Do you hate cheaters?
Most of us do. And rightly so. When
there are fair, transparent rules meant to level the playing field, it is
precisely those rules that can create a framework for people to flourish under.
Yet, just like in the popular board game Monopoly, many of us have encountered
people who might try to bend the rules in an attempt to gain some perceived
advantage. Friendships can be ruined, trust can be broken in those moments. It
is easy to feel as if something tangible has been taken from you, when someone
uses unfair advantages to acquire a temporary advantage. Even if you beat the
cheater, the damage has already been done: you know they don’t always abide by
the rules.
Many independent authors feel that
“book stuffers,” are cheaters. * They see that Amazon offers a relatively fixed
amount of money for authors as part of the Kindle Unlimited program, and they
feel that anyone who may use unfair advantages to earn more page reads is
actually depriving them of that money. There may be some logic to this. There
is a pool of money. If one person gets some of that money, someone else does
not. However, nothing in life is so simple, especially when it comes to the
complex world of publishing. Allowing Amazon to censor the interior and content
of books is an extremely dangerous precedent. More harm has come from
surrendering more power to Amazon than any perceived good that might come from
policing so-called “book stuffing.”
To begin, on June 1, 2018**, Amazon
responded to an increasingly fervent array of calls from independent authors by
formally establishing new rules on bonus content. These rules are widely
acknowledged to be targeted towards “book stuffing.” There are three primary
components to the new controversial bonus content rule: 1) no more than 10% of
an e-book should be “bonus content;” 2) no “disruptive,” links; and, finally,
3) no promises of gifts or rewards.
Many people have called these rules
too lax. An inc.com article*** recently asked that Kindle Unlimited income be
CAPPED AT THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE BOOK.
This essay is meant to explain why
there should be no such rules at all.
Staying on the point above, please
note the liberal use of quotation marks. They were not placed there impulsively
or inadvertently. The terms and rules at issue here are often extremely vague.
After all of the controversy that fomented even mighty Amazon to change, we
still don’t really know what some of these terms mean. Different people define
them different ways. Usually the definitions hinge on how people perceive them
to benefit themselves. Most authors I know, unfortunately, agree passionately
with the idea that bonus content is bad. But, what is bonus content? Ask that
question sometime online and see how many variegated answers you get.
We simply do not have a universal
definition for what constitutes book stuffing. Is it an extra chapter or two?
Is it a teaser? Is a prologue an example of book stuffing? An epilogue? Beyond
the obvious and most relevant terms, the new rules try to satisfy the vaguest
of vagaries from a group who, if we’re honest with ourselves as authors, aren’t
always paragons of consistency. What is “disruptive?” What is a link? What is a
gift and what is a promise?
Remember the context. It may seem
amusing to ask a crowd of adults what the word promise means. But the query
arises under a controversial RULE set by a major company that controls many of
our brands and livelihoods. One reason this topic can be so emotional is
because people feel invested in the outcomes. We’re no longer talking Monopoly
money. Independent authors often do not get compensated very well, and a few
bucks can be a major thing. Authors use the proceeds from their book sales and
page reads for real-life necessities, such as feeding their children.
Moving on, Amazon has already
banned a number of accounts under the new bonus content rules. People that, it
turned out, were and are innocent. Many of those authors are no longer able to
use the biggest BOOK RETAILER on the planet. Why? Because of those rules. If
you didn’t think they were vague, think again.
I myself have been censored by
Amazon due to these rules. Before moving on, it might be worth noting I have
never been accused of book stuffing, and hope I never will be. Nonetheless, I
have been censored into not adding ANY bonus content to my works, because my
competitors in the independent book publishing business might notice and take
offense. The mysterious algorithms in Bezosland might flag me. Yes, algorithms
are the ones doing most of the policing. If nothing else in this essay scares you,
the fact that humans are barely involved in this process should.
Amazon forces users to accept
draconian (and I say illegal) arbitration clauses that essentially obviates
anyone’s ability to sue. So, if you are banned under the new bonus content
rules, you have no real recourse. You can file to have your case heard by an
arbitrator paid and hand-selected by the company you claim harmed you. If you
have the time, resources, knowledge, and money, you might even be able to waste
it getting in front of that arbitrator.
So, the first problem is, the rules
are vague and inconsistently applied, with no legitimate recourse.
