11 ms·
Amazon Won’t Pay Self-Published Author For Books It Mistakenly Gave Away
- wccrawford 15y agoAmazon should own up and pay. They have effectively stolen from this author. No, we can't guarantee that those people would have bought it for free, but if these were physical books, the law would require that they pay the author. The agreement wasn't that they get to change the price any time they like. The agreement was that they get to match competitors. They violated that.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- p0ckets 15y agoI'm sure their agreement had more than one clause. It could very well contain a set of clauses that limits amazon's liability to whatever it collects from customers (in this case, $0).
- adamc 15y agoLet's not confuse what's right with the law. The two are only occasionally related.
- tomjen3 15y agoMaybe, but lets be honest the price they would have to pay for this is what a few seconds profit? Compared to the risk of losing the next great author because they get scared away that is a very small price to pay. Not to mention that he may have a case for piracy for commercial gain, in which case Amazon is liable for $300000 a copy (which, at 6000, is more money than most authors will ever see).
- toyg 15y ago"If these were physical books", there would be a material loss involved: Publisher A paid to produce X books, the distributor lost part of them, and now the Publisher cannot sell them anymore, suffering a direct and quantifiable economic loss. Here, it's more like the distributor left their books around in a library, and some people got to read them for free. The publisher can still sell them. There is no direct loss, the damage is hardly quantifiable (it might actually turn out to be a net positive in the end, given all this free publicity). The digital world is funny like that. EDIT: this is not to say that Amazon shouldn't be held accountable for their mistake, if there is a breach of contract involved; just that it doesn't matter whether there were 6000 downloads or 60.
- derefr 15y agoIf this is true, then content piracy should also be legal. (Amazon effectively did the same thing as a pirate posting the file to a torrent tracker: they satisfied some of their potential customers with a free copy, invalidating them as real customers.) Conversely, if piracy should be illegal, then this is false, and Amazon is in trouble.
- toyg 15y agoContent piracy is unauthorized distribution. Amazon here was authorized to distribute the material; they are in trouble if and only if the authorization was somehow revoked when the price reached zero. My point that there was no real loss is tangential to the actual case.
- nknight 15y agoThey were authorized to distribute the content according to the terms of the contract. It appears they distributed the content outside of those terms. I'm sure there's language to ensure they won't get hit with damages, but they should be.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoAnd the same contract says that they are not liable for damages in the event of an error. The contract does not support a claim for money, that case is a moral one rather than a legal one.
- wisty 15y agoHe can still seek legal advice. Just because a contract says "we can't be held responsible for anything" doesn't mean it's always going to hold up in court. It just wouldn't be fair, and lawyers would lose too much business. What matters is the disputed amount ($13,000), whether the author wants to play hardball, and whether Amazon would rather pay him to go away or squash him like a bug (to set an example). Because even if he wins (and I've no idea if he can), it wouldn't be fun if Amazon got nasty. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen the contract in question, so I have no real idea, but it's not as clear cut as "you agreed not to sue us". It could very well be a bluff by Amazon.
- ycsucks 15y agoAnd you should go fuck yourself, you self-entitled bastard. You have effectively stolen from everyone with your belief in the ownership of expression. You and your buddy, PG, can go fuck yourselves.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ck2 15y agoActually, if you go by RIAA settlements and court verdicts, non-physical items are actually worth exponentially more than physical.
- kevinpet 15y agoA set with two data points cannot imply exponential growth. The phrase you are looking for is "orders of magnitude more". Please, let's keep exponential around as a word with meaning. It conveys something useful.
- awj 15y agoPart of the reasoning there is in calculating the impact of redistribution. When someone tosses an mp3 up on a torrent the RIAA doesn't just lose the immediate (potential) sales for those who downloaded it, but also for anyone that that network shares the files with. Mind you, I don't agree with the specific numbers they're citing, but the general logic works. It's kind of like the Drake equation, everyone can agree on the general format, but you can plug in specific values to make it mean whatever you want.
- Dylan16807 15y agoNo, the model doesn't work. If the RIAA gets their huge multiple from one person they aren't going to consider downloads later in the sequence as covered. They would gladly go after a torrent swarm and charge each member based on the total number of copies. If they only went after the initial seeder, I could understand. But that's completely counterfactual.
- mindstab 15y agoFunny too since Amazon has the ability to revoke books and they did so last year over some issue when a big company was involved, and it pissed off a lot of customers. But now, not only will they not pay the little guy, they won't revoke the erroneously given away books.
- leerpm 15y agoThere may be a start-up idea here: an application to allow authors to easily monitor changes to their ebook prices?
- threepointone 15y agoSounds more like a feature in a bigger app, but yes, I agree with you. There's something there.
- 211231321 15y agoThe app should be able to easily post your book to most major ebook markets.
