Forum: Author Hangout

I just read most of your book. First, thanks for covering so much. I found your discussion of internal dialog, and a few other issues interesting from a style standpoint.

At least in terms of e-books, what does something like lulu.com bring to the table? I'd assumed that I would deal directly with channels like Bookify and Amazon. If I don't care much about print books, does Lulu bring much to the table?

Are there any suggestions you have on how I might go about finding people I could hire to design a cover. I'm fine if they are mostly just composing existing images, but I think even doing the layout, trimming, placing the title and author is going to be more than I can achieve on my own.
I don't mind paying for that, even if it is likely to be more than I make back in royalties, because it seems to be a fairly necessary expense.

I'm likely to have a number of questions about how Amazon/etc approach adult content, but it's going to take me a bit to organize those thoughts.

Are there any suggestions you have on how I might go about finding people I could hire to design a cover.

Authors on wattpad talk about a site called Fiverr for cheap book covers. If your computer is reading this to you, it's spelled F-I-V-E-R-R. I don't know anything about it. It's people doing freelance work.

If you can't see to make sure the image is right, or even copyright free, you might elect a simple cover with text only. No picture. That will be cheap.

Authors on wattpad talk about a site called Fiverr for cheap book covers. If your computer is reading this to you, it's spelled F-I-V-E-R-R. I don't know anything about it. It's people doing freelance work.

I've used Fiverr (though not for several years). It's a handy tool for finding volunteers for ANY job, so I mostly use it to find native translations of an phrases to lines I want to denote as being spoken in a foreign language.

At least in terms of e-books, what does something like lulu.com bring to the table? I'd assumed that I would deal directly with channels like Bookify and Amazon. If I don't care much about print books, does Lulu bring much to the table?

The main things Lulu brings to the table are:

1. A high royalty percentage; and

2. More protection of your copyright than the Amazon Conditions of Service have.

While Amazon claims to have a larger market and some authors say they get big pay days from Amazon, the decent incomes are rarer than Amazon wants you to believe - based on what I see people say on forums etc.

Lulu have recently done a major revamping of their site and they still have a few minor issues. However, going on past experience it is an easier site to work with than most. The great majority of my sales on Lulu are e-book, I'd say about 99%. There is the odd print book sale, but not many. I've often thought about cutting the print books, but haven't yet.

I do my own book covers and have found it easy for me, but I recognize that's not the same for everyone else. I've done the formatting of books for epubs and PDF for a few other authors and have even done the covers for them. With Mike Lowe (The Scot) and Gary Davis I did the cover, epub creation, and put them up on Lulu for them.

While the work load you have isn't very high, I'm prepared to help you out free of charge and prepare a complete book cover and e-pub file for you to have ready for use on any site. To do that I'd need a clean copy of the story file with the proper style formatting, or a copy I can easily fix up, and a description of what you want for the cover. Then I'd do it, send it to you, and make any changes you may want. The finished work would be returned to you for further action, whatever you decide.

I've had no books rejected by Lulu. However, I've heard of some adult content books being cancelled on Amazon and the funds of prior sales being kept by Amazon when they closed the account on the author. I've also heard of some authors having no issues with Amazon. Thus I suspect it's a matter of content being OK until someone bitches.

Quite some time ago Lulu joined in a partnership where books with them could be sold via Amazon as well. At the time all of my books out then were placed into that system and several of the adult content stories were rejected by Amazon, but were still made available via Lulu. Since then I've only made my freebies available via the partnership link for sale via Amazon, B&N, and others.

It sounds like you're recommending Lulu in addition to Amazon. Because my goal is to reach more readers it sounds like I eventually need to deal with Amazon eventually. But it sounds like I would give up on the enhanced copyright protection when dealing with Amazon , and presumably between the percentage they take and the percentage Amazon takes I wouldn't see much on the royalty streem from Lulu->Amazon.
But it sounds like another channel that is relatively easy to deal with.
I'll contact you personally at the gmail in your ebook about your generous offer.

If you deal direct with Amazon you have to surrender a part of your copyright rights to them. However, if you go through the partnership process as used by Lulu you don't surrender that copyright right, but you lose a bit of royalty to both. There is another option with a mob called Draft2Digital or D2D who also have a partnership arrangement with Amazon which gives the same protections that Lulu does, but I'm not sure on the current royalty rates as I don't sell through, I just let them give away my freebies. When I tried them a few years back they seemed a better partnership deal than what Lulu offered.

The only other comment I can make about Amazon is I've had them reject adult content books which Lulu, D2D, Dpdotcom, and Bookapy have no troubles offering for sale. I no longer update books at Dpdotcom as the sales there aren't that good now- but were good when I started there about 20 years ago. The Dpdotcom sales have dropped off seriously since the full effects of certain EU legislation was applied to the Irish e-book company.

I would give up on the enhanced copyright protection when dealing with Amazon

I don't know what Ernest is referring to. You own the copyright on any site you publish on. If they ask you to transfer the copyright, run. Even when you sell to traditional publishers you're selling the publishing rights, not the copyright.

Amazon has 80%-85% of the ebook market.

I don't know what Ernest is referring to.

