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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>