5 ms·

How isnt Amazon liable for this / sued? If Walmart did the same there would be various lawsuits

vorpalhex 8y ago
They are probably liable, but it's also not intentional behavior which means less damages - so it's not worth being the first person to sue them. This is just Amazon being sloppy and not having any reasonable checks or controls on their print service.
- exhilaration 8y ago
  I could also see Amazon retaliating by refusing to carry a publisher's book if they sued.
- leoc 8y ago
  The classic "control fraud" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud strategy is to incentivise your subordinates to maximise revenues while "neglecting" to check that they aren't engaging in fraud to do it. Then you can protest your innocence when the fraud comes to light.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    This is partly why business is done on the golf course. Plausible deniability is quite lucrative.
    - umeshunni 8y ago
      > This is partly why business is done on the golf course. What do you mean?
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        Conversations on a golf course, or over dinner or drinks aren't recorded and auditable so everyone has plausible deniability over what was said or instructed.
- chatterbeak 8y ago
  After they've been officially warned, you may be able to make a good case that it's "intentional"
slack3r 8y ago
Don't be ridiculous. It's better for technical books to be freely available for everyone to read. Think about it, it is more optimal for the world in the long run.
- blunte 8y ago
  As long as the authors and publishers got paid, sure. But who pays them if the books are free?
- DennisP 8y ago
  For free digital content I have some sympathy with that point of view, but the counterfeit book featured in the article was a paper copy on sale for $48, along with a kindle version for $36.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
More than likely, they can just claim "we're just a platform, someone else uploaded the file". This is the inherent problem with Section 230 immunity for platforms: We've given companies a blank check to be used as part of criminal enterprises, and given them no incentive to police illegal behavior on their networks. In this scenario, Amazon is able to literally produce, sell, and distribute counterfeit material, keep the profits from doing so, and face no legal repercussions. That is the definition of a broken law.
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  They are not just a platform, they also sell on the platform and claim unique advantages. A platform that will only fix it, if they sell it themselves will likely not fix the general problem. Even if they could
- benologist 8y ago
  By not hiring sufficient oversight Amazon is excused for not having sufficient oversight.
- lftl 8y ago
  Does Section 230 apply at all when we're talking about a physically distributed product like this? I get that, even if it doesn't apply, Amazon's defense is probably that they're an intermediary and not the seller, but I thought the DMCA applied pretty strictly to digital copyright violations, and that any lawsuit in this instance would hinge on older laws for physical-good copyright violations.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Well, for one, there is some exception to Section 230 in the realm of intellectual property, which is an angle that could be pursued, but there's been some "conflicting rulings" on it. But I think Amazon would argue that their publishing service is an interactive computer service, and that they are not the providers of the infringing information. Which is to say, it's possible Section 230 would not apply here, but Amazon's extremely expensive lawyers would probably fight like heck to include it anyways.
MikeCapone 8y ago
is eBay getting sued every time a counterfeit good is sold?
- cobookman 8y ago
  In this case amazon produced, stored, and shipped counterfeit goods. Ebay only allows 3rd parties to have a listing, much like craigslist.
- alanfranzoni 8y ago
  eBay has no warehouse. eBay has no printing service. But I'd say that eBay should offer a fake-reporting system (which AFAIK exists) and should report users engaging in such activities to police or other institutions. The problem with Amazon is that they seem not to take appropriate action. How can you not be held liable for printing books in an unauthorized fashion AND selling it from your warehouse?
  - tartoran 8y ago
    As far as I can tell ebay has fake protection for buyers, they hold onto the transaction for a window of time and the buyer can report a fake, etc.
  - MikeCapone 8y ago
    I think it's a case of security being hard and an arms race. Kind of like Google and Facebook have to constantly run faster to stay in the same place against attackers, and sometimes attackers win a little more, and then they again get back on top. Amazon sells almost 200bn of goods each year. Even if a tiny fraction of those are problematic and slip through the cracks, it'll seem like a lot to observers. Doubt they can get it down to zero, no system is perfect, and there are too many attackers trying to game the system. It's a price to pay for all the benefits of the open platform model.
gist 8y ago
Sued for what damages? They can simply remove the offending titles and carry on. What is the cause of action and harm? "You made the same mistake twice and we lost (how much???) dollars!" [1] Maybe some kind of class action but that requires an attorney spending money to advertise and collect information from the class of people harmed. Then litigate, settle and what money do you get? [2] [1] How much did this particular seller lose? No way it's enough to pay any legal fees. Even if it is even if Amazon has to pay the legal fees what do you get in the end? Time trouble etc. [2] I just got a check for some Verizon class action in the amount of roughly $2.00 this was after so much time I had forgotten about it.
- otterley 8y ago
  The immediate damage is the unearned income from a lost book sale. But there are statutory damages provided by the Copyright Act that could total $100,000 per infringed work.

