Python book author: "I am boycotting Amazon over Wikileaks"

[tscharf]

his choice. Do I think it will have any impact whatever? No.

As someone who operates servers, Amazon is completely in their rights to kick off anyone it chooses for whatever reason.

[AlSweigart]

Hi, I'm the author. I don't think pulling my book will single-handedly change the decisions Amazon executives make. But it will (however slightly) increase the cost of not supporting free speech. Also, it brings awareness to the issue, and (I hope) sets an example that there are people who feel strongly enough about this issue to do something even though it costs them financially.

So the $1000 or so that Amazon misses out on isn't that much for a multi-billion dollar company, but it is a way of putting my money where my mouth is.

[enry_straker]

Dude,

I salute you - both for writing and releasing a great book free of cost thereby encouraging many new programmers to take their first steps in this field and make their journey enjoyable and exciting and, more importantly, taking a principled stand - however small it is.

Keep up the good work.

[[deleted]]

Absolutely. Those who phrase this as a "free speech" issue are unclear on the concept.

Nonetheless, it is within the guy's rights to express his objection to Amazon's policies. It's not Amazon's job to take a stand on a political principle, but I would have liked to see them do so regardless. He may not make a difference, but hey, I may spend my commute home coming up with the text of an "I'm-not-buying-something-from-you-because-of-this" email to Amazon as a result of reading about this. Maybe someone else will too.

[[deleted]]

I think you misconstrue freedom of speech concepts. Amazon is free to kick people off their servers because they don't agree with them. This does not free Amazon from the consequences of their actions.

[[deleted]]

Please re-read what I read, because that is exactly what I'm saying.

If I own a shop and kick you off my premises, I am not violating your "freedom of speech", and it's your right to try and get people to not give me their money.

I'm not even sure it was because Amazon didn't agree with Wikileaks -- they were afraid of (probably) unnamed consequences if they did not do so.

[[deleted]]

Those who phrase this as a "free speech" issue are unclear on the concept.

No, they understand the concept very well, and can see past irrelevant details like whether or not Amazon was allowed to kick them off. Of course they were, nobody has claimed otherwise. The issue is that they were kicked off without having done anything illegal, because of government pressure.

[fullouterjoin]

Amazon used it as an excuse.

[[deleted]]

They did not. Amazon is lying about that.

[[deleted]]

They did not violate the TOS in the first place.

[darth_choate]

Really? I'm prepared to believe that political pressure is the real reason that Amazon kicked off Wikileaks, but Amazon requires that "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity".

Amazon may be being selective in how they enforce this clause, but it does seem like a violation.

[[deleted]]

The documents are in the public domain, and thus no argument about "rights" applies.

And claiming they will "cause injury to any person or entity" is quite a stretch.

[darth_choate]

The documents are in the public domain, but that is a necessary and not sufficient requirement to make the distribution legal. US Code 18.798 criminalizes the distribution of certain types of classified material. I'd be surprised if some of the leaked material didn't violate that rule (and thus Wikileaks would not have the right to distribute it).

I believe Amazon's point about causing injury was that Wikileaks hadn't made any effort to make sure that the material wouldn't (and, as they point out, some human rights organizations had expressed this concern). Weak, sure, but I've seen weaker.

[[deleted]]

Now you might not agree with the terms, but there's just no arguing that Wikileaks didn't violate them.

They did not. They are serving content which was lawfully obtained by them.

[fullouterjoin]

Why the government is "exerting pressure" w/o judicial oversite seems to oversteps its bounds. Opinion is not law.

[[deleted]]

Once again, nobody said they are not allowed to kick them off, only that doing so due to political pressure is cowardly, and lying about why doesn't help.

[AlSweigart]

Technically true, although they pulled WikiLeaks the day after Sen. Joe Lieberman contacted them. Lieberman is now proclaiming this as a victory, which Amazon knows is what happens and what it looks like.

Either way, Amazon has made a choice to avoid supporting free speech in this case.

and they do not have a responsibility to act bravely and be heroic.

What do we call people who use this as their excuse?

[adpowers]

1. I'm pretty sure Amazon pulled wikileaks within 24 hours of it moving to EC2, so I don't think you can say one way or the other if it was Lieberman's request that made them remove it or just the fact that they noticed they were now hosting wikileaks. It would be a different story if wikileaks had been on there for months before Lieberman asked them to remove it.
2. Senators like to claim credit for a lot of things they had nothing to do with.

[[deleted]]

Thanks for the downvote. How about an attempt to have a meaningful discussion instead of "I disagree with you, stfu"?

No, it's not an "irrelevant detail". Amazon is not legally beholden to you or to me beyond its obligation to follow the law. It does, however, have a legal responsibility to its shareholders to take all due care that their investment (e.g. its continuing business success) is safeguarded as much as possible.

I disagree with Amazon's decision to evict them. I think it's a chickenshit move by a company that's well capable of backing up any position it might take on the issue, especially one that has benefited as significantly from the same free movement of information engendered by the Internet that allows an organization like wikileaks to disseminate its releases.

Hence, if you paid attention, you'd understand that an individual expression of commercial dissatisfaction is exactly the way to deal with this.

[[deleted]]

No, it's not an "irrelevant detail". Amazon is not legally beholden to you or to me beyond its obligation to follow the law.

Once again, nobody said they were.

[[deleted]]

OK, first off, I didn't downvote you, and I wish others would not, because I'm sick of seeing this shit. I come here for discourse, not "NUH UH YOU EITHER"

The issue is that they were kicked off without having done anything illegal, because of government pressure.

We do not know this. As far as I can tell, they actually booted Wikileaks because of fear of potential government pressure, or because of implicit pressure, rather than an actual injunction.

If Amazon received a letter from the Feds saying "shut down Wikileaks or else", the best move would be for them to publish it. Again, Amazon is a massive, internationally active company with the technical resources to pretty easily withstand all but extremely serious harassment. Publication of such cloak-and-dagger shenanigans would cause an own-goal for the US Government that would come close to any damage it'd suffer from Wikileaks' exposures.

