[Just Browsing]

If a person accidentally purchased an ebook, they wouldn't be turning off the Wi-Fi on their device and then fake returning the item. They'd be returning the ebook right there on the device and would have no problem whatsoever with a policy that checked to see if they were attempting a fake return.

Well, in the case of my mother, she didn't even know she'd purchased the books till several days later. And then there was another delay because she couldn't figure out how to return something, and needed my help. So that return came from a different IP address than the initial accidental purchase (which she did in a Starbucks). Would your 'system' flag that as a fraudulent return? What is your definition of a fraudulent return, anyway?

I guess if you want to worry about it, nothing I say will change that. I only meant my comment to mean that I don't consider it something worth worrying about. YMMV.

 

[Robert Stanek]

Well, in the case of my mother, she didn't even know she'd purchased the books till several days later. And then there was another delay because she couldn't figure out how to return something, and needed my help. So that return came from a different IP address than the initial accidental purchase (which she did in a Starbucks). Would your 'system' flag that as a fraudulent return? What is your definition of a fraudulent return, anyway?

I guess if you want to worry about it, nothing I say will change that. I only meant my comment to mean that I don't consider it something worth worrying about. YMMV.

Good questions. A person like your mother who is returning the item on the device itself would never have a problem with a simple check that looks at whether the Wi-Fi on the device is turned on. She's already on the device itself and doing the return.

As I've mentioned, fake returns involve a person buying e-items, turning off the Wi-Fi on their device or devices, and then returning those items. Because they've purposely turned off the Wi-Fi, the e-items they returned remain available. As a simple solution, Amazon could send an automated message/alert stating to complete the return, turn on the Wi-Fi on the device or devices.

 

[Just Browsing]

Good questions. A person like your mother who is returning the item on the device itself would never have a problem with a simple check that looks at whether the Wi-Fi on the device is turned on. She's already on the device itself and doing the return.

As I've mentioned, fake returns involve a person buying e-items, turning off the Wi-Fi on their device or devices, and then returning those items. Because they've purposely turned off the Wi-Fi, the e-items they returned remain available. As a simple solution, Amazon could send an automated message/alert stating to complete the return, turn on the Wi-Fi on the device or devices.

But we didn't do the return from her device, on wifi. We did it on my desktop computer, at my house, while the wifi on her device was off. She couldn't figure out how to do a return on her actual Kindle (she's 85, and not very tech-y).

The items I helped my husband return we also didn't do on his device but when we got home, on my desktop. His wifi was used in South America--and it was an accidental purchase (he has that same screen saver problem). So it wasn't "fake"--but it sounds like your proposed system would flag it as such. Telling him he can only do the return from that specific device is (to me) getting into the realm of "annoying." Why can't he just do it from his Amazon account? See, I don't want to annoy legitimate customers. Not with my books, not with any books, or they'll stop using ebooks.

I believe Amazon already monitors for serial returners, and will shut down a user's ability to return items if they return too many. Other than going inside someone's head to x-ray their thoughts, I'm not sure how you can really determine whether a review is "fake" or not. Amazon does ask the reason that you are returning an item, but a person could always lie.

 

[Robert Stanek]

I don't believe there is a limit. I currently have on my account:
two Kindle 1s
basic Kindle ($69)
two Paperwhites (one to be given away at Christmas)
a Kindle Touch
an original Fire
two Fire 7" HDXs (one to be given away at Christmas)
a Fire HDX 8.9"

That's nine ten. Forgot my brothers K1, still on my account. So ten. (Yes, I'm a collector. ) And I've downloaded books to all of them in testing. This is not abuse.

I know members who have more (my co-mod Heather AKA LuvMy5Brats). And that's not counting my apps. I'm allowed ten devices to access my music in Amazon's cloud.

What Amazon will limit, if the publisher sets it, is the number of simultaneous devices that a book can be on. The default used to be six; but DRM-free books don't usually have a limit, and I have seen books limited to one simultaneous use. But those are set by the publisher, as far as I know.

Betsy

Yikes, that's a lot of devices. I think if an author has specifically allowed his or her work to be used on that many devices, that would be fine. However, Amazon's KDP program does not provide the tools for anyone using the standard service to control this.

Large publishers with individually negotiated contracts with Amazon can control this setting, but individuals, small publishers and anyone else unable to get a directly negotiated contract (pretty much everyone other than the major publishers) have no control over this setting.

For me personally, I think it would far exceed expected fair use of a work if 10 people with 10 devices had 1 account, such that that 1 account allowed a single purchase to be available to all 10 people simultaneously on all 10 devices. You, on other hand, seem to be using the devices for testing and such, which is a different situation.

 

[Robert Stanek]

But we didn't do the return from her device, on wifi. We did it on my desktop computer, at my house, while the wifi on her device was off. She couldn't figure out how to do a return on her actual Kindle (she's 85, and not very tech-y).

