Kindle Forum banner

Amazon's fiasco for Gaughran

12K views 102 replies 46 participants last post by  JsFan 
#1 ·
#78 ·
ParkerAvrile said:
What legal limits? You have made unsubstantiated claims, while others have provided actual proof. You said American authors couldn't organize and strike. I gave a well-known example of such a well-known writer's union (the most powerful one, the screenwriter's guild) organizing a strike. And not in some remote period of history but roughly a decade ago.
Right, you provided that example, and myself and others showed you that the example isn't relevant. I have a feeling you've either missed some of my posts entirely or just didn't read them right, because I've already addressed your example and your question about being a lawyer. ;)
 
#79 ·
I bow to those with legal backgrounds but a recurring theme here is 'restricting supply'. Unless I'm misinterpreting, a million authors agreeing to come out of KU or to unpublish on Amazon is not restricting supply. All titles would be available to anyone who shops online and was happy to buy through Apple, Kobo, etc...perhaps even on the "Global Authors' Guild" website.
 
#80 ·
I promised to update if I heard back from Amazon.

Well, Amazon is now claiming I never scheduled a second countdown deal and any messages I saw pertaining to same were just an "error" - which is total and utter BS.

There's a lot more I could say right now but I should probably go for a walk...
 
#82 ·
dgaughran said:
I promised to update if I heard back from Amazon.

Well, Amazon is now claiming I never scheduled a second countdown deal and any messages I saw pertaining to same were just an "error" - which is total and utter BS.

There's a lot more I could say right now but I should probably go for a walk...
Sort of like being trapped in an episode of the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. You know you're sane, but you may be the only one.
 
#83 ·
Usedtoposthere said:
Writers are not employees, and they are not independent contractors. They are vendors selling a product on Amazon. An agreement amongst them would be a cartel, and it would be illegal in the US. (OPEC is the most famous cartel. Price fixing. Illegal in a US organization.)
This is false. Writers can and do form unions and other work groups. It would not be a cartel.
 
#84 ·
Herefortheride said:
This is false. Writers can and do form unions and other work groups. It would not be a cartel.
No one is saying writers can't form unions. What those unions can do is a completely different topic! A union formed by authors who either write for a company as independent contractors, or in effect act as publishers by providing their work to be sold by that company, cannot unionize like labor unions do. Such a union would have no right to collective bargaining, they would have no right to strike, and they could not attempt to force said company to agree to certain terms without being at serious risk of being taken to court for violating anti-trust laws.

This should be made perfectly clear: we authors who publish on Amazon are acting as independent businessmen. You and I are competitors. We are not employees. The laws governing how we can and cannot act in concert with each other are totally different than they are for employees who provide labor, because we are competitors.

Check the definition of a cartel again. ;)
 
#85 ·
I am a labor union member and a self-employed worker. My union negotiates contracts with organizations who hire both employees and independent workers who provide services and sometimes products that can be sold or otherwise distributed by the company doing the hiring. The terms of those contracts apply equally to the companies' employees and to the contract workers and service providers. And to add to the confusion a worker doesn't have to be a union member to enjoy those same benefits. Those are indisputable facts. Make of them what you will. I offer them here to help complete the picture. But, I already surrendered, so I'll try to avoid arguing these points. :)
 
#86 ·
Al Stevens said:
My union negotiates contracts with organizations who hire both employees and independent workers who provide services and sometimes products that can be sold or otherwise distributed by the company doing the hiring.
That's a key point here. Amazon doesn't hire authors as employees or independent workers.
 
#87 ·
Al Stevens said:
I am a labor union member and a self-employed worker. My union negotiates contracts with organizations who hire both employees and independent workers who provide services and sometimes products that can be sold or otherwise distributed by the company doing the hiring. The terms of those contracts apply equally to the companies' employees and to the contract workers and service providers. And to add to the confusion a worker doesn't have to be a union member to enjoy those same benefits. Those are indisputable facts.
Yes, they are indisputable, and those companies willingly decide to negotiate contracts with those organizations even for independent contractors, even though they have no legal obligation to do so under labor laws. As it's necessary for those companies to negotiate with the labor union that represents its employees, said labor union can indeed try to gain concessions that apply to non-union members or independent contractors as well, and what happens is largely between the company and the union.

