Forum: Author Hangout

So they're getting in to banking now.

The first job I had out of school in 1970 was with the Bank of New South Wales, now part of Westpac Bank. I know how all that works.

Edit to add: Banking of things like royalties which are done by an automated script will always work right once they're set up, unless someone tells it not to work or there's not enough money in the account or the people change the script or they change the bank account it's to be paid from. I do know many International organisations will delay the payment of money in other currencies for a few days to get a better exchange rate when they have reason to think it may get better for them.

The technical glitch was Amazon wanting to hold onto the money and get a bit more interest off it.

And you have evidence of this from where?

Or are you just spouting your anti-Amazon, Anti-United States hate speech again? Seriously, Ernest. Get over yourself.

anti-Amazon, Anti-United States

My knowledge of the fault is due to knowing how the system works and who can affect it once it's set up to work right.

First, I've never said anything against the USA itself, just specific examples that have major issues - like certain rabid companies and people or rogue agencies.

Second, I've worked in the banking system and know how it works as well as having diplomas in Information Technology and written some programs. If you look at the post immediately above yours you'll see I posted some basic information on how the software for paying things like royalties are automated and have very few reasons for suddenly not working. That was done a few hours before your response, according to the timestamps on them.

Third, yes, I do have an issue with Amazon's rabid and draconian rules to rip off people, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Now let's look at the situation.

Amazon has an automated royalty payment system which was working well, but this month it didn't work. Such system will work forever once they're created unless certain things happen, as listed in the earlier post. With the exception of a total failure of communications between the USA and the UK (which didn't happen) the rest of the reasons for the automated system not working rest squarely on Amazon's shoulders through them either making a change in the code or the system, or not having enough money in the account for the payments to go through, or they told the system to not make the payment yet, or they turned their computers off for the period it was supposed to happen. All of which are under the control of Amazon and the most likely is they either changed the code or instructed it not to happen. Thus the technical glitch is an action of some sort by Amazon.

Even if the issue came about due to a power failure at the Amazon processing centre, that comes back on Amazon for not setting it up properly with suitable back-up power systems and making sure they worked right.

Second, I've worked in the banking system and know how it works as well as having diplomas in Information Technology and written some programs. If you look at the post immediately above yours you'll see I posted some basic information on how the software for paying things like royalties are automated and have very few reasons for suddenly not working. That was done a few hours before your response, according to the timestamps on them.

You still have no evidence that this is what Amazon has done, nor do you have evidence that they did this intentionally. Your premise is;

"I know they did this, because I know they did this, because I know the system, because I am Ernest."

You are just spouting off.

Go find a new conspiracy theory to tout. This one is getting old.

You still have no evidence that this is what Amazon has done

The system was working, then it doesn't work - the only people who can make changes or stop are Amazon. So it's either Amazon did something or space Aliens did something, Amazon has a higher probability of being responsible. I suggest you take some time out to learn how computerised systems work. All the factors affecting the payment are under the control of Amazon, so they are responsible for it not happening. Knowledge is a powerful tool when you take time to learn it and learn how things work.

The system was working, then it doesn't work - the only people who can make changes or stop are Amazon. So it's either Amazon did something or space Aliens did something, Amazon has a higher probability of being responsible.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself here, you are still speculating. You have no actual evidence. You have not intercepted emails from top Amazon executives, containing instructions to withhold moneys, nor have you captured a secret disk containing the virus used to perpetrate this activity. You are just taking this advantage you spout your anti Amazon hate speech, simply because you hate Amazon.

No matter what the real problem is, this has zero effect on you. You are not enrolled in Amazon Select, therefore were not negatively impacted by this. Your hate speech toward Amazon, however, has the potential to negatively impact other authors (if they are naive enough to listen to your insane rants).

No matter how much you hate Amazon, Amazon still has the potential to offer greater benefit to authors than other publishing platforms do. So, by continuously going out of your way to try to convince authors not to use them, has the potential to cost them revenues.

