://archlinux.me/dusty/2012/09/09/arch-linux-handbook-for-kindle/
86 comments
> I read the emails and their responses seem perfectly acceptable to me
That's probably because you are not the author of this book. Just try to be a little more empathic with this guy: he wrote the book, he did a valuable job(presumably, I'm not an arch linux user, and I looked through the book very briefly).
I can see very well that response like "This type of content can create a poor customer experience, and is not accepted" makes him feel exactly the way bis post describes.
If Amazon doesn't support free licensed content, it's time to start doing so.
If Amazon doesn't support free licensed content, it's time to start doing so.
I'm shocked nobody has said this yet. They can't.
The ebooks distributed on the Kindle Store are distributed under a license that Amazon has negotiated. The GNU FDL does not permit redistributing under a different license. If the person submitting the book could assert that he was the author, and held copyright to the content, that would be one thing. If it is community authored, and edited by this person (as was actually asserted), Amazon would be opening themselves to actual legal liability from all of the other authors.
It's insane to me how many people who assert that Free Licenses are useful in such situations. This is the same as attempting to put some GPLed software on the App Store. It can be done, but only if everyone agrees to offer Apple an alternate license.
The ebooks distributed on the Kindle Store are distributed under a license that Amazon has negotiated. The GNU FDL does not permit redistributing under a different license. If the person submitting the book could assert that he was the author, and held copyright to the content, that would be one thing. If it is community authored, and edited by this person (as was actually asserted), Amazon would be opening themselves to actual legal liability from all of the other authors.
It's insane to me how many people who assert that Free Licenses are useful in such situations. This is the same as attempting to put some GPLed software on the App Store. It can be done, but only if everyone agrees to offer Apple an alternate license.
INAL and I'm wondering, why can't Amazon redistribute it under the GPL?
Does GPL permit that anyone redistributes it or does GPL permit that Amazon does it the way they would like to do it?
What exactly is stopping Amazon from distributing GPLed content?
Does GPL permit that anyone redistributes it or does GPL permit that Amazon does it the way they would like to do it?
What exactly is stopping Amazon from distributing GPLed content?
Probably the bit about how they can't distribute it with DRM and must allow people to easily copy it from that point of distribution. I don't know for sure how free kindle e-books are distributed, but my gut tells me that it's the same way that non-free e-books are. If there is DRM preventing me from copying that e-book to another device, modifying that e-book, etc, then it would be in violation.
But they don't choose whether a book in their store will be DRMed or not. The authors do (see http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/amazon-quietly-lets-publish...).
So, knowing this now, is GPL still a problem for Amazon? Free Kindle books are distributed through the same infrastructure.
So, knowing this now, is GPL still a problem for Amazon? Free Kindle books are distributed through the same infrastructure.
The fact that it's a settling doesn't solve the problem. If they decided to build whatever infrastructure was required to flag copyleft content and then essentially lock this setting, they might be in a better position. It still doesn't protect them completely. If the author fails to include the license in the book, for instance, they're in deep water. So the important thing to remember is that they can't get into this game lightly. It takes a bunch of work.
The GNU licenses are not designed to facilitate maximum spread of the content. They're designed to enforce sharing. Unless Amazon wants to get involved in that enforcement, they really can't touch this stuff.
The GNU licenses are not designed to facilitate maximum spread of the content. They're designed to enforce sharing. Unless Amazon wants to get involved in that enforcement, they really can't touch this stuff.
I'm confused, the Amazon folks were complaining that he was trying to sell otherwise free information [1], did the OP just miss that? Seems like putting the Kindle version up for free would have removed their complaint.
[1] Amazon has had a huge problem with people who run through Google Books, find a book from before 1923, and then re-publish it for money in the Kindle store, only to have Amazon's customers get angry and bent out of shape when they realize they have been 'ripped off' buying something they could have gotten for free.
[1] Amazon has had a huge problem with people who run through Google Books, find a book from before 1923, and then re-publish it for money in the Kindle store, only to have Amazon's customers get angry and bent out of shape when they realize they have been 'ripped off' buying something they could have gotten for free.