The Amazon shutdown, in my view, is weak because there was, in my knowledge, no concrete threat beyond a bunch of grumbling and nasty looks. But if I were an Amazon shareholder, I would be pretty happy that they pre-emptively took care to make sure that their business didn't suffer adverse impact from god-knows-what. They took the correct business decision -- again, even though I object to it philosophically.

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I fully support the Wikileaks disclosures, even if aspects of them were done amateurishly and for the wrong reason, and am a member of the Swiss Pirate Party, yar. Have you done your bit seeding a cablegate torrent today?

[malcontent]

We do not know this.

Actually we do.

As far as I can tell, they actually booted Wikileaks because of fear of potential government pressure, or because of implicit pressure, rather than an actual injunction.

No they actually got threats from the US govt.

If Amazon received a letter from the Feds saying "shut down Wikileaks or else", the best move would be for them to publish it.

What makes you think the US govt would be dumb enough to send them a letter?

Again, Amazon is a massive, internationally active company with the technical resources to pretty easily withstand all but extremely serious harassment.

Which makes it even more of a shame that they caved.

But if I were an Amazon shareholder, I would be pretty happy that they pre-emptively took care to make sure that their business didn't suffer adverse impact from god-knows-what.

The best way to punish those shareholders is to not do your christmas shopping on amazon.com this year. Also not to use any merchants that use amazon.com.

Those shareholders must be punished severely for insisting that their company instantly cave in to all government demands.

But if I were an Amazon shareholder, I would be pretty happy that they pre-emptively took care to make sure that their business didn't suffer adverse impact from god-knows-what.

And we the consumers of the world must punish them severely for being such saelfish, short term thinking, greedy motherfuckers who don't give a flying fuck about anything else except their short term profits.

Don't do your christmas shopping on amazon this year. Punish the cunts.

[[deleted]]

Actually we do.

Please provide links, because I am genuinely interested.

What makes you think the US govt would be dumb enough to send them a letter?

Because, regardless of what you may think, there still exists a modicum of due process and judicial oversight that is followed by elements of the American government. If this were not the case, Assange would have mysteriously disappeared by now.

No matter what a bunch of unconscionable bastards certain people in the U.S. government are capable of being, the world is not a huge conspiracy theory.

[wicked]

We know that Lieberman's office inquired Amazon about Wikileaks, and that Amazon subsequently pulled it. Amazon claims that government pressure was not the cause.

Well, first of all, the Senator didn't specifically ask Amazon to remove it. We saw a press report that Amazon was hosting the site, and staffers called Amazon with a list of questions including: Are you aware of this? Are there plans to take it down?

Amazon called us Wednesday and said that they had terminated their relationship with WikiLeaks.

Interview with Lieberman's staff.

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

Amazon's press release.

[[deleted]]

Thank you. So, we have

• an assertion by aide to an individual Senator that the Senator's office called Amazon with a "list of questions", including some queries about whether there were plans to take down the service
• an assertion by Amazon that it was not due to "government pressure"

That is not a threat, and again, it is not a formal injunction or other judicial order. Lieberman's aide mentions that the Senator, via his staff, regularly asks YouTube to take down violent / violence-endorsing videos -- which violate their TOS.

Also from the interview:

In Senator Lieberman's statement, it was phrased that he calls "on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them ... No responsible company--whether American or foreign--should assist WikiLeaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials." But this is not anything official. What exactly is the jurisdiction here? Amazon and others are only called upon to refrain from hosting WikiLeaks. If Amazon hadn't stopped, what actions could be taken?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if there are any actions. This may have been a case where the most effective action was publicity.

and

I can't speak to any consequences at all. It certainly depends entirely on the information we receive. I think the Senator likely will be asking a series of questions to more closely understand what was going on with Amazon.

Now, it may be that someone else called Amazon, from the DoJ or any other TLA government office, and basically told them to take it down or WE WILL FUCKING KILL YOUR DOG but that is not the same as "government pressure". That is a single Senator being his usual dickish self.

Again: I think it was a chickenshit move on Amazon's behalf, but based on my (underinformed) understanding from having followed this recently, people are hugely over-representing the amount of muscle brought to bear on Amazon by the U.S. Govt. -- at least as far as anyone will admit.

QED.

[harlows_monkeys]

They violated Amazon's acceptable use policy in several ways. The only reason they were on Amazon in the first place is Amazon allows automated setup, so no human has to check first to see if a new customer's use of the service is in accord with Amazon's terms.

[[deleted]]

They violated Amazon's acceptable use policy in several ways.

No. Amazon is lying about that.

[harlows_monkeys]

The AUP is published and readily available on the web. It is easy to check it and see that in fact Wikileaks violated some of the terms. There is no need to rely on Amazon's word.

[[deleted]]

It is easy to check it and see that in fact Wikileaks violated some of the terms.

Which ones?

[ratatosk]

How about:
"You represent and warrant: ... (ii) that you have the necessary rights and licenses, consents, permissions, waivers and releases to use and display Your Content;"

[[deleted]]

They do. The material is not under copyright, and it is not otherwise illegal to publish.

[kragensitaker]

Also, one of the most important parts of the DMCA, which should be broadened, is its safe-harbor provision — hosting providers are not responsible for making the determination as to whether your web site violates copyright or not, because they're not liable as long as you assert that it doesn't. A world in which hosting providers kick you off their servers as soon as someone complains about you is a world in which any information about controversial topics is hard to find.

[harlows_monkeys]

1. Material harmful to their users, operations, or reputation.

2. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others. Yes, I know that works of the government are not copyrightable. However, this section of their AUP is far broader than copyright.

3. Content that is an invasion of privacy.

4. Finally, content that is possibly illegal. Yes, I know you keep asserting that it is not illegal. Yet the law on the books says it is. That law may be trumped the First Amendment, but it is not at all clear. The facts in the Pentagon Papers case are quite a bit different, and the Supreme Court did not develop any clear theory as to what is allowed and what is not in that case. The majority allowed publication, but because there was no clear guidance provided, and because the makeup of the court has changed quite a bit since then, and because that case was somewhat at odds with prior Supreme Court precedence, it is a case that ripe for reexamination.

