Draft2Digital

Is Playster Rejecting LGBT+ Books? (Update: Situation Now Remedied)

Becca Indie Books & Authors, Posts , , ,

PlaysterValuesLike many indie authors, I distribute my books to some retail platforms through Draft2Digital, a company I’ve always found to be competent, responsive, and trustworthy. At some point in the fairly recent past, D2D added Playster to its roster of retail platforms. Playster is a digital entertainment subscription service that includes ebooks, similar to Scribd, Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited program, and the now-defunct Oyster: for $9.95 a month, you can access what Playster advertises as a library of more than 250,000 “premium titles” — “the world’s only truly unlimited ebook service” (source).

Playster’s site is full of the rhetoric of freedom and limitlessness — attempts, I assume, to play off the name of Amazon’s program while distinguishing itself from Scribd, which restricts borrowing within certain genres. Just a sampling: “Entertainment Unlimited is about freedom of choice, and that’s what we’re giving you with Playster” (source); “The best thing about what we’re doing is its limitless potential. … we’re always looking at ways to give you more choice and bring you closer to the things you love” (source); “No Restrictions. … Spend as long as you like enjoying your favorite titles and discovering new things” (source); “World’s Most Diverse Digital Catalogue … Find everything you’re looking for” (source); “Anytime, Anywhere, Anyone … Playster is essential for families needing different things for different people” (source).

Sounds pretty good, right?

Unfortunately, at least four KBoards authors who attempted to distribute LGBT+ themed books to Playster are reporting that those books were rejected, even as their non-LGBT+ books were accepted. According to an email shared by one of these authors, Playster claims “erotic content” as the reason for her books’ rejection. The platform’s Terms of Service do reject content that’s “obscene, vulgar, pornographic, offensive, profane, contains or depicts nudity, contains or depicts sexual activity, or is otherwise inappropriate as determined by [Playster] in [its] sole discretion” (Source). But that prohibition doesn’t seem to offer a convincing rationale for the rejections. This author said her rejected books do have “steamy” scenes, but those scenes are no steamier than what appears in her straight romances that Playster accepted. Furthermore, Playster previously accepted the LGBT+ books of hers that it is now rejecting. Another author said none of her rejected books “has more sexual content than a kiss.” One isn’t even a romance.

Um.

So the catalog is “the world’s most diverse” … so long as we’re talking about straight folks? You can read books that “bring you closer to the things you love” … unless you’d love to read books about gay characters? It’s great for “families needing different things for different people” … but if they have a daughter who likes to read f/f romance, she’s sh*t out of luck? Using Playster “means no restrictions” … except, you know, that one? Seriously, I had to tie my hands behind my back to make myself end the second paragraph of this post. There’s so much “freedom” and “choice” rhetoric in Playster’s verbiage that I got a little irony-drunk.

In 2017, it should go without saying that a book is not “erotic” just because it focuses on gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender characters. Books about LGBT+ people can be erotic or not erotic, just like books about straight, cis-gender people.

I am really hoping this is some kind of mistake.

Playster

Hopefully D2D can liaise with Playster to shed some light on this situation and, if there really is a no-LGBT-books policy at Playster, help us get it changed. I mean, sure, Playster can sell and not sell whatever it chooses. But a policy to exclude LGBT+ books from its catalog would be unacceptable to many readers, as well as to authors on both the indie and traditional sides of publishing.

I encourage authors and readers to contact D2D and/or Playster* and express their concerns. I’ve written to D2D myself. I hadn’t yet distributed my books to Playster, but if I had, I would have pulled them, pending clarification. I’ll certainly update this post as new information comes in. Again, very much hoping these book rejections can be explained in some other way.

*Looks like you might need to use Playster’s live chat feature to contact them. I couldn’t get the “email us” link on the above-linked page to work. The person I chatted with said I would need to send my question here: publishing@playster.com. I’ve done that and will update this post when I get a response.

Update, 9/2/17: Dan Wood, director of author relations at D2D, has chimed in on the KBoards thread to say they’re “working on” the problem. He said he thinks it may be “just a misunderstanding over what is meant by some of the BISAC categories [D2D] sent Playster.”

Update, 9/5/17: Playster has posted in the KBoards thread, saying that it is in “absolutely no way discriminating against LGBTQ+ content.” Their explanation for the rejections is that they have “been receiving books with underage characters, and therefore put a temporary ban on all books labelled ‘erotica’ that are delivered from self-publishing platforms.” They say they are “investigating the possibility that some books have been mislabeled.” I’m glad to see this message and to know Playster rejects discrimination and is trying to fix this problem. The difficulty for me comes in figuring out where and how the “mislabel[ing]” could have happened. An author submits Book MM and Book MF to D2D and chooses to distribute both books to Playster. These books have similar content, and the author does not give either book an “erotica” label or category. Book MM ends up banned by Playster as erotica and Book MF doesn’t. So … when and how was the “erotica” label placed on Book MM, and why wasn’t that label placed on the Book MF?

Update, 9/6/17: Playster posted further on KBoards that they are “investigating the labeling thoroughly, using some of the examples in [the KBoards] thread, to establish exactly what’s happening,” and asking for “patience.” Very glad to know they’re working on the problem.

Update, 9/7/17: Playster has updated the KBoards thread with the following:

After careful investigation of each step of our content ingestion process for self-publishing platforms, we discovered that our restriction on the ‘erotica’ category had unintentionally affected other tags and genres, including LGBTQ+ fiction. We are extremely sorry for our mistake and any hurt it may have caused – it was never our intention to block these titles.