I've published a book for the Kindle on Amazon that was published shortly after the Civil War. The price is nominal, but I put a lot of work into formatting the book, proofing it, preparing the illustrations, etc.
It was a labor of love for a book I really liked, and I don't expect to make any real money off of it, but I think a small fee is entirely justifiable. And if one doesn't like that fee, one can go find another copy elsewhere.
It was a labor of love for a book I really liked, and I don't expect to make any real money off of it, but I think a small fee is entirely justifiable. And if one doesn't like that fee, one can go find another copy elsewhere.
I agree with that, but I do think there needs to be some amount of effort that justifies putting out a new "edition" of the book, so to speak (which it sounds like you're doing). What Amazon is having problems with is large-scale automated stuff that doesn't bother to do good formatting at all, like the folks who are just repackaging Wikipedia articles, or PDFs directly from Google Books. I'm guessing Amazon just doesn't want to put in the resources to distinguish those cases.
Selling based false pretenses is unethical and potentially illegal.
Perhaps Amazon should have policy that sources are referenced, contributions described.
Perhaps Amazon should have policy that sources are referenced, contributions described.
BTW, Amazon asked me several questions about the book before they allowed it on their site, and evidently they found my answers satisfactory.
That is an interesting area of Copyright Law as well. You do in fact own the copyright on your new 'work' even through it was derived entirely from this previous book. Good examples of this are the classics like Homer's Odessey which is available here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Odyssey-Homer/dp/0140268863 the translator and their publisher put some work in getting it from Greek to English and voila, new work.
The issue that Amazon was cracking down on was folks who went to Google Books, found some work like *"The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla, With Special Reference to his work in Polyphase Currents and High Potential Lighting" and then downloaded it from Google and uploaded it to the Kindle store [2], [1]
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=bhrreukJiLgC&printsec=f... is the Google Books version
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Inventions-Researches-Reference-ILLUST... is the Amazon Kindle rip-off version.
The issue that Amazon was cracking down on was folks who went to Google Books, found some work like *"The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla, With Special Reference to his work in Polyphase Currents and High Potential Lighting" and then downloaded it from Google and uploaded it to the Kindle store [2], [1]
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=bhrreukJiLgC&printsec=f... is the Google Books version
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Inventions-Researches-Reference-ILLUST... is the Amazon Kindle rip-off version.
A translation is entirely different from a reformat. Translating Homer from Greek to English is more than simply matching up words. It is a creative venture that results in a fair amount of originality. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality."[1] Effort is generally irrelevant when it comes to determining copyrightabilty, so a reformatted version would need a certain level of originality to be copyrightable.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm Also argued to be 'uniqueness' by a Professor at Miami School of Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906047
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm Also argued to be 'uniqueness' by a Professor at Miami School of Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906047
I invite you to argue that way against Sony among others, who have taken works out of copyright and republished them in alternate forms establishing their own copyright. They argue that converting the work to the new format meets the transformation standard set by existing law.
Somehow I don't think Walter will go out and sue people if they make copies of this e-book but I do expect that should he do so he would prevail.
So off list one of the Gutenberg folks pointed out this exception:
"Chuck they get away with this by adding a new introduction or critical essay to be book, delete that and its back to public domain."
And notes that every republished work by various publishers that use public domain material does add an introduction or a bit about the author to establish that Copyright.
So I take it all back, Walter you should introduce your book with your thoughts on how appropriate it is and then charge what ever you want :-)
Somehow I don't think Walter will go out and sue people if they make copies of this e-book but I do expect that should he do so he would prevail.
So off list one of the Gutenberg folks pointed out this exception:
"Chuck they get away with this by adding a new introduction or critical essay to be book, delete that and its back to public domain."
And notes that every republished work by various publishers that use public domain material does add an introduction or a bit about the author to establish that Copyright.
So I take it all back, Walter you should introduce your book with your thoughts on how appropriate it is and then charge what ever you want :-)
LOL, but I don't really mind that much. Like I said, I like the book and think everyone should enjoy it.