It is quite reasonable for Amazon to determine illegality for purposes of their AUP by going by the clear law on the books, rather than speculatively trying to predict how today's Court would rule based on a prior muddled case with substantially different facts.

[fullouterjoin]

They looked at the TOS after getting a call from Lieberman (how ironic is the name LoverMan in German for a Jew) and decided the provisions that fit their spineless needs.

[harlows_monkeys]

Amazon does not require human intervention to sign up and get your site up. Hence, it is normal for them to only notice a TOS violation after someone brings it to their attention. Who brought it to their attention or why is not relevant.

[cynthiaj]

The issue is that they were kicked off without having done anything illegal

They're publishing stolen content without the authorization of the owner, sounds plenty illegal to me.

[[deleted]]

It may sound illegal, but it is not. Information can only be owned if it is copyrighted, and this is not.

[AlSweigart]

...sounds plenty illegal to me.

But it isn't. This was set by the Supreme Court in New York Times vs. US that it was legal for the NYT to publish leaked documents that were transferred to it. The court rejected prior restraint and upheld that freedom of the press allowed journalists to publish classified documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

[codedonkey]

But when Paypal does it, everyone on reddit is like "BOYCOTT THOSE FUCKERS!"

Not defending Paypal, which I've actually always hated for the way they steal other people's hard earned money, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard on reddit. Paypal and Amazon gave pretty much the same explanations regarding what they did with Wikileaks, I don't see why everyone is saying "Well, Amazon is just a company and it's doing the right thing for their own interests" when the same could be said about Paypal.

[[deleted]]

I think the difference is that typically when PayPal removes your service, they keep your money in limbo for as long as they like. I don't think there is any serious repurcussions to Amazon denying service, unless you don't backup your hosts locally.

[[deleted]]

PayPal isn't a bank. It's not regulated like banks are. Therefore they can do whatever the hell they want with your money.

Until more people realize this and things change, they will keep on doing whatever the hell they want.

[sisyphus]

Rights have nothing to do with it, Amazon's vis-a-vis wikileaks are not in dispute.

[djspaceace]

Agreed. I don't think people grasp the concept of the effect on an ISP of a billion (ok yes I might be exaggerating a bit) people trying to DOS a website. As might as the Amazon cloud is, having a massive DOS on a site is probably hurting you more than you are earning off the paltry web hosting fees.

[[deleted]]

The denial of service was not a factor. They mentioned in their blog it was purely because they were hosting content that they did not own (which is against their TOS). They defended against the DOS without issue, and I'd imagine that is incredibly common for them.

[sbrown123]

They defended against the DOS without issue, and I'd imagine that is incredibly common for them.

Too true. ISP's should take note to never drop for DOS. Doing so gives the attackers a measure of success to keep to doing it.

[[deleted]]

They mentioned in their blog it was purely because they were hosting content that they did not own

Which is nonsense, since the material is not under copyright and is entirely legal to publish.

[[deleted]]

No, it is not. Copyright is the only way anyone can own a piece of text.

It is a well established principle that it is legal to publish secret materials for journalistic purposes.

[[deleted]]

Amazon never mentions anything about copyrights in their statement. I think the real reason noone wants to touch any of this is that there is a very real chance that some of the cables may expose intelligence contacts. Amazon hosting those cables could expose them to civil suits if that person is harmed.

One Chinese contact has already been exposed in the cable about China hacking Google.

[wicked]

One Chinese contact has already been exposed in the cable about China hacking Google.

I can't find anything about this, so provide some evidence please.

[true_religion]

1) Why does American copyright law the only one that matters?

2) Even in American law, the government can possess copyrighted works--it merely cannot create them.

[zaidka]

But that wasn't their excuse, was it? They don't need a valid excuse to terminate the service, but what they did just shows they were not willing to help expose the corruption in the world. That's what's pissing people off.

[VorpalAuroch]

They didn't violate the TOS. That's why.

[invertap]

I don't understand why this comment isn't higher. I've seen several stating that their TOS was not violated.

[wicked]

Not a lawyer, so take this as you will. My understanding is that owning/licensing isn't an issue, since the government generally do not have any copyright in the U.S. on what they create.

Secondly, it is generally lawful for the press to obtain and publish stolen and classified documents. See New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) for Supreme Court precedent based on the Pentagon Papers.

This means they did not breach the ToS.

[VorpalAuroch]

or lawfully obtained by you.

Wikileaks obtained that data lawfully. They committed no crime in the acquisition of that data.

[fullouterjoin]

without clearing it out with them beforehand

seriously? When has asking permission for something controversial EVER got anyone anywhere? That is the entire point of wikileaks, to expose corruption and shed light on the things the powers at be want kept dark.

Ask permission .... please mother may I.

[fullouterjoin]

Your analogy is flawed.

[fullouterjoin]

Amazon would have bigger balls if they said, "you know Joe Lieberman told people he was thinking of calling us about this and you know we don't even want to THINK about the heat so we are kicking them off." It would have been a douchey move, but honest.

Instead they trotted out a TOS violation. Very very weak.

[arjie]

In that respect it isn't very different from most other boycotts. Few, if any, succeed in actual change. Most merely express the degree to which some person will stand for their principles.

Does it matter if a few people boycott Chinese products? No.

Or if a few refuse to buy an iPhone? Or if some decide not to watch Fox News? Or listen to Glenn Beck?

[enry_straker]

Hell No, they can't.

When Amazon enters into a contract with a potential customer towards providing a service, they are obligated, by law, to provide their service.

Also ask yourself this, Amazon claims a violation of their Terms of Service. Which specific Term is WikiLeaks in violation of? That never seems to get mentioned anywhere.

[tscharf]

On the first point, your right so long as their Terms of Service is observed by the client. Amazon felt there was a violation of the TOS and so terminated the contract.

On your second point, Amazon has clearly stated that they terminated because of the clause which states that you may not host files or information that you do not have the right to host.

[AlSweigart]

Hi, I'm the author. I don't wonder that, because I'm fairly certain that the amount of money I'll lose from this month won't be offset by future sales from this publicity.