- dotBen 15y agoThis is one of those examples where yes, that sounds like a good idea but the size of the addressable market is rather slim. Most self-publishers are not making huge amounts of money to justify spending more than a token amount on such monitoring. A bigger app/suite of services to support self-publishers (especially as many are not tech-savvy) might be helpful, which could include this.
- marisela_arias 15y agoThat's not the problem here. The author presumably found the price change rather quickly. It was Amazon that took a long time to respond to the error that's at issue.
- adestefan 15y agoYou list with them, you play by their rules. They're not locking you into their store in anyway shape or form.
- uptown 15y agoExcept apparently they didn't abide by their own rules ... hence the problem.
- elehack 15y agoExcept he was playing by the rules, and got shafted anyway. They erroneously price-matched, making his book free, and depriving him of royalties. Their mistake; his loss.
- fuckyoudick 15y agoApparently, you must be mentally retarded. I am sure you mother loves you, but stay off the internet.
- adestefan 15y agoI'm sure there's an area of the contract that he agreed to when he listed his book that Amazon is not liable for pricing mistakes. So there's the trade-off: you're listed in Amazon's market that is seen by more people than probably any other e-book market and you're getting royalties directly, but if Amazon screws up, too bad.
- ck2 15y agoWho sells in a marketplace where someone else sets your price for you automatically without your approval? Amazon isn't a distributor in this case any more than the person who owns the tent at a fleamarket allows people to sell underneath it. In any case, Amazon's automatic algorithm to save themselves money from having to pay humans to do it nipped them this time and they owe the author. Do the right thing and settle Amazon. Take it out of the programmer's pay if necessary - better yet their manager who was supposed to review the code before it executed.
- illumen 15y ago'Who sells in a marketplace where someone else sets your price for you automatically without your approval?' Most people who sell products do. You sell at your wholesale price, and the retailer sets the retail price.
- _delirium 15y agoTrue, but the tricky part here is that Amazon got to set the wholesale price, too. Larger publishers have negotiated fixed wholesale prices (against Amazon's attempt to push back), but self-published eBook authors get a percentage of the retail price, so when Amazon varies the retail price, the wholesale price varies accordingly.
- feralchimp 15y ago(To split a maybe-relevant hair) in a purely royalty-based resale model, with no pre-negotiated minimums, there is no wholesale price. There is only the retail price, and revenue flow per the royalty calculation. Amazon clearly believes: - the cost/benefit for this guy to sue doesn't work out in his favor - no (or an insignificant number of) other authors will pull their content in an attempt to negotiate a change in the contract terms Sucks.
- rapind 15y agoTaking it out of the programmer's or manager's pay is ridiculous and probably illegal. You've never written code with a bug or two in it? If you want someone to right bug-free code or take financial responsibility for the code they've written, be ready to pay a lot more than you already do for that extra insurance. It's a cost of doing business. I do think Amazon should reimburse the guy if only to save on negative publicity over a very small amount.
- MattBearman 15y agoI think Amazon should be made to pay something, although maybe not the full $13k, simply to make damn sure that they sort out their systems and this doesn't happen again. If Amazon gets off lightly they probably won't change anything, and this could happen to some other unsuspecting author.
- archangel_one 15y agoI agree, although it would be even better if Amazon just paid the poor guy without someone having to make them do it. This clearly wasn't intended and it's not like paying even the full sum would make a lot of difference to their bottom line.
- roc 15y ago> "this could happen to some other unsuspecting author." Not to mention the now-clear potential for malicious activity that this process illustrates: If one wanted to cause trouble for an author, apparently they could just post three chapters of a book to the Nook store at $0 and watch the target author's Kindle revenue drop to zero. Amazon's incentive is clearly to err on the side of price drops -- particularly if they suffer no serious legal/PR damage from false-positives.
- delinka 15y agoBeing the tech dude that I am, had I decided to write a book and do this I think (perhaps - hindsight and all that) I would have changed the title slightly to prevent the automatons from causing such a problem. Akin to how Apple's App Store policies recommend naming the free version of your app differently from the paid version.
- castewart 15y agoIt's got a ISBN along with the name.
- ernesth 15y agoKindle ebooks have no ISBN. They only have Amazon's own Product identifier: ASIN which needs not be associated to an ISBN.
- mseebach 15y agoIf he gave the excerpt the same ISBN, then it's really his own fault: An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Num... Sure, Amazons customer service could be better and should probably at least have sent an email stating that they're lowering the price etc.
- mquinlan 15y agoFor the sales of Crawford's book to go from 6 (/day?) to 5,000+ makes me question how many of those aren't really fans and are just readers because it was an impulse "buy". At least he maintained his 4.5 star rating even with the flood of downloads.
- marisela_arias 15y agoThe problem is that Amazon doesn't want to set a precedent by paying him. They want to be able make these mistakes in the future and be free to screw over another author without any previous settlement mucking things up.