What happens now? The books that were wrongfully declined are currently being added to the Playster catalog where they will join our existing collection of LGBTQ+ titles previously delivered by our other major publishing partners.

Playster takes an extra cautious approach when it comes to self-published fiction because we do not have a large in-house team that is able to thoroughly read and review all titles that are submitted. However, we accept that, in this case, our efforts to solve one problem inadvertently caused another.

We strongly encourage authors to contact us if they have any further problems submitting books to Playster or notice that any titles that should be present are missing. They can do so by emailing us directly at support@playster.com.

So, good news! And, I might add, quite a prompt response, given that the problem came to light over the U.S. Labor Day weekend.

I’ll admit to some lingering curiosity about exactly how Playster’s ban on erotica came to affect other tags and genres in ways not intended. I speculated on one possibility toward the end of this KBoards post, but I have no idea whether that’s actually what happened.

All in all, this seems like a positive resolution. Thanks to D2D and Playster for the quick and productive attention.

Update, 9/8/17: A number of authors are now reporting their LGBT+ books have successfully published to Playster.

eBooks and DMCA Abuse: A Few Suggestions Based on My Experience

Becca News & Opinion , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to the fine people of the indie-publishing community, Nolander has recovered wonderfully from its week’s vacation. Folks on The Passive Voice blog and the Kboards Writers’ Cafe urged downloads, and a number of discounted/free book sites spontaneously advertised the book: big thanks to OHFB, Pixel of Ink, Flurries of Words, eBookDaily, and Free Kindle Books for your generous help. With so many people in its corner, Nolander got a couple thousand downloads and bounced up into the top two hundred free books on Amazon. It was an amazing and moving thing to see. The self-publishing community is strikingly diverse, and we don’t always agree on stuff. But we’re there for each other at the big moments, and that tendency to act together — fostered by those sites that give us places to gather — gives us some leverage. Thank you all so much for using that leverage on my behalf.

Now, I think we need to keep applying leverage: how retailers respond to DMCA take-down notices needs adjustment.

The best-case scenario is that my experience was a one-off event — that my scammer had something against me, personally, and this won’t happen to anyone else. Fingers crossed that’s the case. But it might not be. This could’ve been a money-making scheme, with the target being selected wholly or partly at random. Worst-case scenario, Nolander was a trial balloon for someone(s) with bigger plans.

I think distributors and retailers need to figure out how they’re going to deal with this sort of thing if it happens again. It’s obviously no good for retailer sites to become hunting preserves where scammers troll around, looking for their next mark. And if retailers unintentionally and unwittingly ended up making blackmail easier in a consistent way, that would be awful.

Solving this problem is probably above my pay grade. I hope the retailers have people working on it, and that they come up with better and more creative ideas than mine. But FWIW, here’s what I’d suggest:

  1. Send the author the full name, email address, and physical mailing address of the filer of any DMCA notice immediately. Include a link to the evidence of copyright infringement the filer submitted. These things did not happen in my case. From one retailer, I received the name and email address only; from the other, I received none of the above.
  2. If the author submits a DMCA counter-notice, restore the book to the site within the time-frame stipulated by the DMCA. What I’m recommending here would, apparently, be a significant change of policy. Unlike ISPs, retailers consider themselves exempt from the counter-noticing provisions of the DMCA (I don’t know if this is a reasonable assumption, on their parts, or a legally established status). On the face of things, the exemption makes some sense: retailers have the right to sell whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, right? If Amazon wants to refuse to sell any book with the word “The” in the title, it can go ahead and do that, so far as I know. The problem with this approach is that the counter-noticing provision is the DMCA’s one and only safeguard against abuse by non-U.S. residents, who cannot be curbed through the U.S. courts. It was built into the law for a reason. If retailers react to noticing (as they must) while ignoring counter-noticing, they render the law dysfunctional and create a dangerous imbalance of power.
  3. Put some well trained people to work actually looking at the evidence submitted with DMCA notices and counter-notices. (So far as I can tell, this did not happen in my case. The evidence seems to have initially been accepted without examination.) A retailer must remove a book if it receives a DMCA notice. So far as I know, there’s no way around that rule, even if the notice is obviously fraudulent. But does the law say a retailer cannot then reach out to the book’s author and suggest independent resources that would help the author move forward with appropriate counter-noticing? Not that I know of. So, in cases where they see clear evidence of fraud, retailers should reach out to authors in this way, IMO. Perhaps authors identified as potential victims of fraud could be directed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation or some other source of assistance.
  4. Indie authors should support any organization that steps up to provide effective advice and assistance in these matters, especially if caseloads rise in the future. I’m sure even small donations would help. We don’t have large corporate legal departments standing behind us. (That’s something traditionally published authors get in exchange for their lower royalty rates.) Sending some of our profits to organizations that help with this sort of thing would probably be a good idea.

Would these changes solve the problem completely? I don’t think so. But they’re the best ideas I’ve been able to come up with. If you think of other possibilities, please share them.

Distributors and retailers obviously have a big stake in this issue, legally. But the repercussions for individual authors may be even bigger, when you consider possible career impact. If we have ideas to offer, we should make them heard. Perhaps we can help our book-selling partners make the marketplace safer for all.

With deep thanks, Happy reading to all!

Becca

P.S. Not sure what this is all about? Start here.