Read the full article that the The National Law Review
The self-publishing vendors (i.e., Amazon’s Kindle Digital Publishing, Barnes & Noble Nook Press and Smashwords) sought summary judgment asserting that they were not publishers of the book but merely allowed the author to use their systems to distribute it, and that were protected from any liability for third-party content by CDA Section 230. In opposing dismissal, the plaintiffs argued that the vendors worked in concert with the author to provide a platform for publishing books the same way a traditional publishing house does.
Siding with the defendants, the court dismissed the claims against the self-publishing vendors, finding that their services are not “publishing,” as that word is known in the book industry. The court pointed to the terms of service that the author agreed to when registering for defendants’ services. For example, the terms of the Kindle agreement contained representations that the uploader owned all rights to the material and that no rights were being violated. In the Nook agreement, the author represented and warranted to Barnes & Noble that he held “the necessary rights, including all intellectual property rights, in and to the [book] and related content” and that the book could be “sold, marketed, displayed, distributed and promoted [by Barnes & Noble] without violating or infringing the rights of any other person or entity, including, without limitation, infringing any copyright, patent, trademark or right of privacy….” Moreover, the Smashwords agreement stressed that: “Smashwords does not… undertake[] any editorial review of the books that authors and publishers publish using its service.”
It is interesting to read the summary of the court ruling. While Amazon and the other companies provide a service, and have actually given Black folks more of an opportunity for our voices to be heard, they should not be confused with publishing. You see unlike publishers that take on both financial and legal risk these self publishing platforms do neither. They get paid not matter what and assume no legal risk. Indeed they provide little more of a publishing service that my Canon printer.