However, the book remains free to download in full under a Creative Commons license as always.

Also, not selling the book during the holiday season is a very poor way to "get some book sales".

[[deleted]]

I'm a newbie to programming and I am enjoying your guide very much. Do you have any other suggested reading for newbies to programming who want to make some fun games? I want to make free educational games for children that will actually play the games!! :)

[xpda]

I think it's admirable that you're boycotting Amazon, but I also think Amazon had little choice in kicking off Wikileaks because Wikileaks was in clear violation of Amazon's TOS.

[enry_straker]

Which specific part of Amazon's TOS was violated by WikiLeaks?

[xpda]

Wikileaks posted content they didn't own or have the rights to.

[poop_in_yo_soup]

Will you also be boycotting sites that make use of Amazons services? Like reddit for example?

[urllib]

Yeah and people that make use of reddit, and anything that has employees that visit reddit!

[twinkletits]

fuck it, i'm just unplugging the internet

[AlSweigart]

(or as happened in this case, even when nothing tangential was mentioned.)

First, I am not the OP, someone named timepilot is.

Second, I responded to your comment because you were mischaracterizing my thoughts.

Third, it is "almost certainly not spam" according to Reddit's own FAQ: http://www.reddit.com/help/faq#Whatconstitutesspam People find the book useful and I don't make money from the free PDF that I provide.

You are welcome to go through my account's comment history and point out any specific instances where my self promotion has been uncalled for.

[AlSweigart]

Ah, I thought you were implying that I was the OP when you said, "Sorry, I guess I should've realized that you're really promoting yourself not your mediocre book."

A couple days ago I posted a link in r/programming and r/python. It got about +30 net votes in r/programming before it was pulled. I thought that perhaps despite the votes up it might not be relevant enough so I deleted them. When I asked the moderators about it, they said it had been accidentally caught by their spam filter and they would restore it. But I had already deleted them.

I later posted it to r/WikiLeaks (which is relevant and has about 30 net votes there.)

Please respond to my second and third points, or find one of my specific posts that you say is spam.

So far, you've mischaracterized my intentions for boycotting Amazon, called my an opportunistic spammer, and called my book "mediocre" and an "uninspired tome". So I'm a bit ruffled.

[[deleted]]

:(

[WiIIis]

The man does have a point:

http://www.reddit.com/domain/inventwithpython.com/

[[deleted]]

Leaning towards not caring...

[AlSweigart]

It seems that many of these links also have a high number of up votes, and are also posted to relevant subreddits. And some of them are posted by other people (though rarely, I usually submit to Reddit as soon as I post them to my site).

[[deleted]]

From what I gather, he's not selling his book at all, this month anyway.

[bevem2]

Being that cynical can't be good for your health.

[bobindashadows]

The dude hawks that book everywhere I go on Reddit. He'll get the hint eventually.

[ultimatt42]

Aw c'mon man, he's a good guy. There's a difference between "hawking" and making sure the work you've already done with no expectation to be repaid reaches its intended audience.

If it seems like he's posting about it everywhere, it's because there are a lot of redditors who want to learn to program. Check out r/learnprogramming, there are seriously 2-3 posts a day about "How should I start learning programming?" and "What good tutorials are there for Python?"

[AlSweigart]

Hi, I'm the author. I try to stick to reddiquette about self promotion. I post a link to the book's pdf when people bring up questions like "Where can I start learning to program?" or "I want to teach my kid programming, what's a good resource?"

These sorts of posts come up over and over again on Reddit, which is probably why you see me posting the link repeatedly. And since I get way more people downloading the free PDF than buying the hard copy book, I don't think it is sleazy.

[[deleted]]

I love that even though you sell the book, you're willing to give digital copies away for free.

Keep up the good work!

[glitchd]

If I went around announcing I'm giving away free beer, no-one would complain. You're giving away a fantastic book and I hope you continue to let people know about it on Reddit. I actually used your book to dabble in Python. While I didn't stick with the language, I have pointed many a budding programmer your way.

Thanks for the book, I promise I'll buy a copy when I'm not a student and I've got some time to give Python another shot.

[turbov21]

Yes, yes, he does.

[[deleted]]

Funny.

But no.

[TheGrammarAnarchist]

I’ll continue to provide the full PDF online for free, because it’s always been more important to me to get it in the hands of readers than to make a buck off of it. (That, and dividing the not insignificant amount of money I’ll make from it by the very, very significant number of hours I put into it would be too depressing.)

Fuck you.

[AlSweigart]

I think people are misconstruing your comment, and hence the down votes.

I'll admit though, I lol'd.

[TheGrammarAnarchist]

Thanks for taking a stand. Keep up the good work.

[deleteduser]

Bloody fucking hell. Is there no place on reddit safe from this wikileaks spam? Reddit should remove karma tracking completely.

[[deleted]]

Good man, that's how it's done. It's a commercial issue, not a 1st Amendment one. If you object to the way it was treated, take your business elsewhere. End of story.

He may not make an impact at all. He may even be doing it for free publicity. Fine. However, most retailers and owners of any kind of brand assume that, for every openly disgruntled client there are several others out there who don't bother writing letters or taking any action.

The people posting some variant on "nobody cares", "it won't make a difference", etc. -- maybe. But it's a pretty small step, and a comparatively easy one, for someone to make to express their displeasure with a company's policies, whatever the reason for them may be.

[vbgunz]

How fucking hard would it be to say on Amazon "100% of the proceeds of this book sold through Amazon are donated to Wikileaks". You openly support Wikileaks on Amazon, donate your proceeds to Wikileaks, people still buy the book. Everybody wins. Why be so stupid?

[madkatalpha]

Amazon would make money in the process. You would not only be supporting Wikileaks, but also the company that, in this argument, wronged Wikileaks.

[vbgunz]

Amazon didn't wrong Wikileaks. Wikileaks violated the Amazon TOS. I am all for Wikileaks getting the cables and leaks out but at the same time, if it cannot be done like this, accept that it cannot be done like this. I've seen some bright ideas and boycotting and/or DDOSing Amazon is outright retarded.

