Legacy Publishers Poised to Fight Back: Do Silos Spell the End to Self-Publishing?

Today, Smashwords' founder, Mark Coker, posted his defense of the Agency model. He provided an impressive body of statistical evidence that suggests the Agency-pricing-model is putting downward pressure on ebook pricing. Current reports suggest that ebooks are now priced, on average, around US$3.00 – down over a dollar from just a few years ago. This negative development shows no sign of stopping.

The trend toward reducing book prices to US$.99 or "free" would have been unheard of two years ago. But then, two years before that, self-publishing was an experiment, dismissed as an anomaly. Vanity publishing was the only meaningful way an author could publish without the gatekeepers and hurdles of the traditional publishing landscape. Authors began searching for alternatives when it became obvious that vanity publishers offered eye candy, but their broken pricing, distribution, and delivery models echoed those that exist in the traditional publishing marketplace.

Fast-forward two years. Desperate for a meaningful alternative, self-publishers, and distributors such as Smashwords,  quickly rose in popularity. They provided authors the ability to price and control their books' distribution and longevity. This meant the end for lofty pricing models controlled by the Big 6. Instead of remaining satisfied with meager royalties, and forced to turn brilliance into pablum, a significant number of authors abandoned the traditional publishing hamster wheel.

Now, we're hurling past the dreamy period when authors believed readers would pay US$2.99 for an ebook. Before this, pricing was artificially set by the Big 6. The transfer of power to authors and readers had a heady and profound effect. Wild and wide fluctuations existed, with the understanding that the reader would ultimately dictate the price s/he was willing to pay. The Agency model, courtesy of Apple, came around at the perfect time to offer a framework everyone could wrap their arms around.

Without the regulatory governance and stability the Big 6 brought to the table, authors began competing with each other to attract customers. Unfortunately, instead of beefing up our products to differentiate ourselves, we fell back on the short-term price-slashing tactic.

Additionally, thousands of unemployed professionals swelled the writing and publishing ranks as the global economy worsened, bringing along with them a lack of tolerance for slow and steady growth. These weekend warriors were looking to turn a fast buck while waiting to get hired on by their next employer.

The economic possibility exists that many of these unemployed folks, hoping to hit a homerun from writing one book - akin to hoping to win the lottery – are leaving scars that may never heal. Desperate to earn a buck, these part-time authors did exactly as they were taught in the business world: When competing for market share and sales volume, cut prices when you face stiff competition. This is usually the preferred short-term method instead of investing further to develop unique features to a product that is rapidly becoming a commodity.

Commodity sales are basically straightforward. If the buyer can't get the goods cheaply, s/he will shop around, completely indifferent to trappings. Genres of books are crammed full of "me too" ebooks, varying little from each other. As such, ebooks are becoming a commodity, and as such, readers are driving the prices ever faster toward "free" for everything from meager offerings to amazing works.

Frankly, there's just too much competition in today's landscape. The pricing and marketing problems we authors face will get worse before the pendulum swings back toward anything resembling a seller's market, if it ever will. As is the case with Wal-Mart, the expectation of always having the lowest price puts pressure on Wal-Mart's competitors to reduce their prices to remain in business. This slippery slope begins with the greed of one and then rapidly snowballs.

Out of this economic chaos rose an all-too-familiar business model. A fifteen-year-old internet tactic (one with timeless roots) has resurfaced. Known as portals, thousands of websites vainly attempted to retain customers by being all things to all people. Today, we are experiencing a seductively appealing transformation, a shift in packaging and distribution that cloaks a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Amazon's KDP Select took the next evolutionary step and, first out the gate, rushed to capitalize on the lousy economy. KDP Select tempts authors with the potential to get some money in exchange for exclusivity. Potential money sounds much better than no money, which is what most authors are earning these days. Unfortunately, KDP Select appears to be accelerating an author's ever-diminishing returns. You can read more about this situation within an earlier post of mine - "Amazon's KDP Select is Driving Prices Down."

What's on the Horizon?

Leviathans with an Insidious Purpose
In the 1990s, silos such as America Online (AOL) provided customers with a protective and comfortable environment. Not satisfied, AOL's customers clamored for the ability to access the rest of the internet. Free-flowing portals, often created by indie internet-service providers (ISPs) appeared as a result. Silos gave way to portals, as silos aren't constructed to provide access to all types of information, products, and services. Instead, silos can control and restrict activity, suppress pricing trends, and confine distribution. AOL's myopic vision of the future was avoided by the internet-savvy for over a decade. AOL, as it's turning out, was right on track after all.

The world became a much smaller place because of the explosive integration of the internet into our lifestyles. Of late, many folks began dreaming of a quieter and less cluttered playground that supports the pragmatic allure of the cocooning trend. This cocooning phenomenon, where people insulate themselves by creating a narrow band of friends, family, and outside influencers, is a direct outcome of information and stimuli overload. The internet's silos recognize this and market themselves as safe havens and playgrounds.

"But, you ask, "what does all this have to do with ebook pricing?"

Back to Scrambling for Crumbs
The KDP Select silo offers a restrictive environment to authors in exchange for co-op money. Other silos are created around proprietary ereaders. Meanwhile, as all this activity supporting consumers' cocooning is going on, publishing's Big 6 were waking up to realize they were no longer the sole gatekeepers to the writing and reading experience.

Indie publishing's nemesis is scrambling to remain in control of the publishing industry. Leapfrogging KDP Select and going straight for the jugglar, the Big 6 have invested in a hybrid that will rise from the ashes of the legacy and self-publishing models to regain control over the distribution platform. This hybrid makes KDP Select's restrictive environment look like child's play.

Enter Bilbary.com, a silo espousing the reader experience, is built on the backbone and offerings of Ingram Content Group and investments from within the Big 6. From Bilbary's current homepage, the company states its strategic and tactical objectives as:

·        Content: We aim to offer all the ebooks in the world. In the next few months we will add 750,000 titles.

·        Reader: We are developing a cloud reader so you can read your books online.

·        Apps: We are creating apps for your phones, tablets and computers.

·        Rental: We are working with publishers on a system of ebook rental.

·        Languages: We intend to translate the site and include books in many languages.

·        Libraries: Bilbary is working with the public library system to see how we can increase the availability of ebooks to library patrons.

A year ago, Benedicte Page wrote an article entitled, "Coates to Launch Bilbary e-Book Site," which provides a good summary of the company's vision. Then, I took a look at the Bilbary demo on YouTube.