I also have a crapton of out-of-print books that are available nowhere, that I would put online for free if it weren't for the dang copyright laws. Some I have attempted to find the copyright owners, but I just find deadends.
It's really a sad state of affairs.
My personal opinion (and I make my living selling copyrighted software) is that copyrights should be good for 20 years. After that, you can keep the copyright going only if you're willing to send in a $1000 fee every year for each copyright, and that fee should go up a percent a year or so.
That'll put all the abandoned works into the public domain.
I also have a crapton of out-of-print books that are available nowhere, that I would put online for free if it weren't for the dang copyright laws. Some I have attempted to find the copyright owners, but I just find deadends.
It's really a sad state of affairs.
My personal opinion (and I make my living selling copyrighted software) is that copyrights should be good for 20 years. After that, you can keep the copyright going only if you're willing to send in a $1000 fee every year for each copyright, and that fee should go up a percent a year or so.
That'll put all the abandoned works into the public domain.
[deleted]
> And if one doesn't like that fee, one can go find another copy elsewhere.
There is no sweat of the brow copyright in American law.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow...
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
I mean, just so you know.
There is no sweat of the brow copyright in American law.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow...
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
I mean, just so you know.
That doesn't mean he can't charge for it though. It just means he can't stop (via copyright law) someone else doing exactly the same thing and not giving him a cut.
Amazon aren't taking action on this so of thing because it is legally wrong (because it isn't) or because it is morally wrong (that argument could go on for some time and isn't relevant anyway so I'll not start it by expressing my opinion either way!).
They are cracking down on that sort of thing because it is irritating their userbase, and they think that the damage done by having the content there is much more significant then any cut of purchasing fees they would take. Taking more selective action (i.e. not dropping the few works where significant effort to nicely format the content for Kindle like devices, while getting rid of the great many hasty "copy, paste, done" jobs) would likely be far too much hassle too, relative any possible benefit (i.e. cut of the proceeds, and the less tangible "library completeness").
Amazon aren't taking action on this so of thing because it is legally wrong (because it isn't) or because it is morally wrong (that argument could go on for some time and isn't relevant anyway so I'll not start it by expressing my opinion either way!).
They are cracking down on that sort of thing because it is irritating their userbase, and they think that the damage done by having the content there is much more significant then any cut of purchasing fees they would take. Taking more selective action (i.e. not dropping the few works where significant effort to nicely format the content for Kindle like devices, while getting rid of the great many hasty "copy, paste, done" jobs) would likely be far too much hassle too, relative any possible benefit (i.e. cut of the proceeds, and the less tangible "library completeness").
Irrelevant, though. Sure, there may be no copyright preventing anyone else from ripping off his reformatting work, but that doesn't prevent him from charging for it. He just has to endure the risk that he may not get for it what he charges for it when somebody else rips it off and sells it for $0. This is analogous to selling a nice, commercially pressed DVD of a linux distro for $5. You have no protection against the next guy giving an equivalent item away for free, but there is no law preventing you from charging money either.
Except since the cost of production for individual units is $0, it's more akin to crafting a really nice distro, not a DVD.
The software community is set up so that there is social compensation for open source labour. To a certain extent, the community of authors is the same way. The publishing community is certainly not set up so people are used to recogizing publishers for their contributions.
"Recognizing" To wit: with money
And some in the past tried charging for the result (rather than charging for support instead or as well, as RedHat and their ilk do).
It didn't work of course, but due to user education [the sort of people looking for Linux know they are likely to be able to get the same thing or better for free (plus media/transmission costs where relevant) elsewhere] rather than because it is wrong legally speaking, copyright or otherwise.
It didn't work of course, but due to user education [the sort of people looking for Linux know they are likely to be able to get the same thing or better for free (plus media/transmission costs where relevant) elsewhere] rather than because it is wrong legally speaking, copyright or otherwise.
where exactly does it say he's trying to sell it?