And why?

Simply because you have it in your head that Amazon is evil and because you believe Amazon to be evil, you justify your own evil behaviors and speech.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself here, you are still speculating.

If the problem had been outside of Amazon's control they would have put the blame on the other people, but they didn't. It's sad you love Amazon so much you can't recognise when they screw up. Even after having it explained to you. The problem is within the control of Amazon, so it's their fault - they choose not to give details of what the issue is, which further indicates it's a voluntary action by them as the root cause.

It matters not how much you love Amazon their own terms and conditions explain they do not care about the authors and are out to get as much out of the authors as they can. Even going so far as to demand things no other publisher or seller not affiliated with Amazon ask for. You really do sound like Neville Chamberlain this time round.

If it squawks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, then it's a damn good probability it is a duck. Amazon's managements past behaviour and their methods of operation make it very clear to anyone with open eyes what they are and how they operate. If people wish to associate with them after being shown the truth, the it comes down to the old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink and that's the situation with Amazon.

BTW: Where people have said they are aware of the dangers within the Amazon terms and methods of operations and also state they wish to do business with them I don't stop them or tell them not to, all I do is tell them of the dangers involved and then let them choose to do what they want once they have full knowledge - something Amazon goes to great pains to hide.

If the problem had been outside of Amazon's control they would have put the blame on the other people, but they didn't. It's sad you love Amazon so much you can't recognise when they screw up. Even after having it explained to you. The problem is within the control of Amazon, so it's their fault - they choose not to give details of what the issue is, which further indicates it's a voluntary action by them as the root cause.

So you answer by coming up with more ways to speculate? Seriously Ernest? YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE! You are simply leveling accusations, further proving that you have evil intentions.

And I do not deny that I love Amazon. Fuck yes! Because of the opportunities they provide to me, I do not have to work a nine to five job. I wish Lulu could do the same. Unfortunately, they are incapable of producing the same results that I can get from Amazon.

And the dangers of not doing business with Amazon are greater than the dangers of doing business with them.

Worse case scenario:

I publish my work with Amazon and make three times as much as I could publishing for another company such as Lulu.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the downside. I make more money publishing with Amazon than I did immediately before I went with them over Smashwords. Converting to them exclusively, immediately tripled my sales. It's a no Goddamn brainer.

Everything you tout against them is pure speculation. What I say in support of them is factual. I know this because I speak of my own revenues, which are actual facts and not pure paranoid delusion.

And the dangers of not doing business with Amazon are greater than the dangers of doing business with them.

Worse case scenario:

They unilaterally decide you've breached their terms and they retain all the royalties they have due to pay you and then continue to sell your book and keep the money.

They unilaterally decide you've breached their terms and they retain all the royalties they have due to pay you and then continue to sell your book and keep the money.

Okay. I'll bite. Let's say (hypothetically) that you're right.

I still win by doing business with Amazon. Had I remained with Smashwords, I wouldn't have had the sales I've had over the past months since switching to Amazon exclusively. We are talking about thousands of dollars here, Ernest. Until I have evidence that Amazon would or even could actually do what you are suggesting, I see no reason to believe that they would or even could. You are not a copyright lawyer and I do not believe that your interpretation of their ToS is correct. It is simply your hatred toward Amazon being expressed.

So you answer by coming up with more ways to speculate? Seriously Ernest? YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE! You are simply leveling accusations, further proving that you have evil intentions.

Your position is that the problem is totally outside the control of Amazon and you have no evidence to support that. My position is the problem is within the control of Amazon and the supporting evidence is their past behaviour about problems (blaming the external organisation involved whenever they can) and their total lack of details about what caused the issue and the use of a term usually used to refer to in-house issues.

It'll be interesting to see what Amazon says was the problem after theyg et it fixed.