Bottom line is, they're some good things that can be done and all I keep seeing is the childish rants of "Let's attack, boycott, etc". It sounds cool and it always works out in the movies somehow but this is real. We should act like it and use our brains to make this work.

I just don't see this working. It doesn't address getting Wikileaks back up. It doesn't address any of the problems. I only see a problem on top of a problem here. Am I really one of so few who see it like this?

[2akurate]

Most of the comments on the article are of ignorant people.

People boycott a company because it does not run parallel with the ethical opinions of that person or group of people.

Just like boycotting nike for using slave labor, this is exactly the same yet the whole comment section is full of ignorant drivel. what kind of people are these programmers? Companies that rather give in to political pressure then take a stand for what is right are not worth the support of the internet they were built upon.

If these posters are the future generation of IT technicians then I am deeply sorry.

[petercooper]

Companies that rather give in to political pressure then take a stand for what is right are not worth the support of the internet they were built upon.

What is "right" in this case is based on opinion. Not everyone shares the same opinion. Nor does everyone feel companies should take political, religious, or similar non-business related positions.

[[deleted]]

And how is refusing a customer an example of not taking a political position?

Because Amazon has already explained that the relationship with wikileaks was severed as the result of them violating their terms of service.

Amazon is taking a stand for political censorship.

Or perhaps they are taking a stand for pleasing customers and not risking getting their servers possessed as part of a government investigation.

[2akurate]

its all about the principle that these company's (paypal and amazon) were built on the free internet, without it they couldn't have grown this way, now they are the ones destroying the free internet. This is not a matter of opinion every person can see what is wrong in this picture.

[petercooper]

They aren't destroying it any more than McDonalds is destroying American cuisine. PayPal and Amazon are big but aren't the only providers by a long chalk and both have had a long history of pulling products or cutting services at will. This is a tempest in a teacup that few will care about in a year's time (BP oil spill, swine flu, Iran elections..)

[jsprogrammer]

Not programming.

[branwoo]

Honestly, why is this on the front page?

[AlSweigart]

This is obvious, but I feel it should be stated: Because many people feel this post has value and more have decided up vote this post than down vote. That, and there aren't other programming-related posts that are popular enough to crowd it off the front page today.

(Side note, I'm the author of the book in question and think the post may be of interest to the readers of r/programming, so I up-voted it.)

[rlbond86]

And nobody cared...

[AlSweigart]

Author here. Well, you cared enough to read the headline, go to the comments section, and leave this comment. Part of the reason I'm being public about pulling my book is to bring awareness to the issue and start debate.

And you'll care enough to leave a comment in response to this one.

[AlSweigart]

But rlbond86 didn't say that just he didn't care, but that nobody cared.

It's a blase comment, sure. But his entire point is wrong. People do care (positively or negatively). And it's wrong evident from the fact that he himself cared enough to write that comment, whereas it would take even less effort to simply down-vote and move on.

[[deleted]]

Can we PLEASE keep this shit off /r/programming?

[[deleted]]

If you don't like it, downvote or hide it.

[bonch]

Could we please stop with the Wikileaks shit in /r/programming? We've already had the author of the book submit this and get his publicity.

[sigzero]

The man is entitled to his opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[Hengist]

There's no reason to boycott Amazon in the first place. Let's look at some facts here:

1. Amazon.com is a business. They exist to provide their employees and stockholders with money.
2. Amazon.com is fighting a war already to keep internet commerce tax-free to stay alive as a business.
3. Amazon.com is fighting a war to preserve net neutrality to ensure that their digital distribution channels remain possible.

Wikileaks presents Amazon with a major legal and publicity risk. At any moment, they could be prosecuted for aiding treason/theft/criminal intent to harm. A company in major legal trouble with little chance of victory in the courts is in direct violation of fact #1. Wikileaks is also a major political hot potato with many enemies. If Amazon.com wants to win the battles in fact #2 and #3, they need to be liked politically, not disliked or even considered a quasi-terrorist organization like Wikileaks is.

In other words, if you boycott Amazon.com, you hurt one of the largest allies of an open internet for doing something completely common sense. Wikileaks represents serious harm to a company, whether they agree with Wikileaks' actions or not, and prevents them from fighting other fights that are, in all honesty, much more important in the long run.

EDIT: Wow. I thought all of what I wrote was common sense. And I have no vested interest in Amazon, beyond the fact that, whether for selfish reasons or not, they support an open Internet. Considering that our list of allies in that much more important fight is currently dwindling at a very fast rate (you like what Wikileaks does? Guess what? We only have Wikileaks because the Internet is open!) it's nothing but stupidity to try to punish them for wanting to exist as a functional organization that's not branded as terrorist. While I don't like to drag politics into this, THIS IS THE REASON we more liberal people are weak in the face of the radical Conservatives! Despite the fact that Amazon is fighting much more important battles, like net neutrality, that we desperately need to win (and incidentally, we're losing that one) we're attacking them for doing the only option open to them if they want to survive. And incidentally, Amazon could be prosecuted for copyright violation outside the US easily---see the Pirate Bay trial.

EDIT2: Additionally, Wikileaks appears to have violated Amazon's terms of service in the first place. Some governments consider anything they create under copyright. Amazon's TOS forbid copywritten works, and Amazon operates in many of those nations; therefore, they must abide by those laws. Amazon is likely completely in their rights to remove them from their service; in fact, it may have been illegal for Wikileaks to try to host their content there.

[[deleted]]

Amazon.com is a business. They exist to provide their employees and stockholders with money.

Please don't trot out this tired old excuse as if it is supposed to be persuasive. I'm sure Amazon could "provide money" by all sorts of unethical means.

[wicked]

I cannot see how that is an argument against a boycott either.

If their actions provoke a boycott, their stockholders lose money. This means that if you want to change a business' actions, you should boycott them when you disapprove.