I can't see that anywhere.
edit: looks like only amazon refer to it as being 'sold', can't see the author mention it.
I can't see that anywhere.
edit: looks like only amazon refer to it as being 'sold', can't see the author mention it.
Keep in mind that free books on the Amazon/Kindle store are still sold, there's just no charge for the sale.
That is the confusing part, Amazon talks about 'selling' it and he talks about 'managing copyright'. So it seems like they are talking about two different things, tied together by the liability of selling someone else's copyright protected material. I was looking for the response that said,
"Yes this stuff is available for free on the web, and it is available for free in this kindle book, I've just collated it into Kindle form to make it more accessible for people. All of the rights holders have explicitly allowed this use."
So that was my source of confusion.
"Yes this stuff is available for free on the web, and it is available for free in this kindle book, I've just collated it into Kindle form to make it more accessible for people. All of the rights holders have explicitly allowed this use."
So that was my source of confusion.
Even if it is sold for $0.00, I wouldn't expect that to remove Amazon's issue with it. Whether or not the book is generating income, the person who "published" it does not have demonstrable rights to its contents.
Which is completely irrelevant because whoever does have the original copyright has already licensed them to everyone under publicly available conditions.
But is it really irrelevant?
The GPLv2 has made it clear something can be made freely available to the public, yet still have redistribution conditions. So, simply being "licensed to everyone" does not also grant distribution rights to everyone.
The GPLv2 has made it clear something can be made freely available to the public, yet still have redistribution conditions. So, simply being "licensed to everyone" does not also grant distribution rights to everyone.
That's actually... exactly what GPLv2 enables?
Which is still completely irrelevant because this document is licensed under the GFDL.
Which is still completely irrelevant because this document is licensed under the GFDL.
Source? Why does e.g. Debian or other free software distributors think they can distribute GPLv2 software then?
I'm not saying the GPLv2 withholds distribution rights; rather, it grants them conditionally, and if you can grant them conditionally you can withhold them.
"In other news, the Arch Linux Handbook can be downloaded in .mobi format, free of charge, from http://archlinux.ca/arch_linux_handbook_3.mobi "
Problem solved? The benefit of having it listed on Amazon is probably negligible - it's not all that hard dragging a file to your mounted Kindle.
Problem solved? The benefit of having it listed on Amazon is probably negligible - it's not all that hard dragging a file to your mounted Kindle.
More or less I agree. Arch Linux is a special niche. People know what they are doing. In fact publishing it on Archlinux.org would suffice.
Attention all CEOs/high level folks: This is the exact reason why you need to regularly answer questions in your customer service queue and monitor responses (at least some of the time). Yes, sometimes things like this happen, but if you have first hand experience helping your customers resolve problems, you're much less likely to end up with an email chain trending on HN/reddit/etc.
How would monitoring responses help here? Amazon's response was entirely correct. From their short, plain English document describing the rules ( https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2TOZW0S... ):
------
Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content
Some types of content, such as public domain content, may be free to use by anyone, or may be licensed for use by more than one party. We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content. For example, if you received your book content from a source that allows you and others to re-distribute it, and the content is freely available on the web, we will not accept it for sale on the Kindle store. We do accept public domain content, however we may choose to not sell a public domain book if its content is undifferentiated or barely differentiated from one or more other books.
------
The author's submission does not qualify, based on the information he says he provided to Amazon.
edit: note specifically that in his response to Amazon, he does not say that he is the copyright owner of the book. His response gives the impression that any publishing rights he has come from the free license that book is under.
------
Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content
Some types of content, such as public domain content, may be free to use by anyone, or may be licensed for use by more than one party. We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content. For example, if you received your book content from a source that allows you and others to re-distribute it, and the content is freely available on the web, we will not accept it for sale on the Kindle store. We do accept public domain content, however we may choose to not sell a public domain book if its content is undifferentiated or barely differentiated from one or more other books.
------
The author's submission does not qualify, based on the information he says he provided to Amazon.
edit: note specifically that in his response to Amazon, he does not say that he is the copyright owner of the book. His response gives the impression that any publishing rights he has come from the free license that book is under.