We've had this discussion a few times in the last several years, and each time I posted the Amazon Publishing Terms with the critical information. Here it is, again, from the latest of the Amazon website pages - dated 17 Feb 2020. The first link below has the Digital Pricing Page with the Royalties.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634500

However, the critical information is buried deep through several links which have weird and changing URLs.

From the Amazon Home page you can select the Self-Publish with us link to go to a page where you can select Publish to Kindle near the bottom of that page you can select KDP Terms and Conditions which opens a new page with a small window which you have to scroll through the long text. You really need to read them all, but the key ones are:

3 Term and Termination which details other sections which continue to be in place after you close your account.

5.1.2 Gives them the right to remove of modify metadata and the cover image for any reason.

5.1.5 gives them the right to reformat the book however they wish.

However, the real killer is 5.5 Grant of Rights which states (bold is added by me):

(quote)

5.5 Grant of Rights. You grant to each Amazon party, throughout the term of this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, right and license to print (on-demand and in anticipation of customer demand) and distribute Books, directly and through third-party distributors, in all formats you choose to make available through KDP by all distribution means available. This right includes, without limitation, the right to: (a) reproduce, index and store Books on one or more computer facilities, and reformat, convert and encode Books; (b) display, market, transmit, distribute, sell, license and otherwise make available all or any portion of 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 Books (with such modifications as are necessary to optimize their viewing), and (ii) portions of Books, in each case solely for the purposes of marketing, soliciting and selling 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 Books; and (f) transmit, reproduce and otherwise use (or cause the reformatting, transmission, reproduction, and/or other use of) 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 Book, then the territory for the sale of that Book will be those territories for which you indicate, through the procedure we provide to you, that you have distribution rights, except as otherwise provided in the Program Policies.

(end quote)

In short, once you upload a book to Amazon they have the legal right to sell that book from now until eternity, even after they or you cancel your account. They also have the right to sell the book to others to sell.

Will they abuse this power is unknown. But it is worrying that they insist on it and all of their sub-companies also insist on having the same rights, while these are rights no regular publisher asks for. The usual assignment of rights in publishing are limited in either time, geography, or both while Amazon insist in having unlimited in all aspects. Some people say they'll never abuse it, but if that was the case, there is no need for it to be there to begin with.

The beauty of going through Lulu is that their terms have the usual publishing limits and not the unlimited ones Amazon ask for. Thus Lulu can not give Amazon unlimited rights they want, and so your rights are protected.

...........................

Amazon claims they have 80 to 85% of the ebook market, but the only stats saying that I've seen have all come from either Amazon, other Amazon companies, or have been paid for by them. There is also evidence they totally ignore small owner operator sites that sell ebooks direct from the authors; of which there are a lot.

In short, once you upload a book to Amazon they have the legal right to sell that book from now until eternity, even after they or you cancel your account. They also have the right to sell the book to others to sell.

Because you're giving them publishing rights. Nowhere does it say they own the copyright. The author maintains ownership of the copyright.

If the author no longer owned the copyright he would not be able to publish it anywhere else. It would no longer be his.

I was responding to "I would give up on the enhanced copyright protection when dealing with Amazon." The author isn't giving up any of the copyright.

Nowhere does it say they own the copyright.

I never said they did, what I did say, earlier, was:

If you deal direct with Amazon you have to surrender a part of your copyright rights to them.

Note the word part. Under the Amazon Conditions of Use you no longer have full control of your copyright because you give them a permanent right to publish your works anywhere in the world and a permanent right to on-sell your works anywhere in the world. Thus you lose full control of the copyright.

Since you never give Lulu that amount of control over your copyright they can't pass it on to Amazon, thus you have the enhanced protection in that you can pull a story from Amazon and they can no longer legally sell it if you sell via Lulu to Amazon.

Amazon claims they have 80 to 85% of the ebook market

I wasn't quoting Amazon with that number. It's what the authors on wattpad who publish wide say (wide means selling through multiple places). They track their sales figures very closely.

Many of those authors treat it as a business. Some even as their sole source of income (full-time authors). They track that kind of information to monitor their business, make decisions on where to spend marketing dollars, etc.

It's what the authors on wattpad who publish wide say (wide means selling through multiple places).

So, what you meant to say is: Selected Wattpad authors state 80 to 85% of their e-book sales from their markets of sites A, B, C, and D are from Amazon. Which is very different to saying they have 80 to 85% of the e-book market. And yes, I've seen past advertising claims by Amazon that they have 80 to 85% of the e-book market.

5.5 Grant of Rights. You grant to each Amazon party, throughout the term of this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, right and license to print (on-demand and in anticipation of customer demand) and distribute Books, directly and through third-party distributors, in all formats you choose to make available through KDP by all distribution means available.

This is just legal boilerplate. Because once they sell somebody a book, it essentially becomes the property of the reader to use their copy as they wish.

It is really no different than a dead tree book in this. Once it is sold to a customer, your right pretty much ends. You can try to ask them to send you back all the physical copies, but good luck there.

Essentially, once a single copy it sold that sale becomes "irrevocable". And yes there are cases where they went in and deleted books purchased, but that always involved copyright issues, and not the creator changing their mind at a later date.

