# Amazon is actively pushing readers to ask for a refund of Beautiful Disaster?



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

Did anyone see this ...?  From Author Jamie McGuire's page on Facebook ...

*****************

I have looked into this as best I can, but being a Saturday, Amazon isn't responding. 

It appears that Amazon has sent a mass email to everyone who's ever purchased the self-published version of Beautiful Disaster. They are encouraging readers to request a refund. When asked why they are offering this refund, Amazon customer service has given several different reasons, the most common is problems with content. THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONTENT OF BEAUTIFUL DISASTER, and it makes no sense for them to encourage a refund for a book that has already been read and enjoyed 6+ months later, but that is the only information I have for now.

Customer service admits that if you do NOT get the refund, your copy of BD will NOT be affected. If you get a refund, they are offering to reimburse the $4+ difference it costs to purchase the $7.99 version, but what they aren't telling you is that **I** am paying for every refund. 

Last week, I sent an email to Amazon asking why the self-published version of my book is still experiencing returns. Returns are only allowed for up to 7 days after purchase. 6 months after the self-published version of Beautiful Disaster went off-sale my account was still seeing negative amounts for returns. I'm not going to assume the reasons behind this mass email, but it appears that Amazon customer service is now encouraging these returns. 

I was not notified of this. This email has nothing to do with my publisher Atria books. If you do not get a refund, your copy of BD will not be affected. If you do, the refund will show as a negative amount in my Amazon KDP author account. Because BD is no longer available, this money will be taken out of my Providence sales. 

In other words, this is very bad, and I have no idea why this is happening. Please do not return your copy of BD, and please help me spread the word to not return your copy of BD. 

I will let you know what else I find out from Amazon. In the meantime, your support has brought me to tears. I love you all. ♥


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Wow. Weird.

I've always thought the cover was cool. Here's an article about her movie deal.

http://thedailyquirk.com/2013/01/02/the-beautiful-disaster-movie-is-slowly-but-surely-making-its-way-to-the-big-screen/


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> That would be really strange. I'm sure there are more than a few KBers who bought the self-published version of her book. Maybe they can weigh in and provide a copy of the email.
> 
> ETA: Summer, maybe you could change the title of the thread to call attention to the specific book. If Amazon is really encouraging people to buy the Atria version, _and offering to foot the difference in cost_, that is really...I mean. That is wild. Is there a difference in content between the two versions?


Edited to include the book's title.

Definitely strange.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

This is crazy.

According to her facebook feed, customers say that the difference is a new font. Hardly worth a refund and promo credit.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Supposed text:

We want to let you know that the edition of Beautiful Disaster that you purchased is no longer available. You can order a new version that is now available here:



Spoiler



(Link to Amazon Redacted)



You can also request a refund on your original purchase by responding to this email. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access this item.

Thank you,

The Kindle Team


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Ugh, I feel terrible for her...and I'm angry for her.  I hardly think "new font" warrants a refund and I can't imagine what this is doing to her bank account since most readers get an e-mail from Amazon and simply "do as suggested".  Hopefully her fans can turn the tide of this, but if it's already a week old -- the damage is mostly done.

Strange things are brewing in Emerald City and behind the curtain Oz is certainly up to something.  

ETA: After reading the supposed text, I'm sitting here thinking -- okay, her book was a best seller before being picked up and republished ... this mass-return could bankrupt her.  I know in my fleeting experience on the Top 100 list (no where near as high as she was, no where as long as she was on it), I made upwards of $400.00 in one day ... multiple that now by her long-run and many, many thousands of books sold ... I'm sick for her.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Holy cheese balls! That's crazy.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

The biggest problem here is that if she was at 70% royalty on all those sales, and they keep getting returned, the deal she has from her publisher CANNOT be better than 50%. (I know of no publishers offering better than that, and most are MUCH worse.)

Someone on the Kindle team screwed up royally, and the RIGHT thing to do would be to apologize and wipe every return of that book off her account.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

genevieveaclark said:


> You are perhaps more optimistic than I.


I didn't mean to imply that I thought any such thing would happen. 

(And if you mean that I think Amazon is to blame, she says that her publisher did NOT make any requests to Amazon. Now, publishers do lie, but I'd be willing to bet that this is an Amazon screwup.)


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

I wonder how she's sure this isn't at all related to her publisher.

The only thing that makes any sense to me at all is that she left it up as self published after she sold the rights.

If that's not the case then there's something funkalicious going on somewhere.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Her statement is that it's been off KDP for six months. I don't know when her deal kicked in, but my experience is that most authors tend to pay attention to getting their SP stuff dropped when it needs to be dropped.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> After reading the supposed text, I'm sitting here thinking -- okay, her book was a best seller before being picked up and republished ... this mass-return could bankrupt her.


