Arch Linux Handbook for Kindle rejected by Amazon
archlinux.me
archlinux.me
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.
If Amazon doesn't support free licensed content, it's time to start doing so.
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.
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?
So, knowing this now, is GPL still a problem for Amazon? Free Kindle books are distributed through the same infrastructure.
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.
[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 can't see that anywhere.
edit: looks like only amazon refer to it as being 'sold', can't see the author mention it.
"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.
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.
Perhaps Amazon should have policy that sources are referenced, contributions described.
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.
[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
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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").
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.
Which is still completely irrelevant because this document is licensed under the GFDL.
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.
According to distrowatch it's the 7th most popular distro. Hardly niche.
------
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.
Amazon applying a quality guideline that stops people republishing copyleft content makes perfect sense from a consumer viewpoint.
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 can think of no reason Amazon would be against selling crowdsourced books (besides quality control). If you have ideas, please enlighten us.
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.
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.
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.)
The author should check the guidelines before going on accusatory rants.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Go on amazon.co.uk and and search for "source wikipedia".
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.
Aren't most of the stupidest "IP" conflicts actually conflicts between what makes sense and what "the law" says?
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.
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?
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...