The items I helped my husband return we also didn't do on his device but when we got home, on my desktop. His wifi was used in South America--and it was an accidental purchase (he has that same screen saver problem). So it wasn't "fake"--but it sounds like your proposed system would flag it as such. Telling him he can only do the return from that specific device is (to me) getting into the realm of "annoying." Why can't he just do it from his Amazon account? See, I don't want to annoy legitimate customers. Not with my books, not with any books, or they'll stop using ebooks.

I believe Amazon already monitors for serial returners, and will shut down a user's ability to return items if they return too many. Other than going inside someone's head to x-ray their thoughts, I'm not sure how you can really determine whether a review is "fake" or not. Amazon does ask the reason that you are returning an item, but a person could always lie.

I always love the grandmother scenarios as rationalizations. If your grandmother was at your house, she could have brought the device with her. If she wasn't at your house and is capable of turning on and off the Wi-Fi, she probably could just as easily learn to do returns. Or since she was capable of turning on and off Wi-Fi in the first place, she could simply have turned the Wi-Fi back on when you were prompted that the Wi-Fi needed to be on.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

You, on other hand, seem to be using the devices for testing and such, which is a different situation.

Well, not all of them are mine, and Amazon doesn't know and hasn't asked me what I'm doing with all of these devices. I'm pretty sure they don't know when I download a book to read and when I download a book to test. Mostly, I just use them. The two newest ones I've tested on because I have them; some things are best checked on a brand new device.

The point is, Amazon places no restrictions on the number of devices that can be on an account, and allows, as a default, simultaneous use restriction of six devices. Amazon is reader-centric, which is why I have ten devices on my account.

I believe that authors can opt out of DRM for the books they publish as I've seen that commented on here. And I don't think there are any restrictions on the number of devices if DRM is removed. Others can speak to that more.

Betsy

 

[Robert Stanek]

Well, not all of them are mine, and Amazon doesn't know and hasn't asked me what I'm doing with all of these devices. I'm pretty sure they don't know when I download a book to read and when I download a book to test. Mostly, I just use them. The two newest ones I've tested on because I have them; some things are best checked on a brand new device.

The point is, Amazon places no restrictions on the number of devices that can be on an account, and allows, as a default, simultaneous use restriction of six devices. Amazon is reader-centric, which is why I have ten devices on my account.

I believe that authors can opt out of DRM for the books they publish as I've seen that commented on here. And I don't think there are any restrictions on the number of devices if DRM is removed. Others can speak to that more.

Betsy

Being reader-centric is one thing; allowing unfair use of works is another; and hiding behind the guise of being reader-centric to allow unreasonable use yet another. A reasonable expectation I as an author have is that my work will be used fairly.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

If she wasn't at your house and is capable of turning on and off the Wi-Fi, she probably could just as easily learn to do returns.

You've obviously never met my husband, the Luddite. I shudder to think of trying to talk him through doing a return long distance. It's hard enough when he's here in the house.

 

[Robert Stanek]

You've obviously never met my husband, the Luddite. I shudder to think of trying to talk him through doing a return long distance. It's hard enough when he's here in the house.

But you left out the easiest part of my response:

Or since she was capable of turning on and off Wi-Fi in the first place, she could simply have turned the Wi-Fi back on when you were prompted that the Wi-Fi needed to be on.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

Being reader-centric is one thing; allowing unfair use of works is another; and hiding behind the guise of being reader-centric to allow unreasonable use yet another. A reasonable expectation I as an author have is that my work will be used fairly.

Ah, that's the rub, isn't it? What constitutes fair use? We seem to differ on that. As a reader, I believe that the terms of service that I bought my Kindle under, and that authors agreed to sell their books under, constitutes "fair use." No one is required to sell through Amazon any more than I am required to buy from them.

I hear Barnes & Noble has a more restrictive policy towards readers' rights.

Betsy

 

[Robert Stanek]

Ah, that's the rub, isn't it? What constitutes fair use? We seem to differ on that. As a reader, I believe that the terms of service that I bought my Kindle under, and that authors agreed to sell their books under, constitutes "fair use." No one is required to sell through Amazon any more than I am required to buy from them.

I hear Barnes & Noble has a more restrictive policy towards readers' rights.

Betsy

As an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

Amazon has the means to provide change that would be more consistent and in keeping with fair use.

To be clear also, Amazon already provides such options -- it just provides them to an elite class of the very few.

 

[Just Browsing]

I always love the grandmother scenarios as rationalizations. If your grandmother was at your house, she could have brought the device with her. If she wasn't at your house and is capable of turning on and off the Wi-Fi, she probably could just as easily learn to do returns. Or since she was capable of turning on and off Wi-Fi in the first place, she could simply have turned the Wi-Fi back on when you were prompted that the Wi-Fi needed to be on.