This is exactly what worried me when I saw her post. Wasn't _Beautiful Disaster_ in the top ten in the Kindle store for quite a while? The returns could be enormous if they are actively encouraging readers to return their copies.

I'm hoping this is some really big and stupid mix-up on Amazon's part, but I hate to think how much the poor author is stressing right now. I sure would be.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

MegHarris said:


> This is exactly what worried me when I saw her post. Wasn't _Beautiful Disaster_ in the top ten in the Kindle store for quite a while? The returns could be enormous if they are actively encouraging readers to return their copies.
> 
> I'm hoping this is some really big and stupid mix-up on Amazon's part, but I hate to think how much the poor author is stressing right now. I sure would be.


Heck, I'm stressing right now just thinking about it.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I am reading over at Amazon forums that the email might actually be a scam and people are logging into a phishing site with their Amazon credentials. Ugly situation if legit or not legit. Either Jamie is getting ripped off, or her readers are. Horrible.


That makes more sense. It's hard to believe Amazon could be so stupid.



> I think if it were a scam, she wouldn't be seeing returns in her KDP dash, no?


I got the impression she'd been seeing returns for six months, but I don't think she specified she'd been seeing a bunch tonight. I could have misread, though.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Supposed text:
> 
> We want to let you know that the edition of Beautiful Disaster that you purchased is no longer available. You can order a new version that is now available here:
> 
> ...


What it sounds like to me is that this may be an automated email Amazon sends out whenever a Kindle book becomes unavailable and a new version of the same book (with a different ASIN) goes on sale. Has anyone had any experience with getting an email like this from Amazon related to any other book? Alternately, has anyone bought a Kindle book from Amazon, seen that version become unavailable, and not gotten an email like this?


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I have an unpublished title. It's been offline for over two months. I got a return yesterday on it. So it can and does happen. Of course mine was just one, so I figured it was a credit card charge back or something.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Zoe Cannon said:



> What it sounds like to me is that this may be an automated email Amazon sends out whenever a Kindle book becomes unavailable and a new version of the same book (with a different ASIN) goes on sale. Has anyone had any experience with getting an email like this from Amazon related to any other book? Alternately, has anyone bought a Kindle book from Amazon, seen that version become unavailable, and not gotten an email like this?


I was wondering about that too.


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

From her FB page there are LOTS of readers weighing in that they have gotten this email.  One commented that they emailed Amazon and that Amazon responded it is the publisher's fault.

The author commented that it is definitely *not* the publisher's fault.

More than a little confusion, but does not appear to be a scam - this appears to be an actual email from Amazon.

(Who knows what tomorrow may bring - but that does appear to be accurate as of this moment.)


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

It seems like the main question here is whether a reader who purchases a book has the right to receive all future updates to that title. If the original book they bought is no longer available, it sounds like amazon supports letting them return that copy for the new version that does have the potential for updates. Maybe something to consider for authors considering re-releasing a kindle book, whether through a publisher or themselves. (I personally do not think the reader has a right to all future updates, but a lot of readers would disagree)


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

summerdaniels71 said:


> From her FB page there are LOTS of readers weighing in that they have gotten this email. One commented that they emailed Amazon and that Amazon responded it is the publisher's fault.
> 
> The author commented that it is definitely *not* the publisher's fault.
> 
> ...


What she needs to do is hire an attorney -- like, yesterday. Everyone is going to point fingers -- Amazon at the publisher, the author at Amazon, it's a mess for sure. But the truth is there somewhere. The astute thing would be to take this to someone who can _legally_ get the answers speculation and finger-jabbing cannot. A lot of times "we" are held back by dollars expended vs. gain ... this is one of those rare occasions where she's going to lose a lot if she doesn't, somehow, get ahead of this.


----------



## Fahid (Dec 23, 2012)

I guess a Beautiful Disaster turned into a Beautiful Disaster....

Sounds scary...what's next, a six month refund policy?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Looking at her FB page, it seems that she emailed Amazon asking them why she was still getting the occasional return against a book that was no longer being sold. This seems to have triggered a response from Amazon. Maybe someone sent out an automated "this book is no longer available" email, not realizing that it would invite thousands of readers to return their books.



> If the original book they bought is no longer available, it sounds like amazon supports letting them return that copy for the new version that does have the potential for updates.


