Amazon removed books from my Kindle

[haertig]

Originally Posted by slm

But in fact anyone who bought that version of 1984 did purchase it from a stranger in the street. Amazon just arranged the meetup

Amazon did much more than "arrange the meetup" if the cost of the book was paid to Amazon. If Amazon took one penny of profit for that sale, then they are the ones who sold you that book. Otherwise, it would be like a physical store (the retailer) selling you fake merchandise, banking their profit for the sale, then telling you to contact the distributor/wholesaler and washing their hands of the matter.

[John F]

Originally Posted by haertig

Amazon did much more than "arrange the meetup" if the cost of the book was paid to Amazon. If Amazon took one penny of profit for that sale, then they are the ones who sold you that book. Otherwise, it would be like a physical store (the retailer) selling you fake merchandise, banking their profit for the sale, then telling you to contact the distributor/wholesaler and washing their hands of the matter.

Isn't there a difference? Amazon didn't keep the profit (or any of the money), and they didn't tell the ebook purchaser to contact the "seller"?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by John F

Isn't there a difference? Amazon didn't keep the profit (or any of the money), and they didn't tell the ebook purchaser to contact the "seller"?

I believe book purchases are paid to Amazon. What Amazon does with the money after that (pay it to the seller?) is not our concern as consumers. And it was Amazon that removed the book from people's Kindles.

It certainly looks like Amazon is the one who "sold the book". Just by looking at their actions subsequent. Apparently they made good afterwards, by refunding the price paid. They were no doubt forced to conclude that's what they had to do. Because they were the seller.

My point was, Amazon sold the book. It did not "arrange a meetup" between consumers and some shadowy 3rd party seller. Amazon WAS the seller. And because of that, they were the ones on the hook for removing the illegitimate book from people's Kindles and for providing refunds. Which they did. These actions that Amazon took validate that Amazon was indeed the seller. As the seller, Amazon had to provide relief to the true copyright holder. The choice for how to do that appears to be removing the book from people's Kindles (maybe money changed hands behind the scenes as well). But after removing the book from people's Kindles, Amazon - as the seller - had to provide relief to the consumers who had paid Amazon for the book. Apparently Amazon chose to provide this relief by issuing refunds.

This was a sticky situation that Amazon got themselves into, not verifying copyright ownership of the book before selling it. But they made their mistake, made their mess, and then had to clean up their mess. I think they did good actually - what else would you expect them to do? I think it might have been a better idea for them to announce the problem to customers first, before removing content from Kindles and blindsiding customers. They tipped their hand at the control they have over your Kindle. And they haven't been completely trusted ever since. But after this ordeal was over, they had hopefully learned a thing or two about selling items.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by John F

Isn't there a difference? Amazon didn't keep the profit (or any of the money), and they didn't tell the ebook purchaser to contact the "seller"?

Do you really think that Amazon does not take a cut of every ebook sale? That they are in the ebook business out of the goodness of their corporate heart?

Perhaps you should check out The 2024 Guide to Amazon Fees and Royalties for Kindle eBooks and KDP Print?

Please note the per MB delivery fee if your ebook is selling for >$2.99 and <9.99 US and you have selected the 70% royalty plan A 4MB ebook costs $0.60 for delivery. If you select the 35% royalty plan which is forced for books below $2.99 or above $9.99 US, there is no delivery fee but the amount paid to the author is half of what the 70% royalty plan would pay. Depending on the size of the book, the author would select the plan that gives them the most money.

So when you buy that $0.99 book, Amazon takes $0.6435 and the author receives $0.3465 while a book priced at $2.99 with a size of 2MB on the 70% plan would have Amazon receive $0.897 plus $0.30 delivery fee so the author would receive $1.793 per sale.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by haertig

This was a sticky situation that Amazon got themselves into, not verifying copyright ownership of the book before selling it.

Verifying copyright ownership isn’t as easy as it sounds. In the end it is up to the copyright holder to assert their case in court.

Originally Posted by haertig

I think they did good actually - what else would you expect them to do?

Amazon did change their attitude after that incident. Now they will stop selling a book once the copyright is challenged but will no longer remove sold copies. That is better for Amazon and its customers but not for copyright holders.

Originally Posted by haertig

They tipped their hand at the control they have over your Kindle.