What's the probability that Bezos would have answered this email and not some other email?
It's a matter of policy. If the higher ups at a company regularly service customer requests, and there is a consistent problem affecting a number of users, they can effect a change of policy. It won't necessarily help this particular person this particular time, but it may help both them and everyone else with the problem if it changes policy.
I don't think the author understands what "customer-centric" means. People who publish books for the kindle aren't Amazon's customer, the people who buy kindle books are.
Amazon applying a quality guideline that stops people republishing copyleft content makes perfect sense from a consumer viewpoint.
Amazon applying a quality guideline that stops people republishing copyleft content makes perfect sense from a consumer viewpoint.
That may be the case but that's not what she said, she made it sound like he did something illegal and threatened to close his account.
I have a feeling that Amazon may actually dislike people selling crowdsourced material as assembled books, not necessarily copyleft books (such as Dive into Python).
I have a feeling that Amazon may actually dislike people selling crowdsourced material as assembled books, not necessarily copyleft books (such as Dive into Python).
More books for sale means more money. Amazon likes more money.
I can think of no reason Amazon would be against selling crowdsourced books (besides quality control). If you have ideas, please enlighten us.
I can think of no reason Amazon would be against selling crowdsourced books (besides quality control). If you have ideas, please enlighten us.
I can think of no reason Amazon would be against selling crowdsourced books (besides quality control).
You can think of no reason besides that one reason you gave? ;)
According to the email he received, Amazon doesn't allow you you publish material you do not own the copyright to. So this effectively kills crowdsourced material unless you have a copyright assignment clause.
You can think of no reason besides that one reason you gave? ;)
According to the email he received, Amazon doesn't allow you you publish material you do not own the copyright to. So this effectively kills crowdsourced material unless you have a copyright assignment clause.
Right, but you made it sound like a problem. It seemed like you were disagreeing with ig1, rather than rephrasing his exact thoughts.
I did technically disagree. Crowdsourced and copyleft aren't the same thing. I gave the example of Dive into Python as a copyleft publication that is not crowdsourced and where the copyright is held by one person (or publishing company).
If they really cared about quality control, then they'd have better proofing of kindle content based on older, scanned texts.
People who publish books are absolutely customers of Amazon. If they're using a service provided by the company (the ability to publish books) then they're a customer.
No, they're suppliers.
By your reasoning Coca Cola are a customer of Walmart because they use the shelving facility provided by Walmart.
I'm not saying suppliers aren't important, they are, but they aren't however customers.
By your reasoning Coca Cola are a customer of Walmart because they use the shelving facility provided by Walmart.
I'm not saying suppliers aren't important, they are, but they aren't however customers.
Well, they are. Wal-Mart is providing Coca-Cola the service of getting their drinks to consumers; which makes Coca-Cola a customer of Wal-Mart.
I don't think an extended debate over semantics is helpful, but virtually no one would use the word "customer" in this way. If the Wal-Mart CEO said they were going to lower prices for customers, the Coca-Cola shareholders are unlikely to be happy. Consider that Coca-Cola is selling goods to Wal-Mart for cash. That is generally not what a customer looks like.
Well by that logic, I provide a service of funneling money into Wal-mart's bank account -- therefore Wal-mart is also my customer.
It's evident that you don't know what you're talking about. That is not a service in any meaningful way. A service is any kind of action performed for compensation. That action cannot be the actual act of compensating. Does Walmart give you money for giving them money? No.
This translates to Amazon. They are selling the rights to distribute one's books on their platform, and in return take 30%. Amazon provides a service, the bookseller pays them money. (In this case, that money is zero, but that's beside the point. In general, the seller is Amazon's customer.)
This translates to Amazon. They are selling the rights to distribute one's books on their platform, and in return take 30%. Amazon provides a service, the bookseller pays them money. (In this case, that money is zero, but that's beside the point. In general, the seller is Amazon's customer.)