This is just legal boilerplate. Because once they sell somebody a book, it essentially becomes the property of the reader to use their copy as they wish.

It's more than just legal boiler plate as it's not in the publishing agreements of normal publishing houses.

Once you sell a copy of a story then the purchaser can legally on-sell that copy, but they can not legally make other copies and sell them to other people - and that's what Amazon are having you assign them the rights to do. Amazon wants the irrevocable rights to sell more copies, not just a copy they purchased.

That's exactly what any traditional dead tree publisher does. They make more copies to sell.

True, but they do it only for the terms of the contract and don't insist on having a contract term that allows them to still print and sell copies for all of eternity after the current contract expires or is cancelled, yet Amazon has a term allowing them to continue selling your stories even after you cancell the contract.

In short, once you upload a book to Amazon they have the legal right to sell that book from now until eternity, even after they or you cancel your account. They also have the right to sell the book to others to sell.

Except, as I keep pointing out, that 'exception' only applies to the copies they have on hand. They won't sell any NEW copies, they'll only sell the ones they keep in stock for rapid shipping.

Except, as I keep pointing out, that 'exception' only applies to the copies they have on hand. They won't sell any NEW copies, they'll only sell the ones they keep in stock for rapid shipping.

They can do what you say above without having the wording in their ToS the way they do. That wording is not needed to do as they say, but they still insist on it, and also insist on it applying to electronic books. Which begs the question of why have it at all, which they never address when I asked.

BTW: I suspect they only keep a few actual printed books on the warehouse shelf for the few books that sell a lot of print books each month. Years ago some earlier versions of some of my books were made available via Amazon through the Lulu Partnership Deal when it first happened, most of those books still have pages on Amazon offering them for sale and have had the notation of out of stock since I pulled all of the charged for books off of Amazon. The records of sales show I've never sold a print book through Amazon, so I strongly suspect they use Print on Demand services for most of their printed books that aren't heavy print book sales.

They can do what you say above without having the wording in their ToS the way they do. That wording is not needed to do as they say, but they still insist on it, and also insist on it applying to electronic books.

No, the precise wording is absolutely necessary for them to sell their remaining stock, once someone chooses to unpublish their books, especially since Amazon NEVER pays for those 'preprinted' books, until the moment they're sold, thus there is NO 'personal copy' exception to copyright law!

But Amazon routinely 'saves' numerous copies is ALL electronic books, not just certain selected books. Every time I've unpublished an older book, it generally takes a few months before Amazon's 'spare copies' manage to sell out, at which point those 'active sale' pages disappear.

the precise wording is absolutely necessary for them to sell their remaining stock,

Wrong, they can replace it with wording about retaining the right to continue to sell already printed stocks after the contract closes. After all, the regular publisher can do it as well without such a ToS.

Wrong, they can replace it with wording about retaining the right to continue to sell already printed stocks after the contract closes. After all, the regular publisher can do it as well without such a ToS.

You're correct, but admit it, how many companies 'rewrite' their entire TOS when they're NOT forced to by a court of law? It's simply not done. If they aren't doing something illegal, and if there's no harm (i.e. copyright infringement) then the law (at least in the U.S.) tends to find no fault in those cases.

You're correct, but admit it, how many companies 'rewrite' their entire TOS when they're NOT forced to by a court of law?

But why include unnecessary things like that in the ToS to begin with? And there is potential for harm, and they've already used it to harm me by taking a few sales away from my approved sales sites. But it's not enough for me to take legal action over.

But it sounds like I would give up on the enhanced copyright protection when dealing with Amazon , and presumably between the percentage they take and the percentage Amazon takes

You should be cautious about Ernest's opinion on this, as he interpreted the TOS language to mean one thing, where their policies have always been different.

Amazon has always preserved the right to print and hold copies of any book to speed the distribution and sales from their central warehouses. Thus, once you discontinue a book (or they ban it, for whatever reason) they'll continue selling it until ALL their copies are exhausted. But, except for the banned books, they still pay royalties on their sales (thus banning books is actually a way to sell books without ANY author commission, since they NEVER pull the books from distribution.

You should be cautious about Ernest's opinion on this, as he interpreted the TOS language to mean one thing, where their policies have always been different.

I'm still waiting for a valid explanation as to why they have something in the ToS which are different to their policies. Also, they differentiate between print and e-books in other parts of the ToS and if this was only for shelf stocks, then they could easily word it to show that, but they don't.

Probably the real reason is that they allow Kindle users who have purchased e-books to re-download those books without re-paying. If you change devices or if you have more e-books than your Kindle will hold at one time. you don't have to re-buy everything.

Can be dealt with in a number of ways without having the ToS worded the way it is.

Also, they differentiate between print and e-books in other parts of the ToS and if this was only for shelf stocks, then they could easily word it to show that, but they don't.

You can discuss that with their lawyers, I'm just telling you how they use thier clauses, rather than creating more fantastic rumors based entirely on conjecture.

@Dominions Son

Probably the real reason is that they allow Kindle users who have purchased e-books to re-download those books without re-paying. If you change devices or if you have more e-books than your Kindle will hold at one time. you don't have to re-buy everything.