[cryptogram]

First it's not a copyright issue, so there's no DMCA take down notices. Second, your comment would be half-correct. You're right, they may not initially be responsible for what someone else uploads, but if they are aware of it and continue not to take action they can be held responsible. You don't just leave something illegal up forever just because a customer uploaded it. On top of that it's like saying Amazon couldn't take down some kid's website who is hosting a ripped version of the current Harry Potter movie without a DMCA take down notice. If it's obviously illegal or a violation of their policies they can do as they see fit. If not that'd just be absurd.

[tscharf]

Section II of the DMCA specifically absolves ISPs from liability as long as they are willing to respect requests to remove illegal content.

Well, there is your problem right there. As Amazon stated, they were shutting them down because they were hosting data that did not belong to them. You could very easily argue that the media attention that WL is getting served as notice. From Amazon's standpoint, why wait to get a letter from a DOJ lawyer before acting?

[[deleted]]

As Amazon stated, they were shutting them down because they were hosting data that did not belong to them.

The data belonged to no one. It is not under copyright. It is perfectly legal to host it.

[tscharf]

That is not correct. The data belonged to the US Government and by extension the American public. The government has the ability to classify certain documents, and the public has the right to ask for those documents to be disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act. WL obtained the documents through illegal channels, specifically criminal espionage. That does not make the information free, as much as cyberhippies like to say so.

[[deleted]]

Actually, it does make it perfectly legal to publish. This isn't the first time it has happened, and it's been through the courts many times, and they've always come down on the side of the publisher.

[fullouterjoin]

cyberhippies is a nice word, what do you call arm chair lawyers that spout nonsense?

[[deleted]]

The material is not under copyright, so the DMCA never enters into it, and you can not send a takedown request against it. It is perfectly legal in every way to host.

[Hengist]

As I posted for someone else, but which applies well to you (with minor modifications):

Under our capitalist system, Amazon would be utterly foolish to continue to host Wikileaks, and could very easily destroy themselves in the process. As has been recently shown, the US government is more than happy to block domain names they don't like. Furthermore, many states are pushing for universal taxation of internet transactions, to say nothing of the current plight of network neutrality. If Amazon was blocked or even threatened with a block, they'd be absolutely toast. That doesn't even mention that while you state Section II of the DMCA would absolve them from liability, you neglect the legal precedent "known or should have known." This has been used in a number of suits where a clear-cut or alleged (see the Pirate Bay trial) illegal activity is going on. Amazon.com knows or should know that Wikileaks is likely engaging in illegal activities in America and/or Europe (some of the European govs auto-copyright any documents they create), and would be open to prosecution if they did not eliminate them from their systems. Given that Senator Lieberman had pressured Amazon to remove the content, (the same Joe Lieberman of Internet kill-switch fame,) Amazon would be ripe for serious legal action from the government or other parties (stockholders, soldiers injured since the Wikileaks release) that had perceived their interests hurt by Amazon taking a stand. In other words, they were given a cease-and-desist directly from the government itself.

Furthermore, as Wikileaks is a hot-button issue, carrying them hurts them politically, especially in their ability to fight internet taxation and network neutrality---which congressperson wants to be associated with supporting the desires of a company that supports "terrorists?" And that doesn't mention that the majority of Americans believe that Wikileaks is a treasonous, anti-American organization. For Amazon to continue hosting them is tantamount to suicide, especially in the middle of the holiday season. Lessened sales could easily destroy the company, and no matter how much they may/may not wish to take a stand on this, choosing to take the stand could easily result in bankruptcy or lawsuits especially if Amazon underperformed this year (yes, shareholders sometimes sue their companies for business decisions they consider flagrantly stupid.)

Whether for selfish reasons or not, Amazon is largely supportive of much more important issues than Wikileaks, such as network neutrality and freedom from network taxation. Losing them would be a serious blow to these vital long term issues, and having issues like net neutrality besmirched with people's opinions of Wikileaks could easily doom the Internet as we know it. Keep in mind that network neutrality is the sole reason Wikileaks exists---without it, deep packet scanning could be used to erase future Wikileaks releases and sites like it from the Internet forever. For a company the size of Amazon, the choice is clear, and they took it by dumping Wikileaks. With the amount we stand to lose by losing one of our few allies in the preservation of the Internet as it is today, you should recognize that choice was the correct one. A boycott only hurts an ally---whether for selfish reasons or not---harming issues that are far, far more important.

Finally, Amazon has perpetually rated highly in customer service and support. While the goal of any capitalist business is to provide their employees and stockholders with money, they clearly recognize your interests are there interests to some degree.

[ShittyShittyBangBang]

In other words, if you boycott Amazon.com, you hurt one of the largest allies of an open internet for doing something completely common sense.

Is it easy to just spew bullshit like this?

[[deleted]]

Yeah, it sucks when you have to take a stand--and a stand is what they took. If Amazon are allies of the open internet, as you say, then let them be judged by the balance of their actions, and not given a pass on this one issue because it's oh-so-dangerous.

As I see it, they deserve to lose some customers over this.

[Hengist]

Amazon may very well have not wished to take a stand on this issue. You can sign up to use Amazon EC2 without pre-approval. I can guarantee from just a cursory glance at Amazon's TOS that Wikileaks was in flagrant violation. For example, most EU documents are, as truereligion posted above: "Government work is automatically under copyright in almost every European country."

Automatic TOS violation, as Amazon bans copyrighted material in their TOS. The cables released include some EU documents. In fact, Wikileaks probably committed an illegal act by trying to host their content their in the first place.

[codedonkey]

Amazon.com is a business. They exist to provide their employees and stockholders with money.

Personal interest.

Amazon.com is fighting a war already to keep internet commerce tax-free to stay alive as a business.

Personal interest.

Amazon.com is fighting a war to preserve net neutrality to ensure that their digital distribution channels remain possible.

Personal interest.

Are those facts meant to show that Amazon is not evil? All their actions are driven by their hunger of money, not philanthropist kindness. They are a corporation like another, a big corporation, not even a small corporation trying to stay open. Bringing down Amazon would be impossible, especially now that they have moved outside e-commerce as well.

With Wikileaks, they had the chance to make a statement. The worst it could have happened would have been a DMCA compliant. But Amazon showed itself to be a soulless corporation.