Concerns

·        The role of the author appears purposely downplayed. Bilbary is touted as a reader's ultimate experience. Publishers, which I gathered from the reading will be the Big 6 and their affiliates, will receive their customary (legacy) 80% royalty, but nowhere was I able to find a reference to the indie author's cut.

·        Within the welcome email I received from Bilbary, it states, "If you are a publisher, we offer excellent terms and free access to data and analytics on your titles. You will be able to choose whether to sell books, rent, or both sell and rent." Does Bilbary accept authors as self-publishers?

·        In the very next paragraph, the email appears to downplay the importance of the author in the publishing lifecycle, as there is no mention made of an author's rights to access data and reports about their titles: "If you are an author or an agent with the digital rights to your books we aim to host both new books and an extensive backlist." By its omission, this reads to me like the legacy publishers will be peddling and pushing their same rules and restrictions within the ebook marketplace. I see Bilbary as nothing more than window dressing. They create an interesting and fresh looking interface, but the machine operating behind the façade is the same old nonsense that indie publishing has strived to circumvent.

What about the future of Indie Publishing?

Can fledgling and growing e-distributors such as Smashwords resist the lure of selling their businesses to silos such as Amazon KDP and Bilbary? No doubt, with only 3 years under their belts, indie-book distributors are market leaders, but their grasp is tenuous. For example, might Mark Coker tire of running Smashwords and sell the company? Being a very rich retiree is an extremely attractive position to be in, especially when you consider the volatility of the global economy and the instability of the epub marketplace.

Well-intentioned and focused on growth, what if Smashwords were to go public? With its extensive lists of titles, readers and authors, Smashwords would be snapped up by the deep pockets of any of the Big 6 publishers, drained of its value, and then spun off or shut down.

The lure of small money is stronger than that of no money. Will authors sell their souls in the hopes of receiving meager handouts offered by this latest incarnation of the legacy publishing model? Tragically, I believe this could be the outcome if traditional publishing succeeds in going toe-to-toe against indie distributors.

Amazon's KDP is Driving Book Prices Down

Have you read this yet, about KDP Select driving down book prices on Amazon? It's pretty startling and eye-opening stuff about KDP Select and price points - backing up, in many ways, the advice Ruth Ann Nordin and others espouse. BTW - in my small way, I'm kicking Amazon in the shins by not participating in KDP Select.

This link takes you to the article "KDP Select’s Impact on Amazon.com’s Book Sales Price Point"
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012/kdp-select%E2%80%99s-impact-on-amazon-com%E2%80%99s-book-sales-price-point/

Very timely, as I was struggling with the rationalization of bailing on the $2.99 pricing that I've maintained for 2 years. This article provided support for my decision to lower my prices to US$.99 and "free," as consumer demand for lower prices amid a glut of product are the natural economic forces driving prices toward "free."

Although fine in the short run, I can't make a living giving away my books. I see two outcomes from this: Just as the lousy economy drove housing prices downward amid a glut of available homes, discouraged career and part-time authors will leave the writing profession because they can't make a living by publishing free books, so demand for quality books from a shrinking available pool will eventually drive prices back up. This is a simple cyclical principle of economics.

If this isn't the long-term result, however, then another publishing model must rise from the ashes of indie and legacy publishing (not likely Bilbary). What an exciting time it is to be an author, don't you think?

Good night from Australia.
LC

The Case Against Google

Wow- a vibe kept me away from Google Plus, and it's a good thing I did, as should everyone. The linked article provides an exceptional overview and analysis of the problems plaguing personal-data ownership. This article will give me nightmares, in a Matrix-sort-of way. If Google is capable of doing this, then governmental "Big Brothers" are very, very real. Ever heard of DARPA?

Here's the Google story: The Case Against Google; http://gizmodo.com/5895010/the-case-against-google

The Next Self-Publishing Frontier: Author Barbara Freethy's Story

Romance author Barbara Freethy shares her strategy for selling 1.6 million copies across her 18 titles. Translating her ebooks and backlist into other languages has gained her access to new markets and new groups of readers. Learn more >> http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-next-self-publishing-frontier-foreign-language-editions/

Evading Censorship: The Lifeblood of a Proxy-Service Provider

An urban myth exists that only criminals use proxy services. Certainly, there is a criminal facet, but according to USA statutes and United Nations' declarations, we have the right to access media on our own terms.

This environment has fostered companies to offer services that allow end users to circumvent censorship controls. As I pointed out in my previous post, a significant number of countries forbid and restrict the rights of free speech and access to media.


Without proxy-service providers, access to information is tightly controlled by restrictive governments, organizations, and companies. Proxy sites grant their customers (end users) varying degrees of anonymity, depending on end-user needs and capabilities of a proxy-service provider. For example, within an autocratic regime, an end user would need total anonymity to avoid persecution. Similarly, those living in crime-ridden regions can protect their identities and account information via a proxy account. Then, even well-meaning governments put controls in place that restrict access to information. Proxies circumvent such controls.

Living in Australia, I miss my favorite TV shows and radio stations from the USA. Digital-rights management (DRM), the annoying recording-industry associations, and the US government do their best to restrict access to my favorites because I'm outside the USA's borders. If I had access to a proxy service, I could watch and listen to those favorites because the proxy site would protect my identity. They do this by hiding my IP address and related info and forwarding one of their own IP addresses (which, in this case, would be a US IP address; thus, it would appear I was in the USA).

Proxy.org ( https://proxy.org/ ) presents a very good overview, along with details and recommendations, regarding proxy services. I highly recommend that you visit their site, particularly if you are enduring restrictions to free speach and access to media. You can find help via the information at this site.

Although recommended by Proxy.org, a service provider by the name of Proxify.com declined my request for an interview. Here are the interview questions, in the hopes that a proxy-service provider would like to step in and answer them. The answers could prove helpful to those in need or just interested about these purveyors of free speach and media access. My thanks to David Weir as I folowed his interview-question format and flow.

This interview comes on the heels of PayPal’s recent attempt to suppress the distribution of certain types of erotica. I am asking for views on the attempts to restrict access to media and what impact it would have on those offering proxy services.

1.      When did you first come up with the idea of offering proxy services, what was your motivation, and what were the results?

2.      Can you quantify your current success for us?

3.      How much feedback do you get from customers and what is your sense of who they are?

4.      Similarly, how much feedback do you get from your company's critics? What is your sense of who they are?

5.      How is your company/organization protected from pressures brought on by governments? What measures and controls are in place to prevent such an entity from gaining access to your customer list and data?

6.      Reporters without Borders compiles an annual index of countries and their positions and actions regarding free speech, access to media, and censorship controls. What are the opportunities your organization's services? What are the challenges and barriers to success?  