Your position is that the problem is totally outside the control of Amazon and you have no evidence to support that. My position is the problem is within the control of Amazon and the supporting evidence is their past behaviour about problems (blaming the external organisation involved whenever they can) and their total lack of details about what caused the issue and the use of a term usually used to refer to in-house issues.

NO. My position is that I have no evidence of foul play, so until I do, I see no point in leveling unfounded accusations. I'm annoyed that I even have to have this conversation with you because it is a complete waste of valuable mental energy, but I don't feel I have a choice, for fear that your paranoid delusions might influence someone with less experience.

In the interest of comparison, I looked through my records at one of my first titles published through Smashwords and then compared what happened with the sales to it when I converted to Amazon Select (Bear in mind that even though I wasn't in Select originally, I still had my titles available on Amazon).

The title in question was a short novella of about 5000 words. It's a fun erotic story. When I published it through Smashwords initially, it sold 17 copies over the first three months it was available throughout all of the channels it was available on, including Amazon.

At the time, I worked up to nine different titles published under the pen name in question. Every time I published something new under Smashwords, I experienced similar results. I would sell four or five copies the first few days after publication and I might sell a copy or two of a few of my other titles.

I decided to try one title as an Amazon Select and that's when things changed for me. I published a title solely on Amazon, scheduled it for a free promotion and Wham! I went from averaging ten sales a week, to thirty.

Even today, that original title still makes a good amount of sales. Over the past three months I have sold 52 copies of that first title. Since I originally published it a little over a year ago, it has sold over five hundred and it isn't even close to my best seller.

If I had listened to the paranoid rantings of Ernest (or other authors who share his opinions), I wouldn't be able to look back and reflect on the sales that I have now. I still have to live humbly, but as time goes on, my sales potential grows. Yesterday, for example, I sold more than fifty copies across the board in one day. As my platform grows and I build a bigger audience, my potential to enjoy more sales increases as well. Show me another platform that has a larger potential, and I'm on board with you, Ernest. Until then... Blah, blah, blah, still equals, blah, blah, blah.

Amazon Select works to help increase sales. Period.

If I had listened to the paranoid rantings of Ernest

Paranoia is not based on any real facts, my issues with Amazon are based on the facts as presented by Amazon in their terms of service and their behaviour, thus it isn't paranoia. You're aware of what they can do, and have done, but still deal with them - that's your choice to make. Just don't bother complaining when they screw you over by using the abusive terms of service they have.

Are Amazons terms as good as Snapchat's updated Terms of Service?

Got to wonder who owns Snapchat or if they use the same lawyers as Amazon does! Here is the relevant section from Amazon's ToS for authors:

5.5 Grant of Rights.
You grant to each Amazon party, throughout the term of this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, right and license to distribute Digital Books, directly and through third-party distributors, in all digital formats by all digital distribution means available. This right includes, without limitation, the right to: (a) reproduce, index and store Digital Books on one or more computer facilities, and reformat, convert and encode Digital Books; (b) display, market, transmit, distribute, sell and otherwise digitally make available all or any portion of Digital Books through Amazon Properties (as defined below), for customers and prospective customers to download, access, copy and paste, print, annotate and/or view online and offline, including on portable devices; (c) permit customers to "store" Digital Books that they have purchased from us on servers ("Virtual Storage") and to access and re-download such Digital Books from Virtual Storage from time to time both during and after the term of this Agreement; (d) display and distribute (i) your trademarks and logos in the form you provide them to us or within Digital Books (with such modifications as are necessary to optimize their viewing), and (ii) portions of Digital Books, in each case solely for the purposes of marketing, soliciting and selling Digital Books and related Amazon offerings; (e) use, reproduce, adapt, modify, and distribute, as we determine appropriate, in our sole discretion, any metadata that you provide in connection with Digital Books; and (f) transmit, reproduce and otherwise use (or cause the reformatting, transmission, reproduction, and/or other use of) Digital Books as mere technological incidents to and for the limited purpose of technically enabling the foregoing (e.g., caching to enable display). In addition, you agree that we may permit our affiliates and independent contractors, and our affiliates' independent contractors, to exercise the rights that you grant to us in this Agreement. "Amazon Properties" means any web site, application or online point of presence, on any platform, that is owned or operated by or under license by Amazon or co-branded with Amazon, and any web site, application, device or online point of presence through which any Amazon Properties or products available for sale on them are syndicated, offered, merchandised, advertised or described. You grant us the rights set forth in this Section 5.5 on a worldwide basis; however, if we make available to you a procedure for indicating that you do not have worldwide distribution rights to a Digital Book, then the territory for the sale of that Digital Book will be those territories for which you indicate, through the procedure we provide to you, that you have distribution rights.