It was my mother, and I'm not sure why you're calling it a "rationalization" (or a "scenario"). At the time we did the return, the Kindle device wasn't with her. It wasn't in the house. I helped her at my house do the return. I'm sure you have your own ideas of how my mother ought to be and what she ought to do, but you don't actually get to decide that.

In any case--because of Amazon's policies, she's a happy Kindle user, and she and my dad buy heaps of ebooks (my dad in particular, who finds anything under $20 "cheap" for a book). They're happy, Amazon's happy, I'm happy. I'm sorry you're not, but I'm clearly not going to be able to help with that.

 

[Monique]

As an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

Amazon has the means to provide change that would be more consistent and in keeping with fair use.

To be clear also, Amazon already provides such options -- it just provides them to an elite class of the very few.

So if I bought a Big 5 book, I couldn't read it simultaneously on 6 devices?

 

[Rick Gualtieri]

As an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

Amazon has the means to provide change that would be more consistent and in keeping with fair use.

To be clear also, Amazon already provides such options -- it just provides them to an elite class of the very few.

Yes, and you also have the option to not sell on Amazon if you don't like their rules. Does it stink that Amazon offers options to larger publishers that it doesn't offer to KDP? Sure. Am I going to get my feathers ruffled over it? Not really. Offering a bigger customer better incentives isn't exactly a new business practice. Personally, I'm very happy with Amazon. They are, IMHO, easily the most indie-friendly large market out there. Should that change in the future, perhaps I shall reconsider, but the option is always there for me.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

As an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

Amazon has the means to provide change that would be more consistent and in keeping with fair use.

To be clear also, Amazon already provides such options -- it just provides them to an elite class of the very few.

Absolutely agree with all of the above--this is a discussion forum after all, and I thought we WERE discussing the policies? Not agreeing doesn't mean we aren't discussing. I was just pointing out that you have the absolute right, as an author, to not allow access to your works to a distributor if you think they are not distributing them appropriately. Restricting access to a product is a time-honored way of protest.

I would question the comment you made earlier, however:

Being reader-centric is one thing; allowing unfair use of works is another; and hiding behind the guise of being reader-centric to allow unreasonable use yet another.

This^ seems to imply that Amazon's goal is to allow unreasonable use. Again, I disagree, I think their goal is to be reader-centric.

But you left out the easiest part of my response:

Or since she was capable of turning on and off Wi-Fi in the first place, she could simply have turned the Wi-Fi back on when you were prompted that the Wi-Fi needed to be on.

Again, seriously, you don't know my husband. I might be able to talk him through that long distance. He has problems with anything with buttons, including shirts. Bless his heart.



Betsy

 

[Nihilist]

Wait, wait, wait. OP, are you THE Robert Stanek?  

 

[Robert Stanek]

Yes, and you also have the option to not sell on Amazon if you don't like their rules. Does it stink that Amazon offers options to larger publishers that it doesn't offer to KDP? Sure. Am I going to get my feathers ruffled over it? Not really. Offering a bigger customer better incentives isn't exactly a new business practice. Personally, I'm very happy with Amazon. They are, IMHO, easily the most indie-friendly large market out there. Should that change in the future, perhaps I shall reconsider, but the option is always there for me.

Would you tell something similar to workers on strike because they don't get health benefits from their employer? Easy enough to tell someone to quit their job and find another. Hard in actual practice.

As I said before, as an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

 

[Robert Stanek]

Absolutely agree with all of the above--this is a discussion forum after all, and I thought we WERE discussing the policies? Not agreeing doesn't mean we aren't discussing.

Exactly -- and it's a pretty good discussion I think.

 

[Guest]

*****!!

We were going to send out a search party for you....haven't seen you recently. We were just discussing it in the smoke-filled Admin caves. (Not as relates to this thread, just in general. )

Betsy

I guess going two weeks without a complaint about one of my posts sent off alarms!

Just been very busy with work, writing, and family drama.

 

[Rick Gualtieri]

Would you tell something similar to workers on strike because they don't get health benefits from their employer? Easy enough to tell someone to quit their job and find another. Hard in actual practice.

That's a bit of an apples and oranges argument against this. To be fair, though, in some circumstances I would. I've been there and have survived it.

As I said before, as an author and the creator of the works, I absolutely have the right to question fair use and the absolute right to discuss policies that I do not consider fair use.

Nobody is saying you don't. However, there is the reality that in order to do business in certain ways and/or markets, you have to accept the terms of others. I've dealt with Amazon outside of being an author. They are very much an online version of Walmart in that they really don't negotiate. It's their terms or the highway unless you bring some serious muscle to the table. I once represented a billion dollar manufacturer at the table with them. My boss's attitude was "We're XXXXX, they need us." Guess what, they didn't. In the end it was their way.

I'm not saying you can't question. But you're not selling on your own website. You're selling on theirs.