I was replying to the comment that claimed Coca-Cola was Wal-mart's customer instead of their supplier -- I wasn't taking a stance on Amazon.
It was Amazon's existing customers that requested that the book be published according to the article.
It explicitly states on their content guidelines page they do not accept content publicly accessible from the web. Otherwise people could just publish Wikipedia pages.
The author should check the guidelines before going on accusatory rants.
The author should check the guidelines before going on accusatory rants.
This is a misrepresentation of the Content Guidelines. See https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2TOZW0S... :
We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content.
Since the author is the copyright owner, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest the handbook is explicitly prohibited - Wikipedia pages could possibly be accepted, if the Wikimedia Foundation submitted them.
I think "Megan B." might be confused by the facts that Mr. Phillips is the editor of the content (as opposed to being its sole author) and by the mention of the FDL. I also think that she is using the term "exclusive publishing rights" to mean copyright ownership.
We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content.
Since the author is the copyright owner, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest the handbook is explicitly prohibited - Wikipedia pages could possibly be accepted, if the Wikimedia Foundation submitted them.
I think "Megan B." might be confused by the facts that Mr. Phillips is the editor of the content (as opposed to being its sole author) and by the mention of the FDL. I also think that she is using the term "exclusive publishing rights" to mean copyright ownership.
The Wikimedia foundation does not have the copyright ownership of content on Wikipedia, the content creators do. They just own the Wikipedia trademark, domains etc.
Did you read the line immediately after?
For example, if you received your book content from a source that allows you and others to re-distribute it, and the content is freely available on the web, we will not accept it for sale on the Kindle store.
For example, if you received your book content from a source that allows you and others to re-distribute it, and the content is freely available on the web, we will not accept it for sale on the Kindle store.
> Since the author is the copyright owner, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest the handbook is explicitly prohibited
How is Amazon supposed to know that the author is the copyright owner? As far as I can see, when they asked about the book being on the web and for him to confirm that he had publishing rights, all he told them was that it was under a free license. I suspect that Amazon is, quite reasonably, interpreting this response as meaning that he is NOT the author, and just has the publishing rights granted by that free license.
If he is indeed the author, his response should have been: "I am the author of this work and the sole copyright owner. It is available on several web sites because I have made it available under a free license".
How is Amazon supposed to know that the author is the copyright owner? As far as I can see, when they asked about the book being on the web and for him to confirm that he had publishing rights, all he told them was that it was under a free license. I suspect that Amazon is, quite reasonably, interpreting this response as meaning that he is NOT the author, and just has the publishing rights granted by that free license.
If he is indeed the author, his response should have been: "I am the author of this work and the sole copyright owner. It is available on several web sites because I have made it available under a free license".
Doesn't stop them from offering many public domain classics.
Yeah, if that's really their policy I don't see how they can offer a single public domain work in the Kindle Store. Is there a way to file a complaint that their guidelines aren't being followed and request that content be removed from the Kindle Store? Because I would be so all over filing a complaint against every public domain work in the Kindle Store.
Amazon itself publishes many public domain books in the store (for free). And, anyway, they have a specific policy for public domain: https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2OHLJUR... which basically boils down to "our policy is to not publish undifferentiated versions of public domain titles where a free version is available in our store." Seems reasonable to me.
As a consumer of many public domain books on the Kindle, I find Amazon's policy good, except when they let the publishers of the paid versions game them.
For example, the "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" (http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes-ebook/dp/B0...) is a public domain book, but their free public domain version has been "under review" for months, while paid versions continue to be sold for 99 cents and up.
This is pretty crappy behavior, IMHO. I know they don't make any money from PD books, but there are a lot of Kindle owners that enjoy PD books, and scammy tactics like this detracts from their reputation.
For example, the "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" (http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes-ebook/dp/B0...) is a public domain book, but their free public domain version has been "under review" for months, while paid versions continue to be sold for 99 cents and up.
This is pretty crappy behavior, IMHO. I know they don't make any money from PD books, but there are a lot of Kindle owners that enjoy PD books, and scammy tactics like this detracts from their reputation.