They also have others that give them the sole rights to decide on what marketing is done.

But take a not of the irrevocable right to distribute; through third parties; in any format; and the right to reformat as they like. Plus they let people download as many copies as they want. When you get into the pricing they deduct a set amount for download fees from your royalty for the book. They also reserve the right to continue selling the book after you close your account, and don't have to pay you any royalties for sales after you close the account or ask them to pull the book.

After all that they have the hide to abuse the traditional publishers who don't use such terms.

Paranoia is not based on any real facts, my issues with Amazon are based on the facts as presented by Amazon in their terms of service and their behaviour, thus it isn't paranoia.

It is paranoia. They have not stolen your work, nor do they have any intention of stealing your work. They do not give two shits about Ernest Bywater, his books, or stealing his royalties. They make plenty of money without stealing from him and yet, you always present this terms of service issue as if they are coming after you with malicious intent.

To me, that is paranoia. It is not fact.

I've reread the ToS clause that Ernest has put out and I see NOTHING that makes me feel threatened in any way shape or form. It seems like typical and very necessary lingo for what they need to do in order to sell an author's work.

Where he points out "irrevocable right to distribute", that lingo is necessary because it is their policy that once you submit your work into the select program, you cannot unpublish it for 90 days. You are bound to leave it published until after the renewel expires. If you want the work unpublished, you must not renew into the Select program. Once it is out of the Select program, you can then unpublish.

If Ernest is arguing that Amazon's policy of forcing an author to remain exclusive to Amazon is bullshit, than I agree with him. It is a bully tactic and I don't like it. I never will like it. But, if I want to make three times the royalties that I could make by publishing with anyone else, I must make a concession. If I don't care about making the most sales possible than I always have the option of publishing with a lessor organization, an organization that provides no effective means of marketing or promotion of my materials, an organization that has much more limited access to potential customers. If I'm okay with making a lot less, because I want to have my work available on more channels, than Ernest is right. Don't agree to exclusivity. Be satisfied with lower sales. Be satisfied with a smaller audience. Be satisfied with not having any way of expanding your audience and go with a publisher other than Amazon.

His interpretations of Amazon's ToS, is not as evil as he makes it out to be.

They do not give two shits about Ernest Bywater, his books, or stealing his royalties.

Then why do they have pages showing, for sale, some of my books that have not been approved for sale through them and they refuse to remove them.

In the past they have stolen books back from customers and closed out authors accounts without paying them the royalties owed. The damage they can do to me is limited because I don't let them get at anything of mine of any real value.

I put one book for sale through them at a price of US$5.95 - they automatically cut the price to US$4.99 without telling me. When I queried them they said they dropped it to their next lowest tier because they have their books priced at $x.99 - did they ask me if I wanted to put it up by $0.04 - no, they did not; they dropped it $0.96 without saying a word to me. Since then they've changed the price for the Kindle version to US$3.94 without telling me - and I don't know why it's $3.94 and not $3.99 in light of what they said about prices before. On their web page about me they list two paperback books they've never been given approval to sell, and now list them as unavailable. All actions that show a total contempt for the author involved.

The facts are they have terms of service, posted on their website and can't be disputed, that are abusive of those who accept them. They insist on authors handing over various rights, rights no other publisher even asks for.