7.      There are governments that will imprison and/or murder their citizens who attempt to circumvent government censorship controls. What tensions and motivators must exist for someone living in such a country to subscribe to your site?

8.      Are there any differences in offerings and/or design that distinguish you from your competitors?

9.      What are the most common metrics among your customers and their circumstances?

10.   What advice do you have for those considering subscribing to a proxy service? With the ever-present fear of government intervention and retaliation, how do you get the word out about proxy services to those with restricted access to media? How successful have you been in reaching out to this market?

11.   Can you walk us through the recent crackdown attempt on access to media by Pakistan's democratically-elected government?

12.   With the plethora of works protected by digital-rights management (DRM) and country- and regional-controls, why should proxy services be protected and allowed to thrive?

13.   What does research tell you about censorship trends?

14.   Censorship is a "slippery slope." What are the ramifications for a government, institution, or company that endorses censorship and denies access to media?

15.   Pakistan's government has advertised that it wants to implement a filtering and blocking platform that can restrict access to 50 million URLs at a time. What does this capability mean for the future of proxy-service providers?

16.   What are your company's greatest challenges and how do you plan to address them?

Thank you for your time and for sharing your thoughts with my blog's readers.

With kind regards,

LC Cooper

PayPal was a Battle - Here's the War

The following article is both eye-opening and tragic. It's relevant because free-speach advocates won a moral and economic victory when PayPal agreed to narrow its definition of objectionable content. Unfortunately, the tentacles of censorship are firmly rooted in all but a few of the 179 countries listed in the following report. Even the United States and other "industrialized" nations are not above reproach. The USA's ranking, for example, dropped 27 places below the prior year's placement.

Free speach won the battle with PayPal, but the war against censorship is far from over. After reading the report's details, I hope you'll appreciate the freedoms we have, and in whatever way possible, keep up the pressure. We don't need to fall into a stupor and pat each other on the back. There's so much more work to be done. There are still so many people dying and rotting in prisons because they believe in free speech.

The following was copied in its entirety from the website of Reporters without Borders. Note that this report is split into regions of the world, and then by country.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Press Freedom Index 2011-2012

Gap widens between good and bad performers in Africa

Dramatic falls by countries that cracked down on mass unrest

The 2011 Arab Spring did not spill over into sub-Saharan Africa to the point of bringing down any governments, but some regimes had to face forceful political and social demands, and journalists covering demonstrations were often the victims of indiscriminate police repression or were targeted by police who did not want them covering the crackdown.

This was the case in Angola (132nd), where many journalists were arrested during protests in September, and in Uganda (139th), which fell 43 places in the index after a year that will not be forgotten by its media. They were the targets of violence and surveillance during the presidential election in February and were targeted again during the brutal crackdown on the “Walk to Work” protests later in the year, when dozens of journalists were arrested.

It was even worse in Malawi (146th), which plunged 67 places in the index, the biggest fall of any country in the world. Malawi’s journalists were treated like demonstrators during the crackdown on protests in the summer. Many were arrested and mistreated, and equipment was broken. A student and blogger, Robert Chasowa, who was found dead in September, was almost certainly murdered. Media that wanted to investigate the case were threatened. Before all this, Malawi’s media legislation had been toughened so much at the start of the year that some European partners suspended part of their aid.

Closed and authoritarian countries near bottom of index

Reporters Without Borders regards the situation in Rwanda (156th) and Equatorial Guinea (161st) as very grave because of the control that their governments exercise over the media and freedom of expression in general. They have been joined by Djibouti (159th), which fell 49 places. Its president, Ismael Omar Guelleh, was returned to office at the start of 2011 in an election that was decided in advance and gave the opposition no possibility of expressing itself in the media. There is no free press, six people who provide an exile radio station with information were jailed for four months, and social networks are closely monitored to ensure that there are no protests.

The presence of Côte d’Ivoire in this same group of countries (sharing 159th position with Djibouti) could be misleading. Côte d’Ivoire has real media, unlike Guelleh’s Djibouti or Teodoro Obiang Nguema’s Equatorial Guinea, and they say what they think, unlike the media in Paul Kagame’s Rwanda, which have little freedom of expression. Côte d’Ivoire’s poor ranking reflects the dramatic impact that the post-election crisis had on the media in the first half of 2011, including harassment of all kinds, acts of violence and the murders of a journalist and a media worker. During the battle of Abidjan at the start of April, it was impossible for a journalist venture out into the city.

Violence, censorship and prison give East Africa three worst rankings

The three worst sub-Saharan rankings are all to be found in East Africa. Year after year, journalists continue to be exposed to the chaos and anarchy in Somalia (164th), a country embroiled in civil war and without a stable government since 1991. Four journalists were killed in Mogadishu in 2011. The bad ranking assigned to Omar al-Bashir’s Sudan (170th) was due to prior censorship, closures of newspapers, and arrests, prolonged detention and mistreatment of journalists.

Finally, Eritrea (179th) came last in the index for the fifth year running. Freedom of opinion, like all the other freedoms, does not exist under the totalitarian dictatorship that President Issaias Afeworki has imposed on this Horn of Africa country. At least 30 journalists are currently detained in appalling conditions. Some have been held for more than 10 years.

At the other end of the index, several African countries made significant progress or showed that respect for freedom of information has taken a firm hold in their societies.

Good countries group gets bigger
The number of African countries that are in the top 50 of the index has risen from seven last year to nine this year, while the number that are in top 100 has risen from 24 to 27. The highest non-European country in the index is an African one and in fact it is in the top 10. It is Cape Verde (9th), a healthy democracy and model of good governance, where governments can be changed through the ballot box, as last summer’s presidential election again showed. Journalists there are completely free and all the political parties have access to the state media. Namibia (20th) also has an excellent ranking, better than Japan or the United Kingdom, for example.

Botswana (42nd), which rose 20 places, and Comoros (45th), which rose 25 places, are now jostling Mali (25th) and Ghana (41st), Africa’s traditional leaders in respect for journalists.

A spectacular jump and other notable improvements

Niger (29th) rose 75 places in the index, the biggest leap by any country in the world this year. The economic environment for Niger’s media is very precarious but they are free and benefit from favourable legislation. Media freedom violations have virtually disappeared. The improvement has been seen in both concrete and symbolic measures. At the end of 2011, Mahamadou Issoufou, who was elected president in the spring, became the first African head of state to sign the Declaration of Table Mountain, thereby undertaking to promote media freedom.

