PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books

[IAN 2411]

PayPal backtracks on "obscene" e-book policy
Reuters – 21.52hrs/13 Mar 2012

By Alistair Barr
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - PayPal, the online payment service owned by eBay Inc (EBAY.O), is backtracking on its policy against processing sales of e-books containing themes of rape, bestiality or incest after protests from authors and anti-censorship activist groups.
PayPal's new policy will focus only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text, spokesman Anuj Nayar said on Tuesday. The service will still refuse, however, to process payments for text-only e-books containing child pornography themes.
The revised policy will also focus on individual books, rather than entire classes of books, he added. E-book sellers will be notified if specific books violate PayPal's policy, and the company is working on a process through which authors and distributors can challenge such notifications, the spokesman said.
"This is going to be a major victory for writers, readers and free speech," said Mark Coker, founder of e-book distributor Smashwords. "They are going to build a protective moat around legal fiction."
PayPal warned Smashwords and some other e-book publishers and distributors earlier this year that it would "limit" their PayPal accounts unless they removed e-books "containing themes of rape, incest, bestiality and underage subjects."
PayPal's original policy was criticized by groups, including the Authors Guild and the National Coalition Against Censorship, which voiced concern that banks and payment companies may be exerting too much control over what books can be written, published and read.
PayPal is relaxing the policy after the main credit card companies made a distinction between extreme pornographic images and e-books that explore such topics with only the written word.
PayPal told e-book distributors earlier this year that the original policy was in place partly because the banks and credit card companies it works with restrict such content.
However, Doug Michelman, global head of corporate relations for Visa Inc (V.N), suggested that the company would not crack down on e-books that explore such topics, according to a letter he wrote that was posted on the blog Banned Writers. A Visa spokesperson confirmed that the letter was real.
"The sale of a limited category of extreme imagery depicting rape, bestiality and child pornography is or is very likely to be unlawful in many places and would be prohibited on the Visa system whether or not the images have formally been held to be illegal in any particular country," Michelman wrote. "Visa would take no action regarding lawful material that seeks to explore erotica in a fictional or educational manner."
A MasterCard (MA.N) spokesman drew a similar distinction on Tuesday, saying that the company "would not take action regarding the use of its cards and systems for the sale of lawful materials that seek to explore erotica content of this nature."
PayPal's new policy will still prohibit the use of its service for sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest, the spokesman said.
PayPal has not shut down the accounts of any e-books publishers involved in this debate, he added.
PayPal's continued limit on child pornography is consistent with Smashwords' existing policies and those of the retailers it works with, Coker said. He met with top PayPal legal representatives on Monday.
"Child exploitation is at the center of their concerns -- no erotic content for fiction involving underage people," Coker said.
However, Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, was still concerned about PayPal's approach.
"Verbal descriptions of child pornography are not illegal. "That's why we can read Lolita." she said. "Actual images of child pornography are a different situation all together -- if they are photos of actual children."
"I'm glad they're moving in the right direction, but I hope they continue to consider potential problems they are creating for themselves and their customers by getting involved in such policing," Bertin added. "I don't think we need another quasi police force trolling the Internet."
......................................

Authors won....PayPal lost....the status quo upheld

Be well IAN 2411

[lucy]

Very good and thanks for posting, Ian.

[lucy]

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books. It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

And the best would be to have a Paypal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify

[thir]

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

No offence, some times I have trouble explaining myself properly.

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books.

This is exactly what I do not understand. Why should selling a service to people give anyone the right to try to force moral/religious/political or any other ideas on them? One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. If anyone wants to promote their convictions, there are plenty of media where this can be done. But I cannot for the life of me see how my personal reading or personal life has anything what so ever to do with my baker or my dentist, or my pay pal servicer.

It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

But why?

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

I agree with the hammer and anvil picture. Buy maybe, if everybody told the banks to stay out of other people's business, these things would not happen. I haven't heard of a bank in UK or DK which tried to interfere with people's reading or any other thing. If I am wrong, will someone please correct me, but so far I haven't.

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

I agree, but how in this case? Pay pal gets the heat because they are the ones to make conditions.

And the best would be to have a Pay
pal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

If it is a majority..?

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify

And they always turn themselves towards the sun :-)

[ksst]

The anti porn creed comes from both the left and the right. From the left it is phrased as not denigrating women, from the right it is phrased as upholding morality. Either way, I think they are wrong. I am a leftist on some issues, but on the porn/ freedom of buying/selling writing it I'm squarely on the side of .... Who? I guess the libertarians. Or the perverts.

[lucy]

thir, Paypal doesn't want to force their morals down our throats. At least that's what I believe.
Why they feel the need to do that I don't know. The only reason I can think of is that the political and social climate in one of their key markets leads them to believe that it's possible their business might get harmed or even shut down because of their enabling smut to be purchased.
As to which key market that might be: Your guess is probably as good as mine.