PS: If you do need to request a new API key, I reccommend when describing the purpose of your use, you make sure to emphasize adding links to Amazon to library pages. Which shouldn't be a lie, if you are indeed doing that. I consider adding such a link a reasonable 'cost' of using the API for it's other "side effects" too. If they ever required me to _only_ include a link to Amazon and not to other vendors (as Google sometimes tries to do in their terms), then I'd stop using it. Tim Spalding wrote: > They're also tightened up the API in various ways, and renamed it the > "Amazon.com Product Advertising API." Although I know of no case when > Amazon has shut down a library, it would be hard for any to claim > their site had "as their principal purpose advertising and marketing > the Amazon Site and driving sales of products and services on the > Amazon Site." > > I think it's a terrible mistake for them. Their marginal cost is zero; > they don't need to do this. Data openness was a key factor in Amazon's > rise. And that was when thee were no other options. With viable other > options just emerging—Open Library, Google, at least—now is hardly the > time to make it less attractive. > > Tim > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> The Amazon products API keeps changing it's name, and has just been changed >> to Amazon "Product Advertising API" -- it's the one you use to look up books >> in Amazon and get metadata for them, though. >> >> It looks from an email I got from Amazon that ss of August 15th, you'll need >> to cryptographically sign requests to this API, to have them responded to. >> It looks like kind of a pain. >> >> I think a bunch of people on this list may be using this API. Beware. >> Instructions for how to cryptographically sign requests the way they want >> can be found here: >> >> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSECommerceService/latest/DG/Query_QueryAuth.html >> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSECommerceService/latest/DG/rest-signature.html >> >> >> >> Like I said, it's looking like a pain to me. There are lots of details to >> get right. If you URI-escape not _exactly_ the same way they do, it's not >> going to work. Etc. >> >> Jonathan >> >> > > > >