Other African leaders could follow suit, such as Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, the president of Mauritania (67th), which rose 28 places thanks to the adoption of a law on the electronic media, the opening up of the broadcasting sector, and other developments. Its progress needs to be confirmed.

Cameroon (97th) fell sharply in 2010 because of the journalist Bibi Ngota’s death in detention but recovered a respectable ranking in 2011 although light has yet to be shed on all aspects of his death and on the death in November of this year of Reporters Without Borders correspondent Jules Koum Koum, a journalist who wrote about corruption. Cameroon also badly needs to decriminalize media offences and modernize its communication law. Madagascar (84th) continued to improve for the second year running after plummeting in 2009 because of that year’s political crisis but, 2012, as an election year, will pose challenges.

Soft underbelly
The absence of major incidents involving the media allowed Senegal (75th) to rise 18 places but the situation is fragile one month ahead of a presidential election that is likely to be tense. Like their Cameroonian counterparts, the Senegalese authorities are still not ready to protect journalists from prison sentences by decriminalizing media offences. Aside from abusive lawsuits, Liberia (110th) usually allows its media a great deal of freedom but it fell 26 places this year because journalists were attacked and media were closed during the presidential election in October and November, when challenger Winston Tubman boycotted the run-off against the incumbent, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

South Sudan (111th), which became independent on 9 July, entered the index with a respectable ranking. The challenge for this country is to build a solid and viable state in a very unstable region while guaranteeing freedom of expression. It must make every effort to avoid sinking to the level of its neighbours.

AmericasUnited States and Chile affected by protests, Brazil crippled by insecurity

The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation

In Chile, where student protesters questioned the over-concentration of media ownership, violence against journalists included beatings, cyber-attacks and attacks on editorial staffs. Many of these assaults, often accompanied by heavy-handed arrests and destruction of equipment, were carried out by abusive armed police who were rarely called to account.

Neighbouring Argentina (47th) barely moved in the index but two other southern countries registered a marked decline – Brazil (99th, down 41) and Paraguay (80th, down 26). Violence was the dominant factor in these changes. In Brazil’s north and north-east and in Paraguay’s border regions, local corruption, organized crime and environmental damage proved to be dangerous topics for journalists and bloggers alike to tackle. Three were killed in Brazil in 2011. Although the vast country showed it was making efforts to combat impunity, justice was applied unevenly across regions and states and was subjected to powerful political pressures.

This was also the case in Paraguay, where one journalist was killed. Paraguay’s media workers bemoaned the lack of a law giving access to public information like the one passed recently in Brazil.

The physical danger in Brazil was comparable to that in Peru (115th), where three journalists were also murdered. Peru, notorious for the frequency of attacks on the press, also stood out because of its large number of legal proceedings for defamation. The radio and television journalist Paul Garay Ramírez spent six months in prison, from April until October, for allegedly defaming a prosecutor.

In Ecuador (104th) and Bolivia (108th), whose positions changed little, the climate was still characterized by judicial harassment, issues of balance and pluralism, polarization and repeated attacks on the press. This was even more the case in Venezuela (117th), which nonetheless rose 16 places.

Colombia (143rd), where one journalist was killed as a direct result of his work, remained far down the list because journalists were repeatedly threatened, forced to stop working or forced to flee abroad (or to another region), particularly journalists operating in areas where there is fighting. Despite improvements in the judicial system, the country has not yet put its years of civil war behind it, nor the grim practices of the former DAS security service such as espionage, sabotage and smear campaigns.

Contrasting fortunes in Central America

Panama fell 32 places to 113th in the index because of a radio station owner’s murder and the expulsion of two Spanish journalists who supported indigenous groups resisting the mining industry’s attempts to take their land. A bad atmosphere, marked by smear campaigns against individual journalists, prevailed between the government of President Ricardo Martinelli and much of the media.

In Guatemala (97th, down 20 places), already ranked low because of violent crime, habitual self-censorship and a lack of pluralism, a journalist was detained without proof in 2011. In the Dominican Republic (95th), a journalist was murdered several weeks after spending six days in detention on a defamation charge . Frequent instances of police abuse were reported.

In neighbouring Haiti (52nd), on the slow road to recovery after the 2010 earthquake, rising political tension in the run-up to the swearing-in of President Michel Martelly on 14 May did not reach the point where it affected the safety of journalists.

Similarly in Nicaragua (72nd, up 11 places), the political polarization during the run-up to Daniel Ortega’s re-election as president in November turned out to have little effect on the work of journalists or their freedom of movement. Despite instances of serious threats, the country moved up several places, as did El Salvador (37th, up 14) thanks to a fall in the number of assaults.

Costa Rica (19th) topped the list of Latin American countries in 2011, a position for which it traditionally vies with Uruguay (32nd). Its ranking is in marked contrast to that of its Central American neighbour, Honduras (135th), which has languished at the bottom of the list since the coup in June 2009. The deaths of five journalists in 2011, two as a direct result of their work, as well as the regular persecution of opposition media and community radio stations, confirmed its notoriety as the hemisphere’s second most dangerous country for the press after Mexico (149th, down 13 places).

Mexico continued its decline against the grim backdrop of the federal government’s offensive against drug trafficking, which has cost 50,000 lives in five years. As well as journalists, five of whom were murdered in 2011, netizens who take a stand against the prevailing violence are now also becoming the targets for killings and reprisals.

Bringing up the rear in the hemisphere, Cuba (167th) released the last of its jailed dissident journalists on 8 March, the only one still held of those detained during the “Black Spring” of 2003. However, it did not fulfil the hopes this raised of an improvement in civil liberties and human rights. Crackdowns and short-term detentions continued to be a threat for journalists and bloggers outside state control.

As well as Canada (10th, up 11 places), which recovered the hemisphere’s top ranking, Jamaica (16th), Surinam (22nd, up 13) and the seven-member Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (25th, up 32) also improved their position in the index thanks to an almost total lack of acts of violence or serious breaches of freedom of information.

There was a surprise of a different kind in Trinidad and Tobago (50th, down 20 places) as a result of a scandal involving spying on journalists, as well as moves to boycott radio and television stations and procedural abuses.

Conditions in Guyana (58th), where radio broadcasting is still a state monopoly, were similar and its ranking was unchanged.

Asia
Violence and censorship on the rise in Asia

Violence and impunity persist in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Philippines, more repression in Sri Lanka, Vietnam and China

In Afghanistan (150th) and Pakistan (151st), violence remained the main concern for journalists, who were under constant threat from the Taliban, religious extremists, separatist movements and political groups. With 10 deaths in 2011, Pakistan was the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year in a row.