- jxcole 15y agoAm I the only one who read this and though, well that's sad for the author, but isn't Amazon asking for too much in general? I mean, we're talking about e-books. I imagine I could probably make an online bookstore that sells ebooks and gives the author 75% of the selling price. Amazon is taking $5.99 and offering him 35 or 70 cents. I fail to see how it could remain in business with the relative ease with which you could make a competitor.
- dminor 15y agoThey're offering 35% or 70%, not 35 or 70 cents.
- jobu 15y ago35% is a terrible rate for an ebook. You can only get %70 if you charge more than $2.99 and opt-in to Kindle Lending. Does that mean that authors don't get anything for books read through Kindle Lending? That seems terrible if true. Kindle Lending is the reason I finally signed up for Amazon Prime, and I would expect authors to get a cut of that revenue.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoAuthors get nothing for books lent through the library and people have been OK with that for a long time. A book still has to be purchased.
- alttag 15y agoLibraries purchase physical copies of books (often at higher prices to get a sturdier binding). For popular books, libraries purchase multiple copies, some of which get lost or damaged, and must be replaced. In other words,authors still see some income from libraries. With Kindle Lending, there is no substantive gain for authors.
- Natsu 15y ago
- hxa7241 15y agoThe book appears to have been on sale for about 2 weeks, during which time 6 copies were sold through Amazon. So that is about 3 sales per week (from Amazon). One would expect that this publicity will do a lot more for profits than the 'lost sales' would have.
- peteysd 15y agoI think that Amazon should probably admit the error and pay the guy. However, the publicity that the author is now receiving over this is probably worth far more than the price of 6,000 books. In the end, he'll probably be secretly thanking Amazon for allowing him to rise above obscurity.
- mark_l_watson 15y agoI am surprised that Amazon didn't pay him a small token payment, perhaps a couple of thousand dollars. In the past Amazon has given me two grants for free AWS usage ($1000 and $300) so I personally consider them to be generous, for a corporation. I would bet that no one with real authority at Amazon reviewed this case because if they had, I think they would have made a small good-will payment.
- alttag 15y agoIf it does go to court, a goodwill payment might be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing. In your case, the marginal cost to Amazon of providing AWS was negligible, and Amazon has full rights to offer products they create as freebies, so such grants easily translate to goodwill. In this case, Amazon doesn't own all rights to the product, so it's a bit more murky. It would be as if Amazon was granting you freebies but were only resellers rather than providers of AWS, and didn't compensate the actual provider.
- Tichy 15y agoCan't they delete the free copies from the kindle devices? Not that I really like that, but that seems to be the use case for that feature.
- ianferrel 15y agoThe last time they did that, there was a huge upswelling of discontent, several lawsuits (which went nowhere, I believe), and they stated specifically that they would not do so again.
- Pahalial 15y agoI think the real story here is that he chose the 35% royalty rate over the 70% rate “because you can opt out of Kindle Lending.” I understand that some people view disabling that feature as less of an anti-customer move than I do, but to hate it enough to waive half your royalties?
- 211231321 15y agoYeah, and the lending feature is good and would actually result in good marketing.
- rick888 15y agoIt's funny how amazon won't pay for their mistakes, yet sellers in their marketplace are kicked off for much less. If you have over a 1% failure rate, you are warned. If it continues, your account is put on hold and you might even be kicked off permanently. Failure can be a return, refund, or bad feedback (it doesn't matter why). If a customer says they didn't receive a package and file an A-Z claim, they win 99% of the time, even when the seller has proof of delivery. I understand that we don't want bad sellers ripping people off, but Amazon should at least hold themselves to the same standards. They also can't really seem to get their act together. In the past 6 months, every time they make a change to their system, sellers lose orders for weeks. Amazon won't ever admit this of course, but as a seller, I can't chock it up to a coincidence anymore. It really makes me wonder what kind of code base they are working with.
- mindstab 15y agoBig business vs the little guy is extremely unfair these days. If I had given away 6000 free mp3s or movies via a P2P system you can bet they'd try me in court for the full price of them all, but in this article already they are equivocating saying "oh but they were free, less people would have paid for it so he can't realistically ask for all the money for all the copies we gave away". How come when a big company gets "ripped off" they can charge far more than the retail price for every copy but when the actual creator gets ripped off he gets nothing and people equivocate on even the numbers?
- bad_user 15y agoI thought HN was good at math: lim(number_of_lawyers) = 0 USD payed 1 -> infinite
- slowpoke 15y agoYou just described the problem of copyright as a whole: it was never designed for the little guy - as the popular myth goes (guess who is spreading that). It was invented by and for publishers (aka the big business), not for authors. That was true in the 16th century when the first ancestor of modern copyright was instated in England, if didn't change with the Statue of Annette, and isn't any different today, either.
- salem 15y agoSounds like they still have some things to learn from Zappos