They should probably apply a similar standard to freely licensed works.
> Otherwise people could just publish Wikipedia pages.
Go on amazon.co.uk and and search for "source wikipedia".
Go on amazon.co.uk and and search for "source wikipedia".
I have a similar problem with my Vim book. Amazon blocked its sales after I updated it and asked them to make the update available to all 25000+ people who have downloaded it so far. They are blocking the sales, but allow negative reviews to be posted. I released it as a separate book, you can get it while it is still available at http://thevimbook.com
A confusing situation - do I have the facts right?
Amazon is ok with publishing public domain works. However, this is not a public domain work so it doesn't matter.
GNU Free Doc License, just like GPL, doesn't care if you charge money or not; only that you pass along the content when you distribute and that you don't add restrictions on what people can do with the content.
Amazon states in their rules that they won't accept freely redistributable content unless the submitting author is also the copyright owner.
Author does not explicitly state that he is the copyright owner in his response to Amazon, which explains the rejection.
Author does correctly state that GNU Doc License allows redistribution even if you are not the copyright owner. Thus he may have been trying to make a political point that it shouldn't matter if he is the copyright owner or not since he has the right to redistribute, for profit, from the license?
In any event, it doesn't matter since Amazon's stated policy is not to accept works in this precise scenario. Why, I don't know; but it is their right to do so.
Amazon is ok with publishing public domain works. However, this is not a public domain work so it doesn't matter.
GNU Free Doc License, just like GPL, doesn't care if you charge money or not; only that you pass along the content when you distribute and that you don't add restrictions on what people can do with the content.
Amazon states in their rules that they won't accept freely redistributable content unless the submitting author is also the copyright owner.
Author does not explicitly state that he is the copyright owner in his response to Amazon, which explains the rejection.
Author does correctly state that GNU Doc License allows redistribution even if you are not the copyright owner. Thus he may have been trying to make a political point that it shouldn't matter if he is the copyright owner or not since he has the right to redistribute, for profit, from the license?
In any event, it doesn't matter since Amazon's stated policy is not to accept works in this precise scenario. Why, I don't know; but it is their right to do so.
Given that it is essentially community created its understandable that Amazon feels unsure about who has the "exclusive publishing rights" to it.
Sounds like no exclusive publishing rights exist. I mean that in a "first principles" sense, not in a "what the twisted US copyright law says" sense.
Aren't most of the stupidest "IP" conflicts actually conflicts between what makes sense and what "the law" says?
Aren't most of the stupidest "IP" conflicts actually conflicts between what makes sense and what "the law" says?
"Making sense" is not a well-defined concept: Different, contradictory things make sense to different people.
In fact, basing a society on "what makes sense" [to the party that has the power] rather than a written code of laws sounds like a recipe that will quickly turn a country into a distopian dictatorship.
In fact, basing a society on "what makes sense" [to the party that has the power] rather than a written code of laws sounds like a recipe that will quickly turn a country into a distopian dictatorship.
Please pardon my momentary lack of precision. It was brought on by a lack of legalistic thought.
Substitute "logically consistent and practically workable, along with distinguishing between physical property and ideas" for "makes sense". By "logically consistence" I mean derivable from a few clearly stated axioms or assumptions, and a few primitives, like "and", "non-exclusive or", "negation" and a rule of deduction like modus ponens.
By "practically workable" I mean things like "having a fixed term", "having a central repository" and "clearly marked". Allowing rather extensive excerpting also seems necessary to preserve what
The current US standard of "author's life + 70 years" leaves a lot of uncertainty about when some material enters public domain. Having a copyright mark on stuff, rather than the automatic assumption of copyright would help eliminate a lot of uncertainty. Having a central registry where one could (automatically) get confirmation of copyright would help. The automatic presumption of fair use or fair dealing when an excerpt is used, rather than fair use as affirmative defense, would reduce lawsuits-as-free-speech suppression. Getting rid of the "property" part of "intellectual property" also seems like it help reduce problems, just because the concept of possession of an idea is false to fact, and causes people to make false assumptions.