But the same scenario is impossible for authors who publish through Amazon, because there are no employees to begin with, and a union of competing, independent businessmen (read: us!) would far more than likely be viewed in a court of law as breaching anti-trust laws if it ever attempted the same thing. :D

Make of them what you will. I offer them here to help complete the picture. But, I already surrendered, so I'll try to avoid arguing these points. :)
There's no reason to avoid arguing these points. It's just that these points are completely irrelevant to authors who publish on Amazon. ;)
 
#88 ·
crow.bar.beer,

Much of your argument seems to hinge on authors being competitors. Many would argue that this is not the case. Take alsobots: if a reader buys your book and spots an alsobot recommendation on the same page and buys that too, does that suggest you are competing or cooperating in developing the market?

I return too to my earlier point; I am not suggesting restriction of supply, only a boycott, if necessary, of one supplier.
 
#89 ·
thesmallprint said:
crow.bar.beer,

Much of your argument seems to hinge on authors being competitors.
It might seem that way, but it hangs on the legal and economic difference between suppliers of products to retailers and paid labour. You sell books to customers through Amazon. Amazon takes a cut and gives you the rest. You do not work for (= provide labour for wages to) Amazon in any capacity. That's the difference.
 
#90 ·
thesmallprint said:
crow.bar.beer,

Much of your argument seems to hinge on authors being competitors. Many would argue that this is not the case. Take alsobots: if a reader buys your book and spots an alsobot recommendation on the same page and buys that too, does that suggest you are competing or cooperating in developing the market?

I return too to my earlier point; I am not suggesting restriction of supply, only a boycott, if necessary, of one supplier.
(Emphasis mine.)

Authors are competitors. I'd love to see the Big 5 argue in court that it's totally okay for them to collude because they show up in each other's also boughts on Amazon so they are just "cooperating in developing the market."

The part I bolded in your quote is illegal. The law says so and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. The Supreme Court has said specifically that businesses cannot organize to boycott a retailer. If you'll read the Wikipedia entry on United States antitrust law, you'll see the example of Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_Originators%27_Guild_of_America_v._FTC). The TL;DR version is that fashion designers got together and decided to boycott selling their clothes in stores that sell "pirated" designs (pirated is in quotes because clothes aren't protected by copyrights). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FTC because such an agreement restricts competition.

And if that's not enough, here is the FTC page explaining how group boycotts exactly like the one you're proposing are illegal: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts.
 
#91 ·
crow.bar.beer said:
Yes, they are indisputable, and those companies willingly decide to negotiate contracts with those organizations even for independent contractors, even though they have no legal obligation to do so under labor laws.
Not arguing, just clarifying. "Willingly" isn't quite accurate. They negotiate under the cloud of potential strikes or other union-induced sanctions. If the union wasn't in the picture, they would not negotiate. Their obligation to do so is the product of organized pressure.
 
#92 ·
C.F. said:
(Emphasis mine.)

Authors are competitors. I'd love to see the Big 5 argue in court that it's totally okay for them to collude because they show up in each other's also boughts on Amazon so they are just "cooperating in developing the market."

The part I bolded in your quote is illegal. The law says so and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. The Supreme Court has said specifically that businesses cannot organize to boycott a retailer. If you'll read the Wikipedia entry on United States antitrust law, you'll see the example of Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_Originators%27_Guild_of_America_v._FTC). The TL;DR version is that fashion designers got together and decided to boycott selling their clothes in stores that sell "pirated" designs (pirated is in quotes because clothes aren't protected by copyrights). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FTC because such an agreement restricts competition.

And if that's not enough, here is the FTC page explaining how group boycotts exactly like the one you're proposing are illegal: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts.
Thanks, C.F., that's helpful.

Another way to think about this issue that may help clarify it: journalists, screenwriters, novelists who publish traditionally, and many others are simply writers. These writers work directly for, contract with, or sell their work to publishers, which are separate entities. In contrast, people who choose to self-publish are both writers and publishers. Indies' relationships with Amazon arise from their identity as publishers, not writers, so the salient question is, "Can publishers bargain collectively"? My understanding is that they can't.

I think it's a great idea to join writer professional organizations. Such groups do have a louder voice than the average individual, and the more indies participate in them, the more we can shape their outlook. I'm a member of SFWA.
 