Actually, it also covers updates. ANY ebook is legally yours, once you've purchased it (unless, of course, the publisher cancels it), but owners of ebooks are not automatically entitled to later updates. But again, Smashwords handles these cases much more elegantly, without the overly broad legal terms.

Smashwords doesn't have a small army of in-house lawyers who need to justify their salaries. :)

They do, only it's a small battalion, rather than a full invading army marching across others' sovereign territories! ;)

You can discuss that with their lawyers, I'm just telling you how they use thier clauses, rather than creating more fantastic rumors based entirely on conjecture.

The use of the standard definitions of the words they use is not a fantastic rumour or conjecture, it's factual. How they currently apply the use of the clauses has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the way the ToS is worded. If they did not envision a usage along the way the words are written and defined they would not have worded them that way.

US courts don't always use standard definitions in interpreting contracts

In most legal jurisdictions there are four sets of definitions used for words:

a. That set out in an act of law that lists the word and the definition as applied to that law.

b. A definition as above from another law which has a similar application to the law being looked at.

c. A definition as set out and listed within the contract itself.

d. The generally accepted dictionary usage of the word.

If a word is not specifically defined within the law or the contract then the dictionary definition is used and applied.

However, the US courts never do anything in a sane or logical manner, so over there it's almost anything goes.

The use of the standard definitions of the words they use is not a fantastic rumour or conjecture, it's factual.

Once again (I hate endlessly pointing out the exact same objections, time after time, ad infinitum), they do carve out an unclassified exemption for themselves, but rather than assuming that Amazon is attempted to steal the authors' copyrights, outright, I instead look at how they implement the TOS. That implementation has never changed, they've been very consistent in how they apply, so you're continually insisting that they're planning something nefarious is flat-out incorrect.

You keep quoting the supposed law in this, but intent and 'actual damages' are a large part in ANY legal decision, and in this case, their behavior does NOT support your baseless assertions.

They 'carved out' an exemption to standard copyright law to offer faster service for the customer (which has evaporated during the Covid-19 crisis, now that it takes 6 to 8 weeks to even ship anything), bit it's clearly not for the purpose you keep ranting about.

Now, I know that you've had specific problems with them continuing to sell your books after they've been removed, but ... there are specific issues when third-party distributors remove their books (i.e. it appears to be a communications problem between the two companies, rather than outright theft of property). But, that does not lend credence to your other unsupported claims.

Even though I have never supported Amazon's bullying, monopolistic tactics, I'm at least willing to concede when they do the correct thing.

CW,

I know we've had this dance in the past, and we're both fed up with it. However, it simply comes down to a choice of trusting the bully to do as he says he will now, or how he has promised to do before and has reinforced that promise in writing when he didn't need to.

There is, and never was, any need to carve out any special exemption to standard copyright laws. If I have a standard print and distribute agreement with any mainstream publisher that contract allows them to print and distribute the books covered by that contract for the period of the contract. If they have unsold stocks on hand when that contract runs out they still have a legal right to keep and sell the unsold stocks if they want to. At that point they can pay me royalties for all of the stock on hand, or they can pay me royalties once the stock is actually sold. There is no reason why Amazon can't operate in the same way.

As to taking an organisation like Amazon to court, that requires you to have very deep pockets to do it in the USA, which is very unlikely to happen.

I make no claims about what they have or have not done to others in regards to this part of their ToS, only a clear statement that Amazon has gone to a lot of trouble to include unneeded draconian requirements in their ToS and how they've treated me. Thus I do not believe them when they, or their supporters, make claims about 'peace in our times because the bad guy said so.'

The phrase that worries me is not needed, never has been, and can be implemented by them whenever they want to.

As to the past issues with my books not being pulled being a communications issue between Lulu and Amazon, that may be or not be the case. However, Amazon still advertises the Jan 2008 copy of Power Tool as being out of stock today despite having been told to remove it back in 2008. They never paid me any royalties for sales of the book, so I think it safe to assume they never sold any and they never had any in stock. The latest copyright of the story is a revised version issued in 2018.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Tool-Cazna-Rochester/dp/1409247597

Amazon has Star Performance listed in the same way.

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Performance-Ernest-Bywater/dp/1471059421

And The Falcon.

https://www.amazon.it/Clan-Amir-Falcon-Ernest-Edwards/dp/1471029514

They also still advertise Rough Diamond as having a limited availability for sale as a Kindle format. They were told to remove it several years ago, but they haven't. Amazon was told to remove the book back in 2013, but since 2015 they've sold 15 e-book copies and given a full credit of the sale of one copy. Despite selling the book below my advertised price Amazon makes more than double the money off of each sale than they send me several years after being told to pull the story.

https://www.amazon.com/Rough-Diamond-Ernest-Bywater/dp/1471029433

Thanks so much for the comments.
As I understand it, Amazon only promises 70% if you are willing to give them an exclusive, and then only 70% for people who buy the book as opposed to accessing the book through Kindle Unlimited.

Can you give me an idea of the sorts of things you are concerned about that might piss off readers in a wider audience that one might discover through bookify?

Can you give me an idea of the sorts of things you are concerned about that might piss off readers in a wider audience that one might discover through bookify?