In the Philippines (140th), which rose again in the index after falling in 2010 as a result of the massacre of 32 journalists in Ampatuan in November 2009, paramilitary groups and private militias continued to attack media workers. The judicial investigation into the Ampatuan massacre made it clear that the response of the authorities was seriously inadequate.

Journalists continued to be exposed to violence in Bangladesh (129th) and Nepal (106th), although less than in the past. In Nepal, journalists were regularly subjected to threats from rival political groups and their supporters. In Bangladesh, opposition groups and the ruling Awami League took turns to attack and obstruct the press. Despite genuine media pluralism, the law allows the government to maintain excessive control over the media and the Internet.

In Nepal, a decline in attacks by Maoist groups in the south and greater efficiency on the part of the justice system account for the modest improvement in the country’s ranking. However, press freedom was marred by threats and attacks by politicians and armed groups throughout the year.

Authoritarianism and ambivalence at the bottom of the index

Freedom of information worsened considerably in two Asian countries under authoritarian rule.

China, which has more journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents in prison than any other country, stepped up its censorship and propaganda in 2011 and tightened its control of the Internet, particularly the blogosphere. The first protest movements in Arab countries and the ensuing calls for democracy in China’s main cities set off a wave of arrests with no end yet in sight.

In the autonomous regions of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, protests by minorities regularly gave rise to a harsh crackdown by the authorities. In Beijing and Shanghai, international correspondents were particular targets of the security forces and had to work under the continual threat of expulsion or having their visas withdrawn. Journalists were prevented from covering most of the events that threatened China’s stability or might have given it a negative image.

Vietnam (172nd) appeared to follow China’s repressive lead and fell seven places. Politically committed journalists and pro-democracy bloggers were harassed by the authorities while the courts continued to invoke state security to hand out prison sentences ranging from two to seven years. The blogger Pham Minh Hoang, for example, was sentenced to three years in prison and three years under house arrest on 10 August on a charge of trying to overthrow the government.

In Sri Lanka (163rd), the stranglehold of the Rajapakse clan forced the last few opposition journalists to flee the country. Any that stayed behind were regularly subjected to harassment and threats. Attacks were less common but impunity and official censorship of independent news sites put an end to pluralism and contributed more than ever to self-censorship by almost all media outlets.

Burma (169th) showed signs of beginning to carry out reforms including partial amnesties and a reduction in prior censorship, but it remained largely under the control of an authoritarian government run by former members of the military junta reinvented as civilian politicians. Less than 10 of its journalists remain in prison at the start of 2012.

In North Korea (178th), although news and information was able to move across its borders to a greater extent, no one knows whether this will continue under Kim Jong-un, the son and heir of Kim Jong-il. The dynastic succession, the dominance of the military machine and the government’s desire for power give no grounds for optimism.

At the top, the good boys turn bad
Those who are traditionally good performers did not shine in 2011. With New Zealand’s fall to 13th position, no country in the Asia-Pacific region figured among the top 10 in the index. Hong Kong (54th) saw a sharp deterioration in press freedom in 2011 and its ranking fell sharply. Arrests, assaults and harassment worsened working conditions for journalists to an extent not seen previously, a sign of a worrying change in government policy.

In Australia (30th), the media were subjected to investigations and criticism by the authorities, and were denied access to information, while in Japan (22nd) coverage of the tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear accident gave rise to excessive restrictions and exposed the limits of the pluralism of the country’s press.

Causes for concern
In India (131st), journalists were exposed to violence stemming from the persistent conflicts in the states of Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir. The threat from mafia groups operating in the main cities of the coutnry also contributed to self-censorship. However, the authorities were no better. In May, they unveiled the “Information Technology Rules 2011,” which have dangerous implications for online freedom of expression. Foreign reporters saw their visa requests turned down or were pressured to provide positive coverage.

In Indonesia, an army crackdown in West Papua province, where at least two journalists were killed, five kidnapped and 18 assaulted in 2011, was the main reason for the country’s fall to 146th position in the index. A corrupt judiciary that is too easily influenced by politicians and pressure groups and government attempts to control the media and Internet have prevented the development of a freer press.

Illegal detention and intimidation in Mongolia (100th) and the Maldives (73rd) showed up the weakness of press freedom there. A climate of religious intolerance prevailed in the Maldives, where media organizations were subjected to threats by the authorities and had to deal with an Islamic affairs ministry bent on imposing the Sharia to the detriment of free expression.

Europe
Differences increase in Europe

European Union more heterogeneous, Balkans facing EU entry challenge

While Finland and Norway again share first place, Bulgaria (80th) and Greece (70th) have kept their status as the European Union’s bad performers. Targeted attacks and death threats against journalists marked the past year in Bulgaria, where concerns about print media pluralism grew. In Greece, the economic crisis highlighted the fragility of its media while photographers and cameramen covering demonstrations were exposed to conditions resembling war zones. Hungary fell 17 rungs to 40th place after adopting a law giving the ruling party direct control over the media and amending its constitution in December. The precedent set by this legislation, adopted with little comment from other EU member states, has further dented the European model’s credibility.

France is still in a disappointing position (38th), as concern continues about protection of the confidentiality of sources and the ability of investigative journalists to cover influential figures close to the government. Italy (61st), which still has a dozen or so journalists under police protection, has turned the page on several years of conflict of interest with Silvio Berlusconi’s departure. But this year’s ranking still bears his mark, especially another attempt to introduce a gag law and an attempt to introduce Internet filtering without reference to the courts, both narrowly rejected.

Against the extraordinary backdrop of the News of the World affair, the United Kingdom (28th) caused concern with its approach to the protection of privacy and its response to the London riots. Despite universal condemnation, the UK also clings to a surreal law that allows the entire world to come and sue news media before its courts.

The contrast among the three Baltic countries sharpened. Estonia (3rd) stayed at the top of the index but Lithuania and Latvia fell to 30th and 50th respectively as a result of grotesque court rulings and increased interference by the security services. Relations between the government and media have improved somewhat in Slovakia (25th) since Robert Fico, who was heavy-handed in his methods and crude in his language with journalists, ceased to be prime minister.

The economic crisis accentuated the Balkan media’s problems – use of the media for private or criminal interests, unfair competition in very small markets, and self-censorship by a growing number of badly paid journalists. Judicial officials – many of them poorly trained, allied with the government and often corrupt – seem more interested in harassing the media than ending impunity for those who threaten or physically attack journalists. This was the case, for example in Bosnia-Herzegovina (58th), Montenegro (107th), Albania (96th) and Macedonia (94th), which lost 40 per cent of its media with the closure of Plus Produkcija, a company that owned three dailies and the leading privately-owned TV station.