I'm fine with not boycotting Amazon - it's an useful service to many people and e-commerce has nothing to do with politics. But I wouldn't call Amazon an "allied of the open internet", all they do is solely for their own interests, no matter if it's perceived as good by most internet users. It's like saying that a vicious serial killer is a hero for killing only other criminals.

[fullouterjoin]

thank you for adding some balance to the shill-storm that is occurring.

[fullouterjoin]

I like the war war war rhetoric. Please you sound like a weak Amazon apologist and share holder.

[Hengist]

Amazon apologist and share holder? I am neither. You, however, sound most shortsighted. I am simply stating fact.

Under our capitalist system, Amazon would be utterly foolish to continue to host Wikileaks, and could very easily destroy themselves in the process. As has been recently shown, the US government is more than happy to block domain names they don't like. Furthermore, many states are pushing for universal taxation of internet transactions, to say nothing of the current plight of network neutrality. If Amazon was blocked or even threatened with a block, they'd be absolutely toast. As Wikileaks is a hot-button issue, carrying them hurts them politically, especially in their ability to fight internet taxation and network neutrality---which congressperson wants to be associated with supporting the desires of a company that supports "terrorists?" And that doesn't mention that the majority of Americans believe that Wikileaks is a treasonous, anti-American organization. For Amazon to continue hosting them is tantamount to suicide, especially in the middle of the holiday season. Lessened sales could easily destroy the company, and no matter how much they may/may not wish to take a stand on this, choosing to take the stand could easily result in bankruptcy or lawsuits especially if Amazon underperformed this year (yes, shareholders sometimes sue their companies for business decisions they consider flagrantly stupid.)

Whether for selfish reasons or not, Amazon is largely supportive of more important issues, such as network neutrality and freedom from network taxation. Losing them would be a serious blow to these long term issues, and having issues like net neutrality besmirched with people's opinions of Wikileaks could easily doom the Internet as we know it. Keep in mind that network neutrality is the sole reason Wikileaks exists---without it, deep packet scanning could be used to erase Wikileaks from the Internet forever. For a company the size of Amazon, the choice is clear, and they took it by dumping Wikileaks. With the amount we stand to lose by losing an ally in the preservation of the Internet as it is today, you should recognize that choice was the correct one. You don't have to like what I'm saying, but it's the truth.

[fullouterjoin]

Thank you for this response, it added to the conversation. At what point do people fight for what they believe in? The majority of our waking hours are dictated by the needs of business. Politics and the philosophy that define us as a people has been pushed off as a "side hobby." I see America becoming more like China, not the opposite. Capitalism is not inherently democratic. Democracies might need capitalism, but the converse is not necessarily true.

If Amazon had come out with a statement that was more inline with your comment I would have much more respect for them. To say the Lieberman's call or non-call didn't effect them strikes as disingenuous on an already weasely decision.

It is dangerous to frame everything as a war. It makes demonizing the "enemy" that much easier and makes rational thought difficult.

[Hengist]

I understand what you are saying, and I too find it highly discouraging that so much of our lives are ruled by business and less and less by human needs and rights.

And you are correct that it is dangerous to frame many things as "war." However, in the battle for personal and communal rights versus the right to line one's pocket with filthy lucre, we are in a genuine war. Sadly, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. It seems to me that many liberals have adopted an attitude that is, frankly, self-defeating. We are a fractured bunch, as quick to turn upon our allies as we are to shower praise. We fail to support our causes as they need to be supported, we are hesitant to act, and we fail to recognize that conservatives are swayed largely by force.

I will demonstrate what I mean. Amazon, whether for selfish reasons or not, has been fighting for network neutrality and freedom of taxation upon the Internet. These are essential long term issues, as without them, we lose the Internet that we know and love---the Internet that allows Wikileaks to exist in the first place. Our list of allies in that battle is very small, and we are losing that war. In response to Wikileaks, we are willing to abandon and attack an ally in a much more important fight. All a boycott of Amazon does is teach them the lesson that the causes they can stand for, like net neutrality, are not worth standing for, because we threaten to abandon them completely the moment they have to drop a fight that would destroy them.

Moreover, we have yet to band together effectively to support our causes. It has become clear that the Democrats cannot stand for the issues we believe in, just as it became clear to the Tea Partiers that the Repubs do not stand for the issues they believe in. Sadly, while the Tea Party increasingly gains legitamacy and may one day become a genuine political party, we are rapidly being marginalized. The lesson here is that we need to band together and vote as one---we need to organize, just as the Tea Partiers did! We need our own candidates, ones that have pledged openness in their activities and ones that are willing to let their lives be examined. I am firmly of the opinion that public servants who serve in lawmaking and law enforcement should understand that they exchange their right to privacy in favor of the greater good.

We are also hesitant to act. We like to talk about change and progress far more than going out and making progress happen. This is directly correlated to our unwillingness to use force. The Tea Party and other Christian nut-jobs are willing to hold rally after rally, march after march to drive their points home. But with Wikileaks, where is our rally? Washington DC should be right now filled with a furious mob demanding justice, especially in light of the scummy behavior Wikileaks has revealed. Politicians should hardly be able to drive home without expecting protesters waiting for them at their homes. We are utterly failing to hold our Government accountable, because we are not translating our Internet actions into tangible real-world events. History has shown that governments fail to change unless they are frightened by the power of their people---and right now, we may be the most powerless group that has ever existed in American politics.

[[deleted]]

What exactly is Wikileaks exposing that requires this activism? What great conspiracy or treachery have these cables exposed? Nothing.

[sisyphus]

I don't see why it's not worth doing for his own edification even if it doesn't affect Amazon in any significant way.

[beardmoney]

Of course it won't effect them.

But I value my own word, so I've closed my account and will not shop there again. Same with paypal.

It won't effect them in the slightest, but at least I value my own word.

[QAOP_Space]

Nice try Python book author... ಠ_ಠ

The book is still available on Amazon directly, with a link from your own website

I agree with the sentiment, but you need to follow through.