#93 ·
Al Stevens said:
Not arguing, just clarifying. "Willingly" isn't quite accurate. They negotiate under the cloud of potential strikes or other union-induced sanctions. If the union wasn't in the picture, they would not negotiate. Their obligation to do so is the product of organized pressure.
I mean willingly regarding negotiating terms for independent contractors. They choose to make concessions for them during negotiations with the union, but they aren't legally obligated to concede anything for independent contractors in those negotiations. Doing so probably just smooths things over with the union overall. :)
 
#94 ·
crow.bar.beer said:
I mean willingly regarding negotiating terms for independent contractors. They choose to make concessions for them during negotiations with the union, but they aren't legally obligated to concede anything for independent contractors in those negotiations. Doing so probably just smooths things over with the union overall. :)
It's not a choice. First, the union requires them to include contractors in their terms in order to avoid losing union jobs to lowballing independent contractors (called "scabs" in some circles). Furthermore, the employers are indeed bound to comply not only by union pressure but also as a consequence of right-to-work laws, which state, among other things, that employers cannot require employees to belong to a union. Here non-union workers get all the benefits of union negotiations except participation in the pension program. It's a mess. One might wonder why the employers don't simply boot the union and go with contractors only. It's because the best musicians (in this case) would refuse to work except under a union contract. Or, at least, that's the party line.

I don't believe a union, guild, cartel, whatever would do writers any good at all with respect to working with publishers and distributors. I've been at it a long time and can't think of anything a union would have negotiated that I couldn't have negotiated for myself.

Of course, I'm saying all this under a white flag. :)
 
#95 ·
ParkerAvrile said:
Authors aren't competitors though. Nobody else has the publishing rights to my properties. Nobody.
Nobody else has the property rights to WalMart's buildings, either, but that doesn't mean they aren't competitors with Target. :p

Using your own personal definitions of words doesn't change the legal realities of the situation. Under the law, authors who publish on Amazon are competitors.

Which is why we would have no collective bargaining rights if we unionized. Which is why an attempt to extract concessions from Amazon could be met with anti-trust litigation. ;)
 
#96 ·
I know that we're getting a bit off the original mark here, but this is fascinating stuff. :)

C.F. said:
The Supreme Court has said specifically that businesses cannot organize to boycott a retailer.
And I think that it is this idea that some people think of when they yell that consumer boycotts, even organized ones, are also illegal. They are not, because consumers are not competitors or suppliers of retailers. They are, well, consumers of the goods or services involved and, as such, are not, and cannot be, required to consume them. They can choose not to.

By the way, the people who cry "illegal" on consumer boycotts often have a connection with the company that is being targeted and, understandably, have a vested interest in the boycott failing or being blocked.

(If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm sure someone will pipe up.)
 
#97 ·
Unless Amazon adopts some kind of (unprecedented) u-turn, this is probably the final update:

I'm not getting anywhere with Amazon, unfortunately.

Amazon has now conceded that I did set up a second countdown deal, which was cancelled, but is essentially saying that its my own fault as I "can see the status of any KCD, at any time, within your KDP account from the 'KDP Select Benefits' tab."

Of course, this is notwithstanding the fact that Amazon never told me that my KCD was cancelled - either the first time or the second time - so I would have had no reason to check my KCD. It's also notwithstanding the fact that Amazon should never have cancelled my KCD in the first place.

Incredibly frustrating.

More worryingly, Amazon appears to be taking the position that if you are in Select, and your book appears anywhere else, even if it's an unauthorized edition (e.g. a bug by a retailer, a publisher not yanking down something when they should, or someone pirating your work), then you will be culpable, and Amazon reserves the right to cancel your promos without reference to you, and without right of appeal, and also reserves the right to boot you from Select and potentially withhold any KU funds if you can't get these unauthorized editions removed in time.

This is pretty abominable treatment of authors considering it pertains to actions outside their control. For example, giant media conglomerates with an international army of lawyers and a budget of billions are unable to stamp out piracy, but individual authors are now expected to get pirates to tow the line? It's ludicrous.

Given all the stories I've heard since going public about my own experience, it seems like it is increasingly normal for authors to find themselves in this position (and through no fault of their own). Obviously, one can draw quite a stark contrast between the above, and the light touch regulation we have seen of serious scammers.
 