Turkey back to old habits, Azerbaijan and Belarus locked into repression
Turkey continued its descent, this time falling 10 places to 148th. Despite the diversity and energy of its media, 2011 saw a dramatic escalation in the judicial harassment of journalists. Under the pretext of combating terrorism, dozens were jailed before being tried, above all in the investigations into the Ergenekon conspiracy and the KCK, an alleged political offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party. The unprecedented extension of the range of arrests, the massive phone taps and the contempt shown for the confidentiality of journalists’ sources have helped to reintroduce a climate of intimidation in the media.

In Russia (142nd), the media freedom panorama continues to be gloomy. The conviction of a couple for the double murder of Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov raised hopes but aspects of the case remained unclarified and impunity is still the rule for those who murder or attack journalists. Tougher sentences for such crimes and the decriminalization of media offences were both good news but the impact of these reforms remains to be determined, especially in the absence of an overhaul of anti-terrorist legislation. The unprecedented demonstrations in December 2011 augur a period of uncertainty – while some newsrooms seem to be becoming more outspoken, the state’s repressive apparatus has so far been able to cope with the unrest.

After cracking down violently on pro-democracy protests, both Belarus (168th) and Azerbaijan (162nd) have fallen sharply and are approaching the bottom of the index. Their leaders, Alexander Lukashenko and Ilham Aliyev, are both predators of press freedom and both made the media pay for the way their authority was challenged on the streets – in Belarus, more than 100 journalists and bloggers arrested (and around 30 of them given jail sentences), increased harassment of independent media and deportation of foreign journalists.

Not content with this indiscriminate repression, Belarus’ self-styled “Batka” (Father) went on to turn the media into the scapegoat for all of his country’s problems. Similar methods were used in Azerbaijan, where special emphasis was put on surveillance of social networks and where netizens were jailed just for issuing online calls for demonstrations. Violence is back in a big way there, with threats, beatings, and abduction of opposition journalists and, for the first time in five years, an Azerbaijani journalist murdered.

No longer the leader in the southern Caucasus, Georgia (104th) is paying the price for the violent dispersal of an opposition demonstration in May and the persistent harassment of journalists and bloggers suspected of sympathizing with Russia. Armenia’s 24-place rise in the index seems spectacular, but in fact it has just gone back to where it was three years ago, before the brutal crackdown after the disputed 2008 elections. The media are nonetheless subject to constant judicial harassment and the size of the damages demanded in lawsuits is intimidating. Self-regulation is a major challenge that still needs to be tackled.

In Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan turned the page on a 2010 marked by a cruel dictatorship’s violent death throes and inter-ethnic massacres in the south and achieved the region’s best ranking (108th). The media freedom situation nonetheless continues to be very fragile, with physical attacks on journalists and repressive initiatives by parliament. It was a bad year in neighbouring Tajikistan (122nd), where the authorities continue to brandish the spectre of civil war and radical Islamism to try to gag the independent media.

Kazakhstan’s ranking (154th) improved only because so many other countries plunged on the index this year. In reality, in a bid to maintain a facade of stability at all costs, the Kazakh authorities have stepped up their persecution of the few independent voices and are trying to gain control of the Internet. Online content also focused the attention of the dictatorships in Uzbekistan (157th) and Turkmenistan (177th), which made no progress. The Turkmen public have access only to a highly-censored national Intranet, but the war of information 2.0 has now begun with the few Turkmen online resources based abroad.

Ukraine (116th) rose a few rungs after its all-time low in 2010, marked by journalist Vasyl Klymentyev’s disappearance, but the negative’s tendencies seen since Viktor Yanukovych’s installation as president in February 2010 – return of censorship and many physical attacks on journalists that have gone unpunished – have continued.

Middle-East/North Africa
Arab uprisings and their impact on the press freedom index

The Arab uprisings and the measures taken by governments to control news and information in response to the uprisings had a major impact on the ranking of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. From Morocco to Bahrain and Yemen, few countries were spared by this wave of pro-democracy uprisings, which prompted major crackdowns.

Some predators of press freedom fell from power, but others remain in place. The transitions that have begun are not necessarily leading towards more pluralism and most of the changes in the rankings have been downward ones. The freedoms that have been won are fragile and could easily be swept away.

Countries where revolts led to political change

Tunisia rose in the index, from 164th to 134th, because of the end of the harassment of journalists by the Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali regime, the emergence of real pluralism of opinion in the print media and, albeit possibly only for the time being, the end of massive and systematic Internet filtering. The recent appointments of persons with links to the old regime to run the state-owned media underscored the danger of a return to the past.

Libya has also risen in the index, but to a lesser degree, going from 160th to 154th. After the Libyan uprising began in February, there was an explosion in the number of media, above all in the east of the country. The new pluralist enthusiasm spread to the west after the liberation of Tripoli at the end of August. Newspapers and radio and TV stations have sprouted like mushrooms. But Libya’s ranking reflects the many abuses against journalists during the civil war. If democratization continues and if media pluralism and independence take a lasting hold, Libya’s ranking will improve over the next few years.

Countries where repression continues and changes are just cosmetic
Most of the region’s countries have fallen in the index because of the measures taken in a bid to impose a news blackout on a crackdown. Egypt plummeted 39 places (from 127th last year to 166th this year) because of the attempts by Hosni Mubarak’s government and then the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to rein in the revolution’s successive phases. The hounding of foreign journalists for three days at the start of February, the interrogations, arrests and convictions of journalists and bloggers by military courts, and the searches without warrants all contributed to Egypt’s dramatic fall in the index.

The Kingdom of Bahrain (173rd) plunged 29 places to become one of the world’s 10 most repressive countries. Bahraini and foreign journalists were systematically hounded from February onwards. An entire arsenal of measures were taken to prevent information circulating about the evolving situation in the country. At the same time, the authorities made extensive use of the media to put out pro-government propaganda. The creation of an independent commission of enquiry did not end the abuses against journalists. It just helped to ensure that, as a result of the undertakings given by the authorites, the rest of the world stopped talking about Bahrain.

Yemen fell just one place (from 170th to 171st) despite all the violence used by the security forces against demonstrators and journalists covering the demonstrations. But the media freedom situation was already very worrying and Yemen had already fallen 16 places since 2008, when a sharp deterioration began. A Gulf Cooperation Council plan under which President Ali Abdallah Saleh was supposed to stand down, which he signed on 23 November, did not change the internal situation, far from it.