I freely admit that even in the face of a logically consistent, confusion reducing copyright regime where free speech is assumed to trump copyright, some lawsuits would still come up, and indeed, be necessary.
I think that the current arrangement in the USA guarantees the use of courts of law to suppress opinions. The current arrangement also guarantees a majority of illogical outcomes, by almost any standard of "logical".
Happy now?
Substitute "logically consistent and practically workable, along with distinguishing between physical property and ideas" for "makes sense". By "logically consistence" I mean derivable from a few clearly stated axioms or assumptions, and a few primitives, like "and", "non-exclusive or", "negation" and a rule of deduction like modus ponens.
By "practically workable" I mean things like "having a fixed term", "having a central repository" and "clearly marked". Allowing rather extensive excerpting also seems necessary to preserve what
The current US standard of "author's life + 70 years" leaves a lot of uncertainty about when some material enters public domain. Having a copyright mark on stuff, rather than the automatic assumption of copyright would help eliminate a lot of uncertainty. Having a central registry where one could (automatically) get confirmation of copyright would help. The automatic presumption of fair use or fair dealing when an excerpt is used, rather than fair use as affirmative defense, would reduce lawsuits-as-free-speech suppression. Getting rid of the "property" part of "intellectual property" also seems like it help reduce problems, just because the concept of possession of an idea is false to fact, and causes people to make false assumptions.
I freely admit that even in the face of a logically consistent, confusion reducing copyright regime where free speech is assumed to trump copyright, some lawsuits would still come up, and indeed, be necessary.
I think that the current arrangement in the USA guarantees the use of courts of law to suppress opinions. The current arrangement also guarantees a majority of illogical outcomes, by almost any standard of "logical".
Happy now?
I wish the iOS reviewers were this clear and concise. Their rejection information would be something like: Your book has been rejected because it doesn't comply with App Store Review guideline 123.a.2: Apps that are like something else on the internet will be rejected, apps that may contain other things from other people may be rejected, apps that provide limited value when they imply they provide substantial value may be rejected.
I refuse to use Amazon for anything because of stuff like this.
They will randomly ban your books, kill your services, and do what random politicians or Internet mobs tell them without any sort of due process.
People love to give me flack for it at the office...
They will randomly ban your books, kill your services, and do what random politicians or Internet mobs tell them without any sort of due process.
People love to give me flack for it at the office...
They have a clearly explained policy about content of which you're not the author here...
If the book is publicly available in a variety of formats already, who needs Amazon at all?
Are you saying you would use Amazon if they do what the Internet mob tells them and publish the book?
[deleted]
Another day another headline of a closed repository rejecting something. In this case, it's information for an open source project. Nevermind that these repositories are not beholden to us, as a FLOSS proselytizer, it pains me that my peers so readily build value for these closed repositories in much the same way that publically-funded research papers get stashed behind paywalls. Models exist for publishing for profit outside of the walled gardens and they do succeed. If a potential publisher can be convinced to give it away and pray, so be it. As a community we should really determine where our allegiances lie and what are real priorities. It's trivial to put a book on a E-reader and just as trivial to run a website to publish on.
It doesn't say anywhere (or I'm missing it) whether he wanted to sell the book or give it for free.
I feel like I'm missing something here. I read the emails and their responses seem perfectly acceptable to me, I am not picking up an arrogant or confrontational tone and think they did their best to answer the issue. The author asserts a copyleft license to the work and fully expects Amazon to be 100% compatible with it (one could almost say arrogantly so) and does not, in my opinion, assert exclusive publishing rights of the work. Amazon state they are not confident author holds the exclusive publishing rights and that this is not acceptable on the Kindle Store, linking to the relevant policy guideline. As someone else has pointed out, the author is also not the customer here, they are in effect negotiating a business deal with Amazon, Amazon do not need to tip-toe around the issue. I think the author was a little bit over sensitive here.
If I am missing something here please fill me in.