8 ms·

He should just sue for copyright infringement.

duxup 5y ago
IIRC: Amazon won't tell him who it is and he suspects it's just someone out of legal reach / as the book is just self published his legal resources are pretty limited.
- EricE 5y ago
  Which is what the infringers hope - and the major engine driving much of Amazon's profits. Fraud. I remember when people used to (heck still do) get worked up about Walmart but those same people not only order from Amazon all the time, they even join B mans private club (Prime).
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    You sue Amazon for contributory infringement. Subpoena for the number of fraudulent copies they sold and then press for triple damages plus all of your fees. Even if that number is tiny you'll cost them much more in legal bills.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      I'm not sure why I'd spend $50k forcing Amazon to spend $250k. They can play that game a lot longer than me. Honestly, all the stories in this thread make me very glad I canceled my Prime subscription. I still use Amazon occasionally, but now most of my purchases go direct. With the exception of books; there I order from my local bookstore.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Amazon are selling it; if it's tortuously acquired he can sue them. My opinion, not legal advice.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > Amazon won't tell him who it is Does that matter to the police? Surely police reports don't have to include the name of who you think caused you some injury.
  - MertsA 5y ago
    "It's a civil matter" The police are never going to bother trying to seriously curtail online fraud. There's a reason why so many scam calls try to trick vulnerable people into paying them with iTunes gift cards and Google Play gift codes. Even with the added friction and blatantly farcical nature of the scam they find it more profitable to try and get the funds that way. They undoubtedly lose plenty of victims who might have been tricked into sending it through Western Union, mailing cash, or a cashier's check. They're paying a steep price to funnel it through the app store between the platform fees and whatever they pay the merchant that's laundering the funds for them. They do that because they know that Apple is never going to try to claw back funds and the police are never going to force Apple to return the money that's still sitting in their accounts. You can call Apple 30 minutes after giving the scammers the code and without fail "oh sorry, the funds are gone!" https://i.imgur.com/oijXbLD.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/oijXbLD.jpeg That's the status quo, the courts are your only remedy here and you're going to lose trying to sue Amazon over a fraudulent seller. Best case scenario you manage to get Amazon to identify the seller and find out they're in a foreign jurisdiction and for all practical reasons untouchable as far as legal recourse is concerned.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Companies are taking a broad interpretation of Section 230 and claim that the law shields tech companies from all liability for their platform[1], online and off, and not just liability for hosting user created content. Lower level courts seem to agree with them, although one such case has been fought all the way to the Supreme Court[2]. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2021/december/winning-through-losing/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...
- jhgb 5y ago
  So just having a web shop shields you for example from the consequences of selling counterfeit goods? How does that work?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    They'll argue that they aren't liable for the crimes that users of their platform commit using their platform and cite Section 230 of the CDA.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Which makes no sense, since CDA's Section 230 is saying nothing about being an accomplice to crimes, only about not being treated as the publisher or speaker of some information.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        I agree, and there's a case that's gone to the Supreme Court over this, so we'll see how they rule.

IIRC: Amazon won't tell him who it is and he suspects it's just someone out of legal reach / as the book is just self published his legal resources are pretty limited.

EricE 5y ago
Which is what the infringers hope - and the major engine driving much of Amazon's profits. Fraud. I remember when people used to (heck still do) get worked up about Walmart but those same people not only order from Amazon all the time, they even join B mans private club (Prime).
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  You sue Amazon for contributory infringement. Subpoena for the number of fraudulent copies they sold and then press for triple damages plus all of your fees. Even if that number is tiny you'll cost them much more in legal bills.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I'm not sure why I'd spend $50k forcing Amazon to spend $250k. They can play that game a lot longer than me. Honestly, all the stories in this thread make me very glad I canceled my Prime subscription. I still use Amazon occasionally, but now most of my purchases go direct. With the exception of books; there I order from my local bookstore.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Amazon are selling it; if it's tortuously acquired he can sue them. My opinion, not legal advice.
jhgb 5y ago
> Amazon won't tell him who it is Does that matter to the police? Surely police reports don't have to include the name of who you think caused you some injury.
- MertsA 5y ago
  "It's a civil matter" The police are never going to bother trying to seriously curtail online fraud. There's a reason why so many scam calls try to trick vulnerable people into paying them with iTunes gift cards and Google Play gift codes. Even with the added friction and blatantly farcical nature of the scam they find it more profitable to try and get the funds that way. They undoubtedly lose plenty of victims who might have been tricked into sending it through Western Union, mailing cash, or a cashier's check. They're paying a steep price to funnel it through the app store between the platform fees and whatever they pay the merchant that's laundering the funds for them. They do that because they know that Apple is never going to try to claw back funds and the police are never going to force Apple to return the money that's still sitting in their accounts. You can call Apple 30 minutes after giving the scammers the code and without fail "oh sorry, the funds are gone!" https://i.imgur.com/oijXbLD.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/oijXbLD.jpeg That's the status quo, the courts are your only remedy here and you're going to lose trying to sue Amazon over a fraudulent seller. Best case scenario you manage to get Amazon to identify the seller and find out they're in a foreign jurisdiction and for all practical reasons untouchable as far as legal recourse is concerned.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Companies are taking a broad interpretation of Section 230 and claim that the law shields tech companies from all liability for their platform[1], online and off, and not just liability for hosting user created content. Lower level courts seem to agree with them, although one such case has been fought all the way to the Supreme Court[2]. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2021/december/winning-through-losing/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...

jhgb 5y ago
So just having a web shop shields you for example from the consequences of selling counterfeit goods? How does that work?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  They'll argue that they aren't liable for the crimes that users of their platform commit using their platform and cite Section 230 of the CDA.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    Which makes no sense, since CDA's Section 230 is saying nothing about being an accomplice to crimes, only about not being treated as the publisher or speaker of some information.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      I agree, and there's a case that's gone to the Supreme Court over this, so we'll see how they rule.