Syria, which had already attained a very low ranking in recent years, fell a bit more, from 173rd to 176th place, on the brink of become one of the bottom three. The situation in Syria had an impact on neighbouring Lebanon, where the government provided the Syrian authorities with a degree of cooperation in their attempts to track down dissident Syrian journalists and bloggers who had fled to Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia fell only one place (from 157th to 158th) although the government organized a news blackout on the demonstrations and ensuing crackdown in the eastern regions with a Shiite majority. But Saudi Arabia had already been very low in the index because of the lack of pluralism and high level of self-censorship.

Countries that relapsed
After rising in the index for several years in a row, Iraq fell 22 places this year, from 130th to 152nd (almost to the position it held in 2008, when it was 158th). There were various reasons. The first was an increase in murders of journalists. Hadi Al-Mahdi’s murder on 8 September marked a clear turning point. Another reason was the fact that journalists are very often the target of violence by the security forces, whether at demonstrations in Tahrir Square in Baghdad, or in Iraqi Kurdistan, a region that had for many years offered a refuge for journalists.

As regards its internal situation, Israel fell six places (from 86th to 92nd) for two reasons. Firstly, Haaretz reporter Uri Blau is facing a possible seven-year jail sentence for possessing classified documents and his source, Anat Kam, was sentenced to three years in prison on 31 October. Secondly, on 21 November, parliament approved a media bill on first reading that would drastically increase the amount of damages that can be awarded in defamation cases. In general, although Israel enjoys real media pluralism, it is not in the top 50 countries in the Reporters Without Borders index because the media are subject to prior military censorship.

The Palestinian Territories fell three places because of attacks on journalists during demonstrations by Palestinians calling for an end to the war between Fatah and Hamas, and because of an illegal takeover by Hamas supporters of the journalists’ union in Gaza City.

Countries that fell again
The United Arab Emirates fell again, this time from 87th to 112th, above all because of its Internet filtering policy and the imprisonment of Ahmed Mansoor, a blogger who administers the online pro-democracy forum Al-Hewar (“The Dialogue”), from 8 April to 28 November along with four other activists, known collectively as “The UAE 5.” He was reportedly mistreated while detained and his family was repeatedly threatened.

The media freedom situation has not changed intrinsically in Jordan but police violence against journalists and repeated deliberate attacks on the Agence France-Presse bureau in Amman caused it to fall eight places in the index, from 120th to 128th.

Morocco fell again, this time from 135th to 138th, as a result of Al-Massae editor Rachid Nini’s imprisonment. He is still detained. Algeria, on the other hand, rose again, this time 11 places, from 133rd to 122nd, above all because of a fall in the number of trials of journalists.

Syria, Bahrain and Yemen get worst ever rankings

“This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.

“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.

“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”

Protest movements

The Arab world was the motor of history in 2011 but the Arab uprisings have had contrasting political outcomes so far, with Tunisia and Bahrain at opposite ends of the scale. Tunisia (134th) rose 30 places in index and, with much suffering, gave birth to a democratic regime that has not yet fully accepted a free and independent press. Bahrain (173rd) fell 29 places because of its relentless crackdown on pro-democracy movements, its trials of human rights defenders and its suppression of all space for freedom.

While Libya (154th) turned the page on the Gaddafi era, Yemen succumbed to violence between President Ali Abdallah Saleh’s opponents and supporters and languished in 171st position. The future of both of these countries remains uncertain, and the place they will allow the media is undecided. The same goes for Egypt, which fell 39 places to 166th because the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, in power since February, dashed the hopes of democrats by continuing the Mubarak dictatorship’s practices. There were three periods of exceptional violence for journalists: in February, November and December.

Already poorly ranked in 2010, Syria fell further in the index, to 176th position, because total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work.

Elsewhere in the world, pro-democracy movements that tried to follow the Arab example were ruthlessly suppressed. Many arrests were made in Vietnam (172nd). In China (174th), the government responded to regional and local protests and to public impatience with scandals and acts of injustice by feverishly reinforcing its system of controlling news and information, carrying out extrajudicial arrests and stepping up Internet censorship. There was a dramatic rise in the number of arrests in Azerbaijan (162nd), where Ilham Aliyev’s autocratic government did not hesitate to jail netizens, abduct opposition journalists and bar foreign reporters in order to impose a news blackout on the unrest.

Led by President Yoweri Museveni, Uganda (139th) launched an unprecedented crackdown on opposition movements and independent media after the elections in February. Similarly, Chile (80th) fell 47 places because of its many freedom of information violations, committed very often by the security forces during student protests. The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests.

Several European countries fall far behind rest of continent

The index has highlighted the divergence of some European countries from the rest of the continent. The crackdown on protests after President Lukashenko’s reelection caused Belarus to fall 14 places to 168th. At a time when it is portraying itself as a regional model, Turkey (148th) took a big step backwards and lost 10 places. Far from carrying out promised reforms, the judicial system launched a wave of arrests of journalists that was without precedent since the military dictatorship.

Within the European Union, the index reflects a continuation of the very marked distinction between countries such as Finland and Netherlands that have always had a good evaluation and countries such as Bulgaria (80th), Greece (70th) and Italy (61st) that fail to address the issue of their media freedom violations, above all because of a lack of political will. There was little progress from France, which went from 44th to 38th, or from Spain (39th) and Romania (47th). Media freedom is a challenge that needs addressing more than ever in the Balkans, which want to join the European Union but are suffering the negative effects of the economic crisis.

Endemic violence

Many countries are marked by a culture of violence towards the media that has taken a deep hold. It will be hard to reverse the trends in these countries without an effective fight against impunity. Mexico (149th) and Honduras (135th) are two cases in point. Pakistan (151st) was the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year running. Somalia (164th), which has been at war for 20 years, shows no sign of finding a way out of the chaos in which journalists are paying a heavy price.

In Iran (175th), hounding and humiliating journalists has been part of officialdom’s political culture for years. The regime feeds on persecution of the media. Iraq (152nd) fell back 22 places and is now worryingly approaching its 2008 position (158th).

Noteworthy changes

South Sudan, a new nation facing many challenges, has entered the index in a respectable position (111th) for what is a breakaway from one of the worst ranked countries, Sudan (170th). Burma (169th) has a slightly better position than in previous years as a result of political changes in recent months that have raised hopes but need to be confirmed. Niger (29th) achieved the biggest rise in a single year, 75 places, thanks to a successful political transition.