Moving on, I often hear the word
theft bandied about in conversations on this topic. Numerous laws exist that
prohibit theft. So, if there are legitimate complaints of theft, anyone can call
their local law enforcement agencies and attempt to file a complaint or refer cases
for criminal prosecution. On a smaller scale, this admittedly might be somewhat
impractical, but if the claims of millions being “stolen,” have any basis in
reality and can be substantiated, there are young, hungry federal prosecutors
who would love to take on such a case. I would strongly urge everyone NOT to
call the police, because America already has an imprisonment problem, and
wasting law enforcement time with petty theft complaints when they could be trying
to find legitimate bad guys is wrong. Not to mention if people did start
getting arrested (and some of them would eventually get acquitted), they would
be forced into surrendering their lives just to get bail, and then probably
would be forced into an overburdened prison system. But, that is all a separate
issue. There are already rules and laws which proscribe stealing. If you think
someone stole from you, report it. Or shut up.
I urge anyone who has ever been
targeted for bonus content to investigate the potential of suing those who call
this theft. It is unfounded and libelous to brand someone as a thief without
evidence or due process. It is not only libelous, it is also dangerous.
Which brings me to the next point.
Third, in an era where people are
hyper-sensitive to the very real threat of censorship from major tech
companies, with parties on all ends of the political spectrum having accounts
banned, often improperly, independent authors are clamoring to give one of those
massive tech companies MORE power. These bonus content rules set a clear
precedent that allows Amazon and its algorithms to monitor the INTERIOR content
of books. Amazon, a distributor, a retailer, can now determine what books
should be sold to the public. At first blush, many people are happy about this.
Amazon is monitoring their books to even the playing field and catch the
supposed thieves. Even if we accept that as true, one must acknowledge the
reality that oftentimes, when a rule begins with good intentions, those good
intentions are subverted and corrupted.
Almost all of us unequivocally abhor
hate speech. I don’t like hate speech. Perhaps Amazon should now extend their
rules on bonus content. We need to level the playing field. Amazon’s algorithms
really need to help protect us from the oppressors who are stealing from us.
Yet, who are the oppressors? Ask around. I bet you’ll get different answers.
One political party has as a fundamental part of its platform that taxation is
theft. Another political party has as a fundamental part of its platform that
corporations are robber barons. So, certainly if we let Amazon determine what
is hate speech, they’ll be fair and unbiased and get things right 100% of the
time, right?
Wrong. WRONG. Wrong in all fucking
capital letters wrong.
Censorship is never a good idea.
Allowing Amazon the ability to censor the contents of a book might be backed by
good intentions, and I can sympathize. I have used Kindle Select, and been
compensated a very small amount for page reads. I am an independent author at
the moment, too. And it is precisely because I am an author that I oppose bonus
content rules. Not because I don’t understand the premise and good intentions.
The people calling for these rules are not bad people. I’m not impugning them
directly. I am, however, casting aspersions on the precedent. Once censorship
begins, it is nearly impossible to ever fully eradicate.
Switching gears, allow me to finish
this with a further point on theft. It is not theft. Yet, many people insist on
calling it that. It may FEEL like theft, and I can empathize. I can.
Nonetheless, let’s examine that point further.
If an author adds 33% (as opposed
to 10%) of bonus content to a book, perhaps as legitimately useless filler
material generated by computer programs, and generates 50 extra page reads from
that content, what harm did you or I suffer? To even begin to make a case that
another author harmed you, you would have to examine genre, comparable titles,
and a host of other related areas. If an author wrote a bi-racial trans erotica
set in Victorian England, even if they DID “stuff,” their book with bonus
content, that would not harm me. Because I do not write bi-racial trans
erotica. There is no overlap between the genres that the accused book stuffer
writes in and the ones I write in. Those page reads would have ended up with
another similar author. Not me. So, I wasn’t harmed.
Beyond that, one must admit we’re
talking fractions of a penny when we discuss Kindle Unlimited page reads.
FRACTIONS OF A PENNY. 1000 page reads translates to roughly $4. Yes, a number
of authors, especially the coveted All Stars, earn a lot of money from their
page reads. For many lesser-known authors, page reads constitute up to half of
their author income. I can sympathize. I understand. Nonetheless, at its root,
the theoretical problem of bonus content revolves around less than a penny.
For those that did suffer
legitimate harms, go to the police. Don’t give the power to Amazon.
Because Amazon has already abused
that power.
* Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited program allows subscribers to
download and peruse unlimited eligible books and content in a curation service
many have likened to a sort of Netflix for books.
No comments:
Post a Comment