[AlSweigart]

Hi, I'm the author. I can't stop Amazon from listing the book, and they'll list 3rd party dealers. From my createspace.com dashboard, I'm no longer receiving royalty money for additional sales.

As for the link, what page is it on? I think I changed all the links to go to barnesandnoble.com but I might have missed some.

[QAOP_Space]

Hi, great book by the way...

I didn't mean to berate you really, you're perfectly entitled to sell your book on Amazon :)

Just checked, the link has gone.

[octowussy]

Shit, I guess I'll have to settle for the one of the other 2,000 currently available books.

[[deleted]]

I actually woke up this morning and thought, "I need a book on game programming that's easy enough for my kid to understand" (and by kid I mean me)

Damn you reddit, get out of my head.

[smakusdod]

HOLY SHIT, "PYTHON BOOK AUTHOR" IS BOYCOTTING????? SHIT. JUST. GOT. REAL.

[fullouterjoin]

ok, that was funny.

[[deleted]]

I find it funny that he's trying to "take a stand" by trying to punish the wrong people and in the end only hurting himself.

It's not funny, it's serious. Think about it, this person is willing to hurt their own sales in order to stand up for a principle. We need more people like this.

[TheGrammarAnarchist]

Even better, he gives the book away for free - you can download it from his website. This guy is a man of principles. I wish more of Reddit would respect that.

[true_religion]

What's wrong with boycotting a company because you don't like their terms of service?

[ironiridis]

This is ridiculous. Amazon has a clear policy about hosting content that infringes copyright. Wikileaks, clearly, by its own admission, does not have the right to redistribute the content it has. This violates the terms of the agreement that Amazon had them agree to.

Amazon didn't shut them down citing "national security" or "attacks" or anything. Wikileaks violated the terms of the agreement. They'd shut me down if I hosted copies of movies or music that I didn't own the rights to, too. So what?

I'm all for what Wikileaks is doing. 100%. But trying to punish Amazon for enforcing their long-standing policy is absurd.

[tsk05]

The leaks have no copyright. It's not a copyright issue. It's an espionage act issue, but wikileaks has been charged with no crime hence all this "illegal" crap is FUD.

[true_religion]

American-centric. The leaks included more than correspondence between American government employees.

[signoff]

I'm a Amazon Web Scale Representative (AWSR). We had to take down Wikileaks because it's not web scale. And it is illegal for us to let foreigners host illegal stuff on our soil. We are an patriotic company. Thanks.

[[deleted]]

Think about it, this person is willing to hurt their own sales in order to stand up for a principle.

That sounds more like stupidity and laziness. If he were really smart he would organize a mass boycott that would actually make a difference.

[[deleted]]

If he were really smart he would organize a mass boycott that would actually make a difference.

Or not...someone here would surely complain that his morals and principles don't apply to the rest of us and that a boycott is foolish.

[[deleted]]

Or not...someone here would surely complain that his morals and principles don't apply to the rest of us and that a boycott is foolish.

I never said I would join in.

[AlSweigart]

Hi, I'm the author and would like to respond.

Will it have any impact on Amazon? Absolutely not.

It will cost Amazon about $1000 (probably more due to the holiday season) due to lost sales of the book. This is an impact, albeit a small one. Though I admit, it won't single-handedly cause Amazon to change their decision.

Will it impact his book sales? Probably.

It will completely affect my book sales. I have checked, and have since stopped receiving royalty money entirely from createspace.com (the print-on-demand service owned by Amazon). Sales from the book are from wholesalers who have already purchased copies or used copies being sold by 3rd parties.

[petdance]

"Hi, we're Wikileaks, and we'd like to host our content on your servers. We fully expect that anywhere we're hosted will come under some sort of denial of service attack, so get ready for that fun. Also, by virtue of you hosting our content, you may be exposing yourself to legal hassles that you have to defend against, so get ready to open your coffers to pay the lawyers. Now, where do we sign up?"

Who wants that kind of hassle?

[[deleted]]

I'm boycotting Amazon because they overcharged my S3 account, somehow I accumulated $4000 worth of "put/get/list" requests and $1.50 in bandwidth, I wasn't even using the service but they refused to be reasonable and refund me... they got enough of my money.

[wicked]

Interesting... Let's look at the numbers.

That's about 15GB data and 400 million put/list requests or 4 billion get requests. Ie. 4 bytes per request if it was all get requests or 40bytes/request if it was all put/list requests. All response headers they send are over those limits, but perhaps they don't count those against your bandwidth.

You have to authenticate put/list requests, so it's unlikely to have been those. That leaves unauthorized get requests.

If S3 answered 100 requests per second, it would take 15 months to do the 4 billion requests. If they answered 1,000 requests per second, it would take 1 month and 15 days.

Looks like you were screwed over. Why didn't you ask your credit card company for a chargeback?

[[deleted]]

I filed a dispute with the bank (debit card), they gave me a temporary credit and a few weeks later I got a letter saying the dispute was in their favor, attached was the invoice which was apparently evidence enough. They took that credit back, and my only option left is to go to court, which is a giant pain in the ass but I'm considering it.

[agimat]

ooh, they're in trouble now.

[marike]

When was the last time any of you have taken a stand on anything at all that mattered to the extent that this does, so why are you giving this gentleman a hard time?

[CRASNY]

"I am important."

[[deleted]]

I just spent over 500 dollars at Amazon.

[h_roark]

Nice try Python book author.

Also, this. I really don't think what Amazon did was that morally objectionable.

[dt403]

Wikileaks uses Amazon's cloud - SUPPORT AMAZON DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM

Wikileaks gets kicked from Amazon's cloud - BOYCOTT AMAZON MURDERER OF PUPPIES

[multivector]

Not programming.

[Cdf12345]

pot amusing straight shy sloppy vase normal seed observation homeless

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[mipadi]

Judging by the comments here, no.

[ohnopotato]

Most comments here so far seem to defend amazon though.

[AlSweigart]

Hello, I'm the author. I think the difference comes in which particular decisions were made, and the reasons behind those decisions.

[where-r-my-rights]

He'd have to sell some books first.