It's not so much 'issues', as it is producing an inferior book in the first place. Thus, it's best to start small, learn the various pitfalls, before taking the next step.

SOL is a great site for new authors, as the readers are incredibly encouraging, with many offering free services (like editing services or crappy advice like mine), and they'll also purchase a book at full price that they've just read for free on the site, just to encourage promising authors to continue.

And yes, while some 'advice' can be biting, there is much of value there too, especially if expect to grow as an artist.

We all make a LOT of errors when we first start off, so it's best to stick to a supportive group to learn what works and what doesn't, before jumping to the final stages of online marketing.

As I understand it, Amazon only promises 70% if you are willing to give them an exclusive, and then only 70% for people who buy the book as opposed to accessing the book through Kindle Unlimited.

Not quite true. The KDP royalty is based on the selling price of the book. Under $2.99 you get a 35% royalty. $2.99 to (I think $9.99) you get 70%. You do not have to be exclusive to get the 70%. However, if you are not enrolled in their Select program which requires exclusivity, there are four markets that will only pay 35%. I don't remember the four, but they aren't big markets for me. There's also one other catch I never could understand. It's caused by people being out of market. Let's say someone buys from the U.S. site (amazon.com) but they are not in the U.S., you get less than 70%. I can't explain it further.

Kindle Unlimited (enrolling in Select) is a separate thing. You get paid by pages read rather than books sold.

First, especially if your goal is to increase readership, but also to make sales, it's all about marketing. You can publish the best novel ever written with the best cover and blurb (description), but if no one sees it no one buys/reads it. There are tens of millions of books on Amazon. How will someone find yours?

The second point, from my perspective anyway, is that you should believe your book is the same quality as a traditionally published book. That's everything from grammar and punctuation to telling a good story. Unfortunately, many of the self-published books don't meet that quality which gives it a bad name.

I do my formatting in Word on a Mac. So indentation, spacing between lines and paragraphs, using H1 for chapters to build a Table of Contents, etc. And I don't put in blank lines. I use the before and after number of pixels to space things. Then I input that docx file into Calibre to produce it in epub format which I upload to Amazon. They convert it to mobi for the Kindle. Calibre can do that too, but I like to have my standard version in epub.

I published my latest novel the other day and ran into a problem with Amazon's Look Inside. When I used their previewer during the publishing process, the novel looked like it formatted correctly. But after it was published and went live, the Look Inside had formatting problems. Indenting was wrong, spacing was wrong, etc. So I called their Customer Support. I don't know how, but they fixed it within 2 hours. Evidently the novel was formatted correctly but the Look Inside wasn't. And the Look Inside is super critical. If someone does find your novel hidden in the tens of millions of others, they'll most likely sample the novel. That's the Look Inside. If the formatting is bad, they'll assume the novel in amateurish and move on to the next novel. But you would never know the Look Inside wasn't formatted properly. Someone needs to be your eyes.

As to content, I believe if it's legal Amazon will allow it. So no underage sex, no bestiality, incest, etc. Just make sure to put it under the erotica category and have the minimum age 18.

I don't know what to tell you about covers. I do my own using GIMP, but being blind that's not possible. Someone will have to do it for you and you'll have to trust them since you won't be able to see it.

Again, marketing is a major factor. No one knows it's there and no one buys/reads it.

Did I cover everything?

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be markets with a VAT tax setup and Amazon is deducting the VAT from the royalty.

Amazon does not deduct the VAT. The author has to bump the selling price up by the percent for that EU country (UK is now zero for ebooks).

It's when it's a sale from someone living in a different market. Instead of buying it at their local Amazon site, they buy it from amazon.com which is the U.S. site.

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be markets with a VAT tax setup and Amazon is deducting the VAT from the royalty.

It varies, depending on the country. Some countries include the Vat, while others don't, while each (European) country has separate rates, which apply to different things. Thus I'll mark my book up for specific European countries, while dropping it for others (like the still-struggling Greece).

I prefer Smashwords approach, where they simply charge one flat fee, operating out of the U.S. with (hopefully) remote distributors, taking on any taxes at the time of purchase.

Amazon is part of the world's sewer system together with the likes of facebook & co. If you only sell through Amazon you won't sell anything to me.

I love Amazon as a customer. We buy almost everything online through them. And as Prime members we get next day delivery and Amazon Video streaming.

The only issue is that you have to be careful when the sale is from a third party (I'm not talking ebooks) because sometimes the third party prices are too high.

What is it about Amazon that you don't like? Is it simply because they're so big? They have great customer service which is important to us. Even the KDP customer service is great. When you contact them you have a choice of doing it email or by phone (click the phone button and they call you almost immediately). They even say the preferred method is by phone. Nowadays, it's so hard to get to speak to a live person at companies. And they actually prefer that.

Yes it is because good rules should have prevented a company from becoming too big.

Why?

That is not how it works, that is not how any of it works.

There are no "rules" like that, nor should there ever be. The only thing that is even close is the rules to prevent a business from using unfair practices.

The largest phone maker is Apple. The largest computer maker is Dell. The largest flashlight maker is MagLight. The largest maker of operating systems and word processors is Microsoft. And in most of those it is by a large margin, all perfectly legal.