I refer to proven facts, thus no paranoia involved at all.

Then why do they have pages showing, for sale, some of my books that have not been approved for sale through them and they refuse to remove them.

This is irrelevant to their Terms of Service, which you have not signed, nor agreed to in any way shape or form. If they have obtained your work in some illegal way, or violated your copyright, then sue them. Let a court of law determine whether they are in violation. If they are, I'm sure you will win your case.

And you can keep saying that there is no paranoia at all, but this is now, and will always be a case of paranoia on your part.

I have been publishing with Amazon for nine months now. I have no complaints with them at all. I make way more now than I was before publishing with them. They have not stolen anything from me and we are engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship. I provide them with content and they provide me with a growing audience. They offer me a way to market my books on top of publishing. Because of this, I am able to sell more and more books every month. I have a growing business.

If I were like you, paranoid about what may happen if I published with them, I would sit on the side lines and watch life pass me by. The same way that you are. Instead of engaging life head on, the way I am now, I would be too afraid to climb out from under my rock. I would sit with my arms folded around my work, trying to protect anyone from having it without my permission, the same way you do.

Nope. No, sir. I would much rather wear my shoes than yours.

If they have obtained your work in some illegal way, or violated your copyright, then sue them.

Sorry, I'm not rich enough to conduct a law suit across the Pacific Ocean. Nor should I have to do so, but they don't operate in an honourable way, so the situation is what it is.

You may not have any complaints with Amazon, but nearly 600 other authors do, many of them well known.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/technology/accusing-amazon-of-antitrust-violations-authors-and-booksellers-demand-us-inquiry.html?_r=0

http://authorsunited.net/letter/

Here's a part of the letter:

Amazon is involved in a commercial dispute with the book publisher Hachette , which owns Little, Brown, Grand Central Publishing, and other familiar imprints. These sorts of disputes happen all the time between companies and they are usually resolved in a corporate back room.

But in this case, Amazon has done something unusual. It has directly targeted Hachette's authors in an effort to force their publisher to agree to its terms.

For the past several months, Amazon has been:

--Boycotting Hachette authors, by refusing to accept pre-orders on Hachette authors' books and eBooks, claiming they are "unavailable."

--Refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette authors' books.

--Slowing the delivery of thousands of Hachette authors' books to Amazon customers, indicating that delivery will take as long as several weeks on most titles.

--Suggesting on some Hachette authors' pages that readers might prefer a book from a non-Hachette author instead.

As writers--most of us not published by Hachette--we feel strongly that no bookseller should block the sale of books or otherwise prevent or discourage customers from ordering or receiving the books they want. It is not right for Amazon to single out a group of authors, who are not involved in the dispute, for selective retaliation. Moreover, by inconveniencing and misleading its own customers with unfair pricing and delayed delivery, Amazon is contradicting its own written promise to be "Earth's most customer-centric company."

I'm not alone on this, not by a long shot. Check out some of the names on the letter.

Amazon is involved in a commercial dispute with the book publisher Hachette , which owns Little, Brown, Grand Central Publishing, and other familiar imprints. These sorts of disputes happen all the time between companies and they are usually resolved in a corporate back room.

I do not fault Amazon for their policies with Hachette. I do not feel Amazon has any obligation to provide Hachette authors with equal footing on Amazon's website. It is and always has been 'Amazon's' website and they are not, nor should they be forced to deal with Hachette to provide Hachette published books in any specific way.

I agree that Amazon should be allowed to offer Hachette books at whatever price they want to, the same way that a brick and morter shop should be allowed to charge whatever price they want for a paperback that enters their store. As long as they honor whatever agreement they have with Hachette, all is fair in business.

I hope Amazon continues in this practice because it gives my books an advantage over Hachette books.

As I've said in other threads, the fact that Amazon is shrewd in its business ventures is a good thing for authors who choose to do business with them. I applaud them for this behavior.