#98 ·
Seneca42 said:
The thing that's going to blindside Amazon isn't anything happening this moment. What's going to blindside them are the unknown authors out there today... the ones they don't care about in the least... who blow up in a year or two. And they will blow up on other vendors. And they will publicly state that they have no love for Amazon because Amazon had no love for them.

This is always how the giants fall. It's not the big dogs today, because most of them are white listed. It's the big dogs of tomorrow.

I know saying this will catch me some flack, but whatever. A lot of the big dogs (not all, but a lot) in zon today were playing in the amazon pond 2014 and prior. They built their baes in a totally different ecosystem than exists today (edit: different in terms of launching a book and reaching readers). They are going to stick with zon because it's where they built their base of operations.

But there's a new generation of authors (let's define "generation" as being every three years in the self-pub industry) that zon is taking the boots to hard and heavy. These authors are going to be the big dogs down the road, and they won't forget how they were treated.

Zon is behaving like an unstoppable juggernaut and has no idea the level of damage it is doing to itself. It can't really be seen today, but in five years, it will be obvious. At which point they'll have to try and repair the damage they are doing today (and usually companies fail in that endeavor).

But, I gotta admit, if I was worth $80B i don't know if I'd give a &*%$ either. :p
I'm one of those big dogs of tomorrow :) But here's my problem. What if you're wrong? What if more people continue to earn significantly more money in KU/Select than they would wide, or not have the money to promote wide and so stick with KU and Select? That would mean continuing to be treated badly for far more than those five years.
 
#99 ·
dgaughran said:
Unless Amazon adopts some kind of (unprecedented) u-turn, this is probably the final update:

I'm not getting anywhere with Amazon, unfortunately.

Amazon has now conceded that I did set up a second countdown deal, which was cancelled, but is essentially saying that its my own fault as I "can see the status of any KCD, at any time, within your KDP account from the 'KDP Select Benefits' tab."

Of course, this is notwithstanding the fact that Amazon never told me that my KCD was cancelled - either the first time or the second time - so I would have had no reason to check my KCD. It's also notwithstanding the fact that Amazon should never have cancelled my KCD in the first place.

Incredibly frustrating.

More worryingly, Amazon appears to be taking the position that if you are in Select, and your book appears anywhere else, even if it's an unauthorized edition (e.g. a bug by a retailer, a publisher not yanking down something when they should, or someone pirating your work), then you will be culpable, and Amazon reserves the right to cancel your promos without reference to you, and without right of appeal, and also reserves the right to boot you from Select and potentially withhold any KU funds if you can't get these unauthorized editions removed in time.

This is pretty abominable treatment of authors considering it pertains to actions outside their control. For example, giant media conglomerates with an international army of lawyers and a budget of billions are unable to stamp out piracy, but individual authors are now expected to get pirates to tow the line? It's ludicrous.

Given all the stories I've heard since going public about my own experience, it seems like it is increasingly normal for authors to find themselves in this position (and through no fault of their own). Obviously, one can draw quite a stark contrast between the above, and the light touch regulation we have seen of serious scammers.
How frustrating. If you can't get this sort of thing fixed there is no hope for the rest of us ::).
I think what we can learn from this is:
1. If you're in Select stay in and don't risk going wide if you have any thought about returning.
2. If you're wide and you want to try Select know that there's a risk your books will be lurking in some unknown galaxy ready to bite you when you try to take them down.
3. Even if you've been loyal to Select and never been wide there's still a chance of your books being on pirate sites :mad:.
4. The people who say not to worry about pirate sites will have to take this into consideration :(
 
#100 ·
JsFan said:
I'm one of those big dogs of tomorrow :) But here's my problem. What if you're wrong? What if more people continue to earn significantly more money in KU/Select than they would wide, or not have the money to promote wide and so stick with KU and Select? That would mean continuing to be treated badly for far more than those five years.
Here's the thing though, people are not earning significantly more money in KU. Some people are. Some are earning more wide.

KU isn't nearly as omnipotent as people think. The only thing that creates that impression is the belief that it is; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As zon continues to offload costs onto authors, more and more will walk away. Wait until the day (coming soon I think) when the payout is .0035. People are going to lose their chit.

At a certain point even the most ardent KU supporters will throw in the towel. It's just a ways off for many.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top