Yes, 2 decades ago MS was doing some shady stuff, and got smacked hard for it. But the company today does not act like it did 20-25 years ago. But funny, Apple still does and nobody says a thing about it.

There are no "rules" like that, nor should there ever be.

Tell that to politicians like Elizabeth Warren who want to break up Amazon simply because they're too big.

The largest phone maker is Apple.

1. Samsung
2. Huawei
3. Apple

The only thing that is even close is the rules to prevent a business from using unfair practices.

Like taking over promising competitors and folding them into their less friendly offering?

Who can remember SmashWords and CreateSpace!

Amazon is an abusive monopoly that should have been tackled years ago.

AJ

Woo hoo, just think of all the cat videos the People's Liberation Army can hack into!

AJ

Are you really that naive about what a monopoly can do to the market?

AJ

What they are is what I call a 'virtual' monopoly.

And if you want access to their 85% of readers, you have to put up with their higher fees and more onerous conditions.

The joys of unabridled capitalism!

AJ

If one single company can have that kind of impact on the economy there's something wrong with the system.

Too big to fail.

After the financial disaster in 2009, Congress said the banks were too big because they had to bail them out. After the economy came back, there were more bank mergers so the banks are bigger now than then.

Amazon is an abusive monopoly that should have been tackled years ago.

Amazon only exists as anything more than a bookseller because Sears completely missed the boat. They had the catalog market basically sewn up, and just needed to add 'on the internet' and Amazon would have been a profitless on-line bookseller, and not much more.

Microsoft is way behind or non-existent on servers

Only anecdotal, but I'm aware of a number of small farms that have reluctantly moved back to Microsoft servers.

AJ

Microsoft is way behind or non-existent on servers, cloud storage, phones, and IOT devices.

Not in my experience, and I have been in the industry so long I started working on keypunch cards.

You have to remember, a server is just a server. Where MS is king is in the authentication and security. I have been involved in networking for decades, and yes, a lot of servers are not MS. Throw down a workgroup server, and there is a good chance it may be some variant of Linux. But guess what is handling all the security? Yep, a Microsoft server.

And the marketshare is not declining for desktops, desktops are shrinking as a market. But to give an idea, MS is around 85%. Mac, around 9%. Linux, around 2%. And those percentages have hardly changed in 20 years.

Walk into say a Boeing Space Systems, where I have worked. A few Macs in the DTP area, that is it. Maybe a few hundred servers total in a location, generally all Microsoft because they pay for a site license. And then 20,000 or so desktops, all running Microsoft (unless it is a specialty machine generally).

Yes, the home market is shrinking. But the business market is still booming. That has always been the real backbone of the computer industry. Companies buying tens and hundreds of thousands of new systems every 3 years.

Not Aunt Mildred that is now starting to complain because her system is still trying to use Vista. The OS that was installed on it 13 years ago when she bought it.

Why?

Think of how monopolies have ruined things in the past, and are moving toward doing the same now. Once anyone controls and industry they are in a position to overcharge like hell, and they will because no one can stop them.

A prime example of that was way back when Ma Bell ruled the phone universe. It got so bad that Hollywood finally made a movie and--finally, before the people stormed their halls--Congress acted, breaking Ma Bell into all the Baby Bells. You had to live through those days to truly know how bad it was.

Not really. They were the largest phone company, but not the only one.

And look at what happened. Once broken up, prices increased and within 20 years merger after merger pretty much brought them all back together again.

Yes, AT&T was broken up! But take a look, who is once again the biggest telecom company in the world? I will give you one guess, and the only correct answer is "AT&T". 4 of the 7 Regional Bell Operating Companies are right back where they started. 2 of the remaining are part of Verizon (originally the RBOC "Bell Atlantic", they changed their name after absorbing the main AT&T competitor, GTE).

But that monopoly would not have lasted much longer. MCI and Sprint were already starting to take over the long distance market, and Cell Phones were right around the corner.

And you might want to look into what the phone system was like BEFORE AT&T got the government monopoly. Imagine trying to make a long distance call, and having to go through 4 different phone companies, paying each of them along the way. Yes, the phone system really was that bad beforehand.

And true fact, AT&T would probably be gone if not for being broken up. They had a government licensed monopoly, but were also blocked from entering things like computers and radio communications other than microwave relays. So if not for that, AT&T would not have become a major player in the cell phone and computer industry.

And look at what actually happened when they originally broke it up. Did it create competition? No, instead they broke a national monopoly into a bunch of smaller regional monopolies. Aside from long distance service, actual competition came later.

All utilities by default are generally monopolies. That is simply how it is and always has been.

Does not matter if it is power, gas, water, cable TV, phone, or anything else. Without a monopoly it is not cost effective to put in the infrastructure required.

And no, AT&T did not have a "National Monopoly". For many years my carrier was GTE, the second largest carrier.

And what got AT&T in trouble was not even the phone service part of their business. It was their other companies, Western Electric (which made the phones and other equipment), as well as the Yellow Pages. Those were the actual "monopolies" that ended up getting them in trouble, as they were able to use their power of being the largest phone provider to force everybody to use their other services. After the break-up, the smaller Bell companies could continue to buy from Western Electric, create competing equipment companies, or buy from others as they no longer had an incentive to buy from them. The same with the phone books, which changed from only being available from the phone company to a generic product that anybody could publish (and the phone companies had to provide lists of phone numbers if asked).

