Re-purposing Dalmatia, Amazon.com and dubious sources Options

[thekohser]

I have to say that this is one of the funniest things I've seen all month, related to free licenses.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

So, I decided to try an experiment, at the suggestion of young Geoffrey Plourde. Re-list the "books" at a price significantly less than Alphascript.

So, I posted "United Arab Emirates" for sale in "New" condition as an Amazon Seller, for $19.95, underneath the Alphascript price of $72.

Twenty-four hours later, I have a sale. To a gal in Alabama. Jimbo's from Alabama. Must be something in the water there that allows people to be duped by free-license scams.

Here was my Seller notice to the Buyer:

Dear Allison,

My name is Gregory Kohs. You purchased a "book" today from me about the United Arab Emirates. The original book was printed by Alphascript Publishing. It is of poor quality construction. It is comprised entirely of direct, printed copies of the following articles that are available for FREE on Wikipedia:

United Arab Emirates, History of the United Arab Emirates, Outline of the United Arab Emirates, Politics of the United Arab Emirates, Military of the United Arab Emirates, Crime in the United Arab Emirates, Human rights in the United Arab Emirates, LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates, Foreign relations of the United Arab Emirates, Geography of the United Arab Emirates, Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, List of cities in the United Arab Emirates, Demographics of the United Arab Emirates, Education in the United Arab Emirates, Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates, Islam in the United Arab Emirates, Roman Catholicism in the United Arab Emirates, Bahá'í Faith in the United Arab Emirates, Economy of the United Arab Emirates, Transportation in the United Arab Emirates, Developments in Dubai, Music of the United Arab Emirates, Culture of the United Arab Emirates, Cinema of the United Arab Emirates, Sport in the United Arab Emirates

When you purchased the book from me, were you aware that what you would be receiving is nothing more than a print-out of FREELY-LICENSED content that is available to you, right now, free of charge, at Wikipedia.org?

I suspect that you were NOT under this impression or realization, and half of the reason for me listing the book was to test and see if unsuspecting consumers were aware of this ripoff scam that Alphascript Publishing is foisting on unsuspecting Amazon customers. I have contacted Amazon's legal department, but have received no reply (yet) from them. I have also reported Alphascript Publishing to the Federal Trade Commission.

If you wish, please cancel your order with me, and please join me in registering a complaint with Amazon, that Amazon is doing its customers a disservice by not requiring more clear notification that all 5,000+ of these Alphascript Publishing "books" are nothing more than Wikipedia print-outs.

If you wish to still receive a stack of print-outs of these articles, I will be happy to provide them to you for the advertised price. Please let me know your wishes, and your reaction to this information I have provided you today.

Kindly,

Gregory Kohs

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

[Eva Destruction]

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

Stranger things have happened. I've occasonally bought print books that are freely available on Google Books; the convenience of a real, bound book over a pile of printout pages sometimes justifies the cost. If this weren't the case, nobody would print bibles, Shakespeare et al.

[thekohser]

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

Stranger things have happened. I've occasonally bought print books that are freely available on Google Books; the convenience of a real, bound book over a pile of printout pages sometimes justifies the cost. If this weren't the case, nobody would print bibles, Shakespeare et al.

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

[Abd]

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

It lists him as an editor. I'm not thrilled by the marketing, which strikes me as misleading, but my guess is that there is no license violation here, at least if they have been careful. On the other hand, Kohs, seems to me that you may have violated the Amazon TOS.

The basic idea is sound. No comment on the price, but people will pay for those books. They may not get filthy rich, but they will make money if they do it right. Actually, it's a cool way to make a buck from being an editor.

[thekohser]

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

It lists him as an editor. I'm not thrilled by the marketing, which strikes me as misleading, but my guess is that there is no license violation here, at least if they have been careful. On the other hand, Kohs, seems to me that you may have violated the Amazon TOS.

The basic idea is sound. No comment on the price, but people will pay for those books. They may not get filthy rich, but they will make money if they do it right. Actually, it's a cool way to make a buck from being an editor.

It is deceptive marketing. And the preposition "by" is before John McBrewster (Editor). Not "edited by".

And it is a violation of Amazon terms of service:

Intellectual Property

* Recopied media. Recopied media infringe upon copyrights and
trademarks and are illegal to sell. Unauthorized copies, dubs, and
duplicates of any copyrighted material are prohibited on Amazon.com.
This includes:
o Books - Unauthorized copies of books are prohibited.

The copy isn't authorized if it hasn't met the terms of the CC license. The CC license terms include:

Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

Has Alphascript made clear to others the license terms of the work? Absolutely not.

Read the Product Description here.

It includes the text: "Physics is the science of matter and its behaviour and motion. It is one of the oldest scientific disciplines, perhaps the oldest through its inclusion of astronomy."

Prior to publication of this "book" by Alphascript, Wikipedia stated: "Physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines, perhaps the oldest through its inclusion of astronomy."

So, even the Product Description on Amazon itself likely violates the terms of the Creative Commons license. It's unauthorized. Don't be an idiot, Abd.

[Abd]

Don't be an idiot, Abd.

Why not? Isn't it more fun? If not, why would anyone bother trying? Only idiots get to blither, and if you haven't blithered, you haven't lived.