Amazon’s power was always clear to many of us. Still I believe that most of their customers give no thought to the possibility of losing access to their purchased Kindle books. Buy, read, forget is the most common situation.

[mergen3107]

Originally Posted by DNSB

So when you buy that $0.99 book, Amazon takes $0.6435 and the author receives $0.3465 while a book priced at $2.99 with a size of 2MB on the 70% plan would have Amazon receive $0.897 plus $0.30 delivery fee so the author would receive $1.793 per sale.

Oh, so harsh ._. Thanks for sharing!

[John F]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Do you really think that Amazon does not take a cut of every ebook sale? That they are in the ebook business out of the goodness of their corporate heart?
...

I do think that they take a cut of every sale. As to what happened in this particular case, I don't know.

I don't recall any news on what happened to the market seller; I assume they absconded with some of the money. So Amazon may be taking a loss on some of the returned sales?
How quickly was the infringement noticed, how quickly did Amazon act?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by John F

I do think that they take a cut of every sale. As to what happened in this particular case, I don't know.

I don't recall any news on what happened to the market seller; I assume they absconded with some of the money. So Amazon may be taking a loss on some of the returned sales?
How quickly was the infringement noticed, how quickly did Amazon act?

The publisher in the USA who were assigned the copyright noticed/was informed of the issue and issued Amazon with a DMCA takedown notice. I suspect the seller did not have the chance to receive much money from Amazon due to the delays between sales and payments but there are not many facts flying around as to how long from when Amazon offered the ebook to when they pulled it from sale.

I do know that one of my co-workers was very upset with Amazon since they pulled the copy of 1984 from his Kindle disregarding the fact that at that time, 1984 was in the public domain in Canada, Australia and several other countries.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The publisher in the USA who were assigned the copyright noticed/was informed of the issue and issued Amazon with a DMCA takedown notice. I suspect the seller did not have the chance to receive much money from Amazon due to the delays between sales and payments but there are not many facts flying around as to how long from when Amazon offered the ebook to when they pulled it from sale.

...

So let's assume we use your:

... while a book priced at $2.99 with a size of 2MB on the 70% plan would have Amazon receive $0.897 plus $0.30 delivery fee so the author would receive $1.793 per sale.

So let's assume the customer paid $2.99 in the 1984 case. Amazon kept $0.897 + $0.30 and put $1.793 in the seller's account.

Amazon honors the takedown notice. They return the money to customer. So $2.99 - $2.99 = 0. So technically, Amazon received there "cut", but the cut was 0. They may have received a bigger cut if the seller sold other ebooks.

DNSB, it may time to reconsider that CFO dream.

[John F]

Originally Posted by jhowell

...

Amazon did change their attitude after that incident. Now they will stop selling a book once the copyright is challenged but will no longer remove sold copies. That is better for Amazon and its customers but not for copyright holders.

...

That is a very shady policy.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by John F

That is a very shady policy.

Removing books from users' devices is a very shady policy.

[issybird]

The 1984 contretemps was 15 years ago. That's eons in digital years. That people will not let it go attests to the paucity of incidents to prove their point rather than the opposite.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Still I believe that most of their customers give no thought to the possibility of losing access to their purchased Kindle books. Buy, read, forget is the most common situation.

I would say my situation is more Buy, Read, Move on. Same as it was pre-digital (not a re-reader). I'm under no obligation to forget anything I read.

Losing access to my Kindle Library is not a concern of mine because I've read every book in it. I've already wrung every single thing I value out of them.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by issybird

The 1984 contretemps was 15 years ago. That's eons in digital years. That people will not let it go attests to the paucity of incidents to prove their point rather than the opposite.

It may be a long time ago in terms of technological age, but it is a short time ago in terms of the legal system and the rights of the participants. Has much changed in that time with respect to the latter?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would say my situation is more Buy, Read, Move on. Same as it was pre-digital (not a re-reader). I'm under no obligation to forget anything I read.

Losing access to my Kindle Library is not a concern of mine because I've read every book in it. I've already wrung every single thing I value out of them.

You and I seem to very different in this respect. When I reread a book many years later, it is a different experience because I am different than I was when I read the book last time. Usually the difference is small, but occasionally it feels like I'm reading a different story. My memory is not great, so maybe that accounts for it. Anyway, re-reading offers me a window into my own personal changes over time, so I get something new I value from that.