It was Africa that also saw the biggest falls in the index. Djibouti, a discreet little dictatorship in the Horn of Africa, fell 49 places to 159th. Malawi (146th) fell 67 places because of the totalitarian tendencies of its president, Bingu Wa Mutharika. Uganda, mentioned above, fell 43 places to 139th. Finally, Côte d’Ivoire fell 41 places to 159th because the media were badly hit by the fighting between the supporters of rival presidents Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara.

One of the biggest falls in Latin America was by Brazil, which plunged 41 places to 99th because the high level of violence resulted in the deaths of three journalists and bloggers.

              ###

The Reporters without Borders website is a comprehensive and informative library. There is more to read about this and past years' indices at:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

                 ###

Beyond PayPal, Censorship's Ugly Saga Continues

Over the last few weeks, the transaction process experienced intense scrutiny as a result of PayPal's misguided attempt to censor legal fiction. With the outcome favoring free speech and market economics, it's not a stretch to find other, and much greater, forces championing the implementation of stronger censorship controls. Sadly, US global market leaders are right in the thick of it.

The following post, from "Good Morning Silicon Valley," is reprinted in its entirety, with the exception of its closing statement about PayPal (which is reduntant at this point in time). The writer, Levi Sumagaysay, does a very good job of encapsulating the trending censorship problem.

Off the censor ship? Vows about Pakistan by Cisco, McAfee; PayPal revises e-books policy

- Posted by Levi Sumagaysay on March 16th, 2012 at 8:35 am

"There are reports this week that a handful of tech companies, including Cisco and McAfee, have vowed not to heed Pakistan’s call for technology to censor the Internet in that country.
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that Pakistan had solicited bids from tech companies for the “development, deployment and operation of a national-level URL filtering and blocking system.” The $10 million project seeks a system that would have the ability to block up to 50 million URLs.  The deadline for the bids was Friday. Some have urged Pakistan to put its plans on hold, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The New York Times wrote Thursday that a group in Pakistan had urged several companies not to provide filtering technology to the government, and that some of them — Verizon and Websense, as well as the two Silicon Valley companies mentioned above — had agreed. Would-be activists take note:

As the NYT says, we’re seeing the results of advocacy groups taking the offensive and identifying companies before they have a chance to make controversial deals. In this case, it would be bad PR for companies to be associated with such a high-profile censorship project.
Cisco’s vow is notable because it has been criticized about — and sued over — supplying technology to China, which censors the Internet. (See Quoted: Cisco in China, knowledge vs. intentions and China and censorship questions for Cisco, Microsoft and Facebook.) Likewise, Intel-owned McAfee was last year identified by the Wall Street Journal as a company that provides filtering software to ISPs in countries in the Middle East that block certain websites.

Meanwhile, Andy Greenberg of Forbes reports that Sunnyvale-based Blue Coat Systems is among the companies that have “conspicuously declined to comment” about whether they are bidding for Pakistan’s business."

With governments driving censorship controls, how can free speech and market economics survive? Many use proxy services to circumvent such restrictions. One company that I've used while traveling abroad is Proxify.com. I don't endorse any particular company, but offer Proxify.com as an example only. This subscription-based service, through its processes and programming, protects the user's identity while allowing him/her access to otherwise restricted URLs and/or content. It's affordable and I've found it to be very reliable and effective. There are other proxy (and socks) services and although they offer similar functionality, not all protect a user's identity. So, buyer beware - do your homework and ensure the proxy service you select matches your needs. It only took me 15 minutes of Googling to narrow down my list to Proxify.com. 

Although the horizon for those living in restrictive countries like the People's Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan is ominous, I encourage you to spread the word of proxy and socks services to anyone facing censorship. Word of mouth will protect free speach, as was proved in the landmark descision of PayPal to loosen its policy and definition regarding objectionable content.
                  ###

PayPal Reverses Proposed Censorship, Changes Policies

Mark Coker, of Smashwords, released the following statement regarding PayPal reversing its position on censoring legal fiction. This is reprinted in its entirety.

Great news. Yesterday afternoon I met with PayPal at their office in San Jose, where they informed me of their decision to modify their policies to allow legal fiction.

Effective last night, we rolled back the Smashwords Terms of Service to its pre-February 24 state.

It's been a tumultuous, nerve-wracking few weeks as we worked to protect the right of writers to write and publish legal fiction.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Smashwords authors, publishers and customers. You stood up and made your voice known. Thank you to every Smashwords author and publisher who wrote me to express opinions, even if we disagreed, and even if you were angry with me. You inspired me to carry your cause forward.

Smashwords authors, publishers and customers mobilized. You made telephone calls, wrote emails and letters, started and signed petitions, blogged, tweeted, Facebooked and drove the conversation. You made the difference. Without you, no one would have paid attention. I would also like to thank the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). These three advocacy groups were the first to stand up for our authors, publishers and customers. Their contribution cannot be overstated. We collaborated with them to build a coalition of like-minded organizations to support our mutual cause. Special kudos to Rainey Reitman of EFF for her energy, enthusiasm and leadership.

I would also like to thank all the bloggers and journalists out there who helped carry our story forward by lending their platforms to get the story out. Special thanks to TechCrunch, Slashdot, TechDirt, The Independent (UK), Reuters, Publishers Weekly, Dow Jones, The Digital Reader, CNET, Forbes, GalleyCat & EbookNewser and dozens of others too numerous to mention.

I would like to thank our friends at PayPal. They worked with us in good faith as they promised, engaged us in dialogue, made the effort to understand Smashwords and our mission, went to bat for our authors with the credit card companies and banks, and showed the courage to revise their policies.

This is a big, bold move by PayPal. It represents a watershed decision that protects the rights of writers to write, publish and distribute legal fiction. It also protects the rights of readers to purchase and enjoy all fiction in the privacy of their own imagination. It clarifies and rationalizes the role of financial services providers and pulls them out of the business of censoring legal fiction.

Following implementation of their new policies, PayPal will have the most liberal, pro-First-Amendment policies of the major payment processors. Will Google Checkout and Checkout by Amazon be next now that the credit card companies have clarified their positions, and have essentially given payment providers the permission to adopt more enlightened policies? Finally, thanks to Selena Kitt of Excessica and Remittance Girl for helping me to understand and respect all fiction more than I ever have before.

This is a bright day for indie publishing. In the old world, traditional publishers were the arbiters of literary merit. Today, thanks to the rise of indie ebooks, the world is moving toward a broader, more inclusive definition of literary merit. Smashwords gives writers the power and freedom to publish. Merit is decided by your readers. Just as it should be.

                      ###