I do not fault Amazon for their policies with Hachette. I do not feel Amazon has any obligation to provide Hachette authors with equal footing on Amazon's website.

So, when they promise one thing and deliver another you say they have a perfect right to do so! Is that it? Well, the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. Amazon courted Hachette and their authors, waited until they got big enough and then tried to strong-arm Hachette and others to doing what Amazon wanted.

You're correct in saying Amazon can sell for any price they want, but they still have to pay the other publisher the standard price for the book, which is what happens with the brick and mortar stores. What Amazon wanted to do was to set a lower price and then pay the Hachette authors less instead of Amazon absorbing the discount they insisted be offered. Sorry, but that's against the trade laws in most countries. base don you last few posts, I say you think the Mafia, Yakuza, and Columbian Drug Cartels are shrewd businessmen as well. After all, they all use the same tactics.

You're correct in saying Amazon can sell for any price they want, but they still have to pay the other publisher the standard price for the book, which is what happens with the brick and mortar stores. What Amazon wanted to do was to set a lower price and then pay the Hachette authors less instead of Amazon absorbing the discount they insisted be offered. Sorry, but that's against the trade laws in most countries. base don you last few posts, I say you think the Mafia, Yakuza, and Columbian Drug Cartels are shrewd businessmen as well. After all, they all use the same tactics.

I do not fault Amazon for being shrewd businessmen. The Mafia and Columbian Drug Cartels murder their adversaries. Amazon does not.

The Mafia and Columbian Drug Cartels murder their adversaries. Amazon does not.

They just want to take all their money and let them starve to death.

They just want to take all their money and let them starve to death.

They didn't take their money. They just tried to pay them less, which they didn't get away with. I don't blame them for trying. When I shop for myself, I try to purchase things as cheaply as I can. I look for the best deals within reason. Amazon should as well. It is smart business.

No, it is not paranoia. Paranoia is as a matter of definition, the delusion that everyone is out to get you.

A delusion that one particular person or group is out to get you is out to get you is technically not paranoia.

Okay. Now we are splitting hairs and I refuse to engage in this type of conversation.

Or are you just spouting your anti-Amazon, Anti-United States hate speech again? Seriously, Ernest. Get over yourself.

Chris, I've worked for a long time in international banking, and I can assure you, corporations play games with money (especially concerning exchange rates) constantly). It's a more consistent money generator than their best products.

The reason why funds transfer so slowly is because US banking law allows a maximum of three days to transfer funds electronically. That means that all transfers between user accounts take the maximum amount of time allowed. However, those limits don't a apply to the bank or to the big corporate accounts.

Chris, I've worked for a long time in international banking, and I can assure you, corporations play games with money (especially concerning exchange rates) constantly). It's a more consistent money generator than their best products.

The reason why funds transfer so slowly is because US banking law allows a maximum of three days to transfer funds electronically. That means that all transfers between user accounts take the maximum amount of time allowed. However, those limits don't a apply to the bank or to the big corporate accounts.

Sorry, but no. Now you have joined Ernest in speculation. You are taking shades of grey and calling them black and white, treating things that you know, or think you know as if they are absolutes. You have no evidence to support that this problem was intentional. You simply assume that since other companies engage in things like this, that Amazon does as well. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Either way, you have NO proof; no evidence.

As far as it being a more consistent money generator than their best products, again, you have no evidence to back this up either. It is just something you are saying because it sounds good.

Amazon reported 61.09 Billion dollars in revenue in 2012 with 14.96 Billion dollars in gross income. The Kindle unlimited fund for August (the month effected by this delay, which was paid out on October 29th) was 11.6 million dollars. The interest on this money is a drop in the bucket to Amazon. Holding it for three extra days would be the equivalent to a child hiding a scoop of ice cream from his friends while there is a freezer full of ice cream in the kitchen.

What you and Ernest are saying makes zero sense. You are stating things as facts that are nothing more than speculation.