They are probably liable, but it's also not intentional behavior which means less damages - so it's not worth being the first person to sue them. This is just Amazon being sloppy and not having any reasonable checks or controls on their print service.

exhilaration 8y ago
I could also see Amazon retaliating by refusing to carry a publisher's book if they sued.
leoc 8y ago
The classic "control fraud" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud strategy is to incentivise your subordinates to maximise revenues while "neglecting" to check that they aren't engaging in fraud to do it. Then you can protest your innocence when the fraud comes to light.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  This is partly why business is done on the golf course. Plausible deniability is quite lucrative.
  - umeshunni 8y ago
    > This is partly why business is done on the golf course. What do you mean?
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      Conversations on a golf course, or over dinner or drinks aren't recorded and auditable so everyone has plausible deniability over what was said or instructed.
chatterbeak 8y ago
After they've been officially warned, you may be able to make a good case that it's "intentional"

slack3r 8y ago

Don't be ridiculous. It's better for technical books to be freely available for everyone to read. Think about it, it is more optimal for the world in the long run.

blunte 8y ago
As long as the authors and publishers got paid, sure. But who pays them if the books are free?
DennisP 8y ago
For free digital content I have some sympathy with that point of view, but the counterfeit book featured in the article was a paper copy on sale for $48, along with a kindle version for $36.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

More than likely, they can just claim "we're just a platform, someone else uploaded the file". This is the inherent problem with Section 230 immunity for platforms: We've given companies a blank check to be used as part of criminal enterprises, and given them no incentive to police illegal behavior on their networks. In this scenario, Amazon is able to literally produce, sell, and distribute counterfeit material, keep the profits from doing so, and face no legal repercussions. That is the definition of a broken law.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
They are not just a platform, they also sell on the platform and claim unique advantages. A platform that will only fix it, if they sell it themselves will likely not fix the general problem. Even if they could
benologist 8y ago
By not hiring sufficient oversight Amazon is excused for not having sufficient oversight.
lftl 8y ago
Does Section 230 apply at all when we're talking about a physically distributed product like this? I get that, even if it doesn't apply, Amazon's defense is probably that they're an intermediary and not the seller, but I thought the DMCA applied pretty strictly to digital copyright violations, and that any lawsuit in this instance would hinge on older laws for physical-good copyright violations.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Well, for one, there is some exception to Section 230 in the realm of intellectual property, which is an angle that could be pursued, but there's been some "conflicting rulings" on it. But I think Amazon would argue that their publishing service is an interactive computer service, and that they are not the providers of the infringing information. Which is to say, it's possible Section 230 would not apply here, but Amazon's extremely expensive lawyers would probably fight like heck to include it anyways.

MikeCapone 8y ago

is eBay getting sued every time a counterfeit good is sold?

cobookman 8y ago
In this case amazon produced, stored, and shipped counterfeit goods. Ebay only allows 3rd parties to have a listing, much like craigslist.
alanfranzoni 8y ago
eBay has no warehouse. eBay has no printing service. But I'd say that eBay should offer a fake-reporting system (which AFAIK exists) and should report users engaging in such activities to police or other institutions. The problem with Amazon is that they seem not to take appropriate action. How can you not be held liable for printing books in an unauthorized fashion AND selling it from your warehouse?
- tartoran 8y ago
  As far as I can tell ebay has fake protection for buyers, they hold onto the transaction for a window of time and the buyer can report a fake, etc.
- MikeCapone 8y ago
  I think it's a case of security being hard and an arms race. Kind of like Google and Facebook have to constantly run faster to stay in the same place against attackers, and sometimes attackers win a little more, and then they again get back on top. Amazon sells almost 200bn of goods each year. Even if a tiny fraction of those are problematic and slip through the cracks, it'll seem like a lot to observers. Doubt they can get it down to zero, no system is perfect, and there are too many attackers trying to game the system. It's a price to pay for all the benefits of the open platform model.

gist 8y ago

Sued for what damages? They can simply remove the offending titles and carry on. What is the cause of action and harm? "You made the same mistake twice and we lost (how much???) dollars!" [1] Maybe some kind of class action but that requires an attorney spending money to advertise and collect information from the class of people harmed. Then litigate, settle and what money do you get? [2] [1] How much did this particular seller lose? No way it's enough to pay any legal fees. Even if it is even if Amazon has to pay the legal fees what do you get in the end? Time trouble etc. [2] I just got a check for some Verizon class action in the amount of roughly $2.00 this was after so much time I had forgotten about it.

otterley 8y ago
The immediate damage is the unearned income from a lost book sale. But there are statutory damages provided by the Copyright Act that could total $100,000 per infringed work.