This is what the anti-trust lawsuit was really all about. Not the phone monopoly, but the ability to use that monopoly to stifle competition in other areas (like mandating all phones only come from AT&T - which they only leased and did not sell). And AT&T actually had a choice. Break up the phone service part and keep WE and YP, or divest of itself the Western Electric and Yellow Pages part of the business and keep the near monopoly on phone service. They took the option to break up the phone service part.

Just shows that what is "commonly known" is quite often not the real truth.

And Western Electric still exists, in the 1990's they changed their name to Lucent Technologies.

No it is not how it has always been. At the start of electrification in the 1890s it was very much NOT that way. The government explicitly stepped in and made the utilities into monopolies.

There was no choice.

Look at some of the old photographs of cities like New York at the turn of the century. Multiple power lines as well as telephone and telegraph running into each building. Because you had multiple companies all competing and none would share anything.

And as graybyrd stated, there is the TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority was a New Deal program, which resolved how to get power into areas that were not cost effective to run the services to. In short, it was give and take. In exchange for a monopoly, the utility agreed to support every household in the area, even if it lost them money. The idea literally was that the richer more dense areas subsidized the more remote rural ones.

And yea, I guess it might be seen as "crony capitalism", unless you live in a rural area. Me, I do not want to live like David Koresh, so I do not mind paying a bit extra so others can get services.

Or we can just go back to the old way of doing things. 3 and 4 different companies, each competing for your business. And if you change companies, better be happy doing without that utility for days or weeks, as they come and rip out everything they put in place to hook you up, and the new company has to spend time and money hooking you up to their system.

Which of course once again returns us to the era where all utilities were run above ground. Or we could even see a return to the "green" technologies of pneumatic or hydraulic power transmission (yes, those were real things).

If you study the early era of power transmission, it was an absolute mess. AC, DC, 110v, 220v, and a slew of other voltages and systems. The consumer often even had to buy appliances and lights that would only work for one system. Then when it went belly up (many did), they then had to buy everything all over again.

Not unlike the PC industry until the mid-1990s. With dozens of different platforms, none compatible with the others (even on the same hardware). There is a reason why Microsoft has a near monopoly on the industry. And nobody remembers DEC, Digital Research, GEOS, GEM, Visi On, and O/S2 among a great many others.

Or we can just go back to the old way of doing things. 3 and 4 different companies, each competing for your business. And if you change companies, better be happy doing without that utility for days or weeks, as they come and rip out everything they put in place to hook you up, and the new company has to spend time and money hooking you up to their system.

This could be solved by a single company which is responsible for the infrastructure, which makes the infrastructure available to all service/content providers at equitable prices. Things like water, electricity, and gas are fungible, so provides would just add their appropriate production to the mix. Individualized products/services are easily deliverable over fiber/copper to the house.

Yes, it still has a monopoly, but one that can be highly regulated to allow broad competition in the provision of service/content.

That is how most utilities are regulated her in the Netherlands

Having spent quite a bit of time in the Netherlands, that's what I was thinking of when I wrote my comments. :-)

And nobody remembers DEC, Digital Research, GEOS, GEM, Visi On, and O/S2 among a great many others.

I certainly remember DEC, as I worked for them a long time. Unfortunately, the writing was on the wall when they abandoned ALL their flagship devices to begin focusing on PC phone apps (which they had no expertise in). That's when I quit the industry, as I wasn't eager to dedicate my career on MS phone software!

Think of how monopolies have ruined things in the past, and are moving toward doing the same now. Once anyone controls and industry they are in a position to overcharge like hell, and they will because no one can stop them.

A monopoly is not illegal, it never has been. Only the use of unfair practices to gain it, or the unfair of their ability of being a monopoly is illegal.

And a "monopoly" can be a good thing. I still remember the nightmare of the IT industry 30 years ago, when we had a ton of competing platforms, operating systems, and network operating systems. It was not all that long ago that Novell was the king of the mountain for networking.

Now where is it? Gone, relegated to the dustbin of history. Surpassed by Microsoft 20 years ago because they updated fast and hard, and they tried to milk as much as they could by being "number one".

They have become so big that they influence politics and the market in general.

Yes, America's anti-monopoly system isn't fit for purpose.

AJ

there is no longer an equal market for startups and smaller companies compared to companies of such a size and influence.

If a start-up does it better they will be successful. Some innovation that makes them better.

When I got into programming, IBM was king. Sure there was Honeywell and a few others, but corporate America went with IBM. Look what happened to that industry. The right minds began start-ups in an industry dominated by IBM with new technology and won.

Sears grew out of the need of rural communities. When the railroad expanded across the U.S., Sears took advantage of that with their catalog business. Amazon replaced the railroad with the internet and FedEx. Sears should have done it but they weren't smart enough and now they're in bankruptcy. Should I feel bad for them? Blame Amazon for beating them at their own game?