Evidence, how about losing my goddamned citizenship at the old age of 15 for over 4 years without breaking a damned law. Both myself and both parents were born in this country. I have less respect for the damned goverment than most do as a result of that period.

Look, I'm not sure what direction we're about to head off in, but I think there's a huge difference between a citizen of a country expressing their distaste for something their own government did to them, and a citizen of another country spouting unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories.

Depends on how small your thinking is. Personally, I have never been to Australia (for example). Therefore, I have no real opinion on wonderful or horrible the country is. If I sit here and run Australia down, how much credibility can I possibly have?

The other factor is whether or not you are speaking actual facts, or the "Ernest" type facts, which aren't actually facts (usually). If you are expressing opinions and stating them as opinions, go for it. I have no issue with that. It's when you start stating things as facts, which aren't actually facts and are more lunatic ravings that become annoying.

It's when you start stating things as facts, which aren't actually facts and are more lunatic ravings that become annoying.

Chris, it was you who first expanded this thread from the bit about the royalty payments to Amazon as a whole. It was about the 17the post before you started going on about things having to be factual, to which I responded about the factual information of Amazon's own Terms of Service, how banking systems work, and how computer code works well until something changed - all known and proven facts.

As previously stated I've not said anything derogatory about the USA as a whole, either now or in the past. Thus I'm confused about your claim I'm anti-American. I am against certain types of behaviour by people and companies, so it's possible you think all American people and companies behave in those abusive ways, I don't.

The closest thing to paranoia in this thread is your personal attacks on me because I don't share your love of all things Amazon.

Now, this thread started with Switch's concern about his payment, he now has it, so the subject of this thread is now finished. However, you're free to continue with your pro-Amazon rants if you wish.

Chris, it was you who first expanded this thread from the bit about the royalty payments to Amazon as a whole.

I agree that this conversation is tired, but read the damn first comment you made in this thread. I am so not the one who made this about Amazon as a whole. So, here we go again, Ernest. You present things as facts which are not facts at all.

If you reread this thread you go on and on presenting things as facts which are not facts, but conclusions that you have made based on your own life experiences or whatever. Make no mistake about it, however. These are not facts. They are your conclusions. There is a difference.

As far as you commentary about the U.S., you have made comments in the past which are are anti American. You are fully entitled to this opinion if that is your wish. I just don't like it when you present things as facts which are not facts.

That's all I'm saying.

If you want to present things as opinions. Fine. All I ask is that you present your opinions as opinions and not try to continuously pawn them off as facts.

I'll agree that the direct quotes you made of Amazon's ToS are facts, but that's about where your factual information began and ended. The rest were your opinions. Again. You are welcome to your opinions, just state them as so in the future and we shouldn't have an issue.

And Ernest hasn't judged the country just some business empires. Its funny how after they are a corporation, they become above the law. The same as the police in my personal experience did in Atlanta Georgia. I do admit that cop needed protection from at least one of his "child raped" Victims who wanted major payback.

I guess I'm not sure where you're coming from here, or what experiences bring you to this conclusion, but in the Hachette case that Ernest referred to, Amazon didn't walk away with a unilateral victory. Concessions were made in the ruling on both sides of the aisle, so I don't think that is a good example of a corporation being 'above' the law. From what I could see, Amazon won where they should have won and lost where they should have lost. Capitalism and justice were both represented well.

My issues with Ernest in this entire thread were in regard to his completely unfounded accusations. He had absolutely no basis from which to point his finger and accuse wrong doing other than biased conclusions made from instances that had nothing to do with this situation or Amazon itself. When I asked him for evidence, you'll notice, he never produced a single shred of it.

I understand that Ernest means well. I believe that Ernest takes issue with corporations that wrongly take advantage of others and issues with people who do the same. I feel the same way he does. The difference is that I believe actual evidence should be found before making allegations. In this case, he had none.