Do you know what is in the books themselves about license? "by So-and-So (editor) means the same as Edited by So-and-So. And simply by selecting and putting the pages together, So-and-So did edit. Remember, anyone can edit. Wikipedia, at least!

What's the problem here? Somebody puts together compilations of Wikipedia articles and probably uses a book-on-demand service, so he makes money with every sale. This could be done well or it could be done poorly, like much of anything else.

I've seen no evidence that these are "unauthorized copies." Looks to me like the license allows these copies. The statement by the editor that there are no restrictions wasn't true, but, remember, that's a media reporter and the meaning of "no restrictions" may not be "no restrictions," it means "we can do this, the restrictions, such as they are, don't prevent us." And if he has fail to properly note what the license requires, that's an error, but what will come of it? And why do you care?

Myself, I like the idea. Anyone could do this. Like me or you. Why not? And, of course, I mean, do it right. A URL to history can be used to cover the requirements of the license, if I'm correct.

Where they are off, of course, is that they don't disclose that the book is a copy of Wikipedia articles. They are correct, probably, that they don't legally have to do this, in the Amazon advertising.

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

[thekohser]

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

Who says I wasn't going to bind it? I've got glue and a brown paper shopping bag and scissors.

Besides, I made clear in my condition notes that the product would consist of a stack of Wikipedia print-outs. If the buyer didn't read that or care about it, why should binding be important? The Alphascript marketing doesn't promise binding. It merely says "(Paperback)". Paperback is defined as "a book with paper covers".

Anyway, my newest listings will include the following very clear condition note:

Special "unbound" manuscript, consisting of printed-out pages copied from Wikipedia, just like the original product from Alphascript Publishing.

If I've violated Amazon TOS, then they can remove me from their Seller's list. Thus far, I have a 5-star rating as a Seller. What is Alphascript's Seller rating? I'll be happy to violate Amazon's TOS, if it draws attention to a much larger marketing fraud, license violation, and trademark infringement.

Get back to work on your "proxy cabal" idea, Abd.

Caveat emptor!

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[carbuncle]

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

Who says I wasn't going to bind it? I've got glue and a brown paper shopping bag and scissors.

Besides, I made clear in my condition notes that the product would consist of a stack of Wikipedia print-outs. If the buyer didn't read that or care about it, why should binding be important? The Alphascript marketing doesn't promise binding. It merely says "(Paperback)". Paperback is defined as "a book with paper covers".

Anyway, my newest listings will include the following very clear condition note:

Special "unbound" manuscript, consisting of printed-out pages copied from Wikipedia, just like the original product from Alphascript Publishing.

If I've violated Amazon TOS, then they can remove me from their Seller's list. Thus far, I have a 5-star rating as a Seller. What is Alphascript's Seller rating? I'll be happy to violate Amazon's TOS, if it draws attention to a much larger marketing fraud, license violation, and trademark infringement.

Get back to work on your "proxy cabal" idea, Abd.

Caveat emptor!

If Amazon tosses you for violating their TOS, then whatever good you are doing protecting people from this scam will come to an end. Your disclaimer can be interpreted to mean that Alphascript's offering is also unbound.

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

[thekohser]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

The proposition in bold above has not been proven. In fact, I have yet to encounter one person who has bought an Alphascript "book" copied from Wikipedia who knew that the content was from Wikipedia before their purchase. However, I have encountered several people who had no idea, and they feel duped by a marketing scam.

Therefore, were I to underprice Alphascript, and fairly and clearly market that the content is copied from Wikipedia, I would have very little to no sales.

It's astounding to me that so few seem to "get" this conundrum.

[carbuncle]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

The proposition in bold above has not been proven. In fact, I have yet to encounter one person who has bought an Alphascript "book" copied from Wikipedia who knew that the content was from Wikipedia before their purchase. However, I have encountered several people who had no idea, and they feel duped by a marketing scam.

Therefore, were I to underprice Alphascript, and fairly and clearly market that the content is copied from Wikipedia, I would have very little to no sales.

It's astounding to me that so few seem to "get" this conundrum.

I phrased that poorly. I didn't mean that people are necessarily knowingly buying WP articles, although there may be a small market as was suggested earlier.

I think what you're trying to do is alert people that Alphascript is simply publishing WP articles at what seem to be very high prices. I presume your ultimate goal in this is to get Amazon to see this practice as a problem and deal with it. If you undercut Alphascript on a particular topic, say Skanderbeg, you can make clear in your description what you are selling and what Alphascript is selling. You may not sell many (or any) but if people click your listing based on price, they get a chance to see the information. Of course, Amazon is likely to ban you for this.

[thekohser]

Of course, Amazon is likely to ban you for this.

I'm prepared for that. It's the same company that invested $10 million in Jimbo's Wikia and its trampoline, so doing something stupid would not be a new thing for Amazon.

If Amazon bans me from its Seller's list (from which I've made about $26, lifetime), what will I ever do with myself? I have so much of my self-worth and reputation riding on Amazon's opinion of me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

One thing I haven't pointed out, but I'll also bet is a TOS violation is the fact that a co-owner of Alphascript is waltzing around Amazon, rating their products "5 stars". Are you allowed to rate your own publications?