Chain bookstores put small bookstores out of business. They even made a movie out of it (You Got Mail). Then Amazon put them out of business. Someday someone will put Amazon out of business. But for now they provide a wonderful service.

And talk about consolidated power. Look at the traditional publishing industry. They held all the keys and made all the rules. Their contracts still aren't fair to authors. Or customers for that matter. Look at their ebook prices. Amazon is providing a service to authors to bypass those who thought they could get away with anything.

Is the internet evil? After all, it's putting the brick and mortar stores out of business. Should I boycott the internet?

Chain bookstores put small bookstores out of business. They even made a movie out of it (You Got Mail). Then Amazon put them out of business. Someday someone will put Amazon out of business. But for now they provide a wonderful service.

To be accurate, it is the American consumer that put them out of business. Just as we have so many other industries over the last 40 years.

We once had a thriving shoe industry, textile industry, auto industry, electronics industry, and so many other things. US products were considered to be the best in the world, but when people stopped paying attention to "Buy American" and decided saving $20 was more important, we lost all of that.

FOr the last 20 years they have even screamed "Big Box" stores were killing small business, not even realizing that the real killer was shopping online. THAT is what has killed small business the last 2 decades.

Now I do still buy things at Amazon, if my local used book store does not have a cook in stock. However, I purchase it at my local bookstore. Sure, it costs me a little more, but I see it as an investment as it helps them stay in business. I do not want to see my local used book stores going the way of Quasar, Magnavox, RCA, and Zenith.

It is not needed to boycott Internet stores, but it can be done in a way that still supports local businesses.

Actually, back then no one paid attention to "Buy American". "Buy American" didn't exist until after the US started to lose a lot of it's consumer goods manufacturing.

"Buy American" was an effort to get back something that had already been lost.

Nope, was big even in the 1970's before that all happened. The first real big push was actually by labor unions, not the companies themselves. UAW and UGW were both pig pushers into "Buying Union", which generally meant "Buy American", since all of the textile and car companies had unionized decades prior.

I am still old enough to remember the "Look for the Union Label" TV commercials. Those were not cries to only shop for union made products, it was a cry to but American made products, which just so happened to be union made.

And ironically, the ILGWU fell from a high of over 450k, until in 1995 it had to unite with the Hotel and Restaurant workers union just to survive.

I can only imagine you are not old enough to remember the old commercials.

Look for the union label
When you are buying a coat, dress, or blouse,
Remember somewhere our union's sewing,
Our wages going to feed the kids and run the house,
We work hard, but who's complaining?
Thanks to the ILG, we're paying our way,
So always look for the union label,
It says we're able to make it in the USA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSbmJb8dHMY

I am still old enough to remember the "Look for the Union Label" TV commercials.

I'm old enough to remember a Japanese town changing its name to USA so they could stamp their products "Made in USA."

Apparently you don't understand my point. Amazon is a company that has spread out over many business sectors. You can't compare that to a "big" business in a single market.

OK, got it.

All big business own other businesses. When I first started with American Express they were going to merge with Walt Disney with American Express being at the top. Our joke within AMEX was that it made sense because AMEX was a Micky Mouse company. The only reason it didn't happen was because the CEO of Amex retired and James Robinson III became CEO. JP III was young and the old CEO of Disney said he wouldn't work for a kid.

Look at Disney now. They own ABC which owns ESPN and the list of companies goes on.

But as a consumer, I'd think twice about not using Amazon. Your not using them won't make a dent, but you lose a great service. They really are a great company from the customer's POV.

Your not using them won't make a dent, but you lose a great service. They really are a great company from the customer's POV.

A large number of people who were surprised to find themselves subscribed to Amazon Prime might disagree with you.

AJ

Not possible anymore because they get bought out by companies like amazon before they have a chance to make it on their own.

Only if they want to get bought out.

That is a paradigm that all depends on the creators intent. In the last 10-15 years, it has become increasingly common for companies to create a new concept, drive the value of the company up to almost insane values, then sell it off and make a fortune. MySpace, PayPal, YouTube, Hotmail, the list just goes on and on. Nobody made those businesses sell out to bigger companies, the founders quite literally "took the money and ran".

Vermeer Technologies was founded with under $1 million in assets in 1994, with basically a single product. A simple way to create web pages that was released to the public in 1995. A year later they sold their company to Microsoft for $144 million, and Front Page changed owners.

A pretty damned good return on their investment, and nobody made them sell. The same with Syntrillium, which created the industry standard for audio editing in 1995 with Cool Edit. 8 years later Adobe bought the company, and renamed it to Adobe Premier.

But nobody other than the owners of the company decide to "sell out" to the bigger companies. It is not like Amazon or Adobe went up and forced then to sell their business "or else".

becaeuse our founders were concerned about the majority making bad decisions.

I never thought of that, but they were right. Just look at the decisions people are making concerning COVID-19. Pool parties. Shoulder to shoulder in bars while shouting. No masks. People are stupid and seem to get more stupid with every generation.

People are stupid and seem to get more stupid with every generation.

Evolution certainly doesn't guarantee intelligence, though plagues tend to weed out the incredibly stupid, at least! Just as it did all the 'rich' who survived the Bubonic Plague, only to die from their expensive lead plates!