The money is in my checking account.
Problem solved.

You must be mistaken. Amazon is evil.

The money is in my checking account.

Problem solved.

That's good to hear, Switch. Did they say what the problem was?

When was it due and when did you get it? I ask as looking at:

http://www.ozforex.com.au/currency-converter

I see the GBP to USD conversion had dropped for a the week or so and is now moved back up to where it was today. Only a few cents per pound is involved.

That's good to hear, Switch. Did they say what the problem was?

When was it due and when did you get it?

Amazon said it was a "technical glitch." Had it once before with getting paid from Australia.

The other payments for this month were made on 10/29 so that's when it was due. The email that said the problem was fixed said it would be paid on 11/2 so they're a day early.

I'm sure it was a technical glitch.

I'm sure it was a technical glitch.

For them to say it was a technical hitch indicates it was one of their internal systems that caused the delay. If it had been external they've told you who to blame in the past.

Could be, all I will say is the exchange rate of GBP to USD on 29 Oct was US$1.5250 for GBP1, the lowest point for the last month. As of I Nov opening it was US$1.5461 - not sure if it has any bearing. But it would be interesting to check if the same situation arises again.

the exchange rate of GBP to USD on 29 Oct was US$1.5250 for GBP1, the lowest point for the last month.

The missed payment was from the U.S. (amazon.com). No exchange rate involved.

- I got a response to my email within 24 hours.
- They fixed the problem quickly.
- They paid me earlier than they said they would.
- I have money to horde, spend, or give away that I wouldn't have if Amazon didn't exist.
- I'm happy.

I only started this thread to give others selling on Amazon a heads-up in case it affected them and they didn't catch it.

I only started this thread to give others selling on Amazon a heads-up in case it affected them and they didn't catch it.

Amen, brother!

It is absolutely impossible to produce any software significantly more complicated than text book programming examples/assignments that are 100% bug free.

True, but once you have a program up and working it will continue to work until such time as something is changed in the operational environment. That's what pre-release testing does, ensure the software works as expected in the known environment. Which is why a sudden failure to operate as expected leads to changes to stop that fault happening again once you investigate the cause of the environmental change.

Enough testing to insure zero bugs in production would be so time consuming you would never be able to deploy. Every fix for a known bug could introduce a new unknown bug. You can also have conditional bugs that are difficult to reproduce and occur infrequently in production. Such bugs can go undetected for a long time.

Having spent many a day doing such testing I agree with you. However, I've never come across a situation where the program is released to production and works perfectly for many months and suddenly fail without the cause of the failure being due to a change of some sort in the production environment; with the main cause being a change of code in another program it interacts with resulting in an alteration of the input data or output data needs; the second most common cause is a change of hardware which requires a change to the program code for it to work with the new hardware; and third is one of the staff doing something wrong by mistake or with intent.

I have encountered exactly such failures and it took months to isolate the cause, because the bug was only triggered by certain data inputs that occur very infrequently.

Edited to add: The bad data came not from interaction with another system, but from user input, so no change to the production environment was needed.

If you guys are still referring to the Amazon payout system and potential bugs with that, I think its fair to recognize that the entire system had to have been revamped with new new KENP system. The October 29th payout was only the second payout under this new system, so I believe it is fair to assume a glitch could have occurred with new programming.

I'd like more information on how Amazon caused one correspondent to lose his US citizenship when he was 15 for four years. Maybe I didn't get that right, but this is about Amazon as the source of all evil, isn't it?

Lmao! I was thinking the same thing when I read that, but I didn't really know who it was, so I tried to let it go.

I'd like more information on how Amazon caused one correspondent to lose his US citizenship when he was 15 for four years. Maybe I didn't get that right, but this is about Amazon as the source of all evil, isn't it?

I think he was going on about the anti-US claim bit. But since that's not based on a certified legal paper and based solely on life experience on how most people understand the English language it must be only an opinion to which some people require you apply such a tag.