Possibly. But I don't think it's a reasonable policy to invite readers to return books by the thousand months or years after it's purchased, and expect the author to foot the cost, which is what the author seems to think is happening here. That would make it impossible for any of us to ever fully rely on our Amazon earnings.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

I'm confused. (What else is new!) Did she go from self pubbed to getting a trade pub and Auntie Amy's got her nose out of joint? Or did she just revise her own book, put out a revised version and its all flown from there?

The latter worries me since I'm in the process of re-editing some of mine.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

MegHarris said:


> Possibly. But I don't think it's a reasonable policy to invite readers to return books by the thousand months or years after it's purchased, and expect the author to foot the cost, which is what the author seems to think is happening here. That would make it impossible for any of us to ever fully rely on our Amazon earnings.


That's exactly why it's concerning, because that does seem like the message amazon is sending out. It's not something I've ever considered, but receiving all future updates on a purchase may be something readers expect and amazon supports. I don't think it's fair, but I'm sure many readers do.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm confused. (What else is new!) Did she go from self pubbed to getting a trade pub and Auntie Amy's got her nose out of joint? Or did she just revise her own book, put out a revised version and its all flown from there?
> 
> ...


She was self-pubbed and then signed a trade pub deal. Her self-pubbed version has been unpublished on Amazon for over six months. The trade version is up now.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I'm confused. (What else is new!) Did she go from self pubbed to getting a trade pub and Auntie Amy's got her nose out of joint?


Yes, the new version is with Atria (a division of Simon and Schuster). But it's been up by them for quite a while. And she's hardly the first person to sell to a trade publisher and have a new version of a title go up for sale.


----------



## Anotherdreamer (Jan 21, 2013)

When does a book get issued a new number? This sounds really crazy. Unfortunately most returners aren't going to buy the book again so they are just giving her work away if this is accurate. I'd have to think that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Is there some clause in the amazon contract that leaves her, and everyone else, vulnerable to this action?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Is there some clause in the amazon contract that leaves her, and everyone else, vulnerable to this action?


The Amazon contract says that in the event of returns, they can offset the royalty against future royalties, or require the author to remit the amount of the return.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Anotherdreamer said:


> When does a book get issued a new number? This sounds really crazy. Unfortunately most returners aren't going to buy the book again so they are just giving her work away if this is accurate. I'd have to think that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Is there some clause in the amazon contract that leaves her, and everyone else, vulnerable to this action?


Well, there's a statement that if any returns are made, we have to pay amazon those royalties back, so if they're going to allow and encourage readers to return books they bought months ago, then yes, it sounds like we would have to pay back all those royalties.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Weird situation. Obviously, she needs to hire a lawyer. I wonder, though, what sort of legal obligation Simon and Schuster has in all of this? Surely there's some sort of nexus here that has to involve them?

To be honest, I've never heard of her or the book. Off to sample now...

...brrr! I'm sorry she's tangled up in this mess, but it was weird to see she's one of those authors who responds pretty aggressively to negative reviews on Amazon. Make me cringe.


----------



## Anotherdreamer (Jan 21, 2013)

Sending out a mass email  encouraging returns has to be crossing the line in some legal way. It's akin to starting a riot I'd think. If you're hanging out as it happens, you aren't liable. If you're the one revving up the crowd it's different. 
The thing that is niggling at my brain is it's got something to do with stepping on the rights that were sold. That there was some overlap somewhere. Nothing else seems logical to me.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Sending out a mass email encouraging returns has to be crossing the line in some legal way.


You'd think so, but I don't know enough about law to know. I have no objection to them continuing to permit returns (there does seem to have been a minor problem with the formatting on one page, judging from some reader comments), but sending out a blanket invite to thousands of people to return the book is just... not right.


----------



## Gina Black (Mar 15, 2011)

It's not Amazon's job to adjudicate rights between the self-pub and her Atria pub. Besides, sending out a mass email encouraging returns isn't how you would handle that anyway. Sounds to me like someone made a colossal mistake at Amazon and I'm hoping heads will roll.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

So I wrote. Said the email back for refund wasn't working and then also went off about the whole thing. I was more than a little ticked for several reasons. One, they were just going to delete it whether I got the refund or not. Two, I paid 4.99 and the new book is 7.36. That's just not right. Three, this is really doing a disservice to indie authors and discourages readers from supporting. So basically they got a very nasty email from me and this is what I got back.

_Hello,

Thanks for writing to us with your concern, I'll definitely help you. I apologize for the inconveniences this has caused you. It's a pleasure assisting a valued customer like you and I would like to thank you for allowing me to help you with your concern.

I Would like to confirm that the email about the book "Beautiful Disaster" is from Amazom.com and the reason behind this is the same book has some specific technical issues and for this reason this book has been deleted from Amazon.com site to prevent the customers from further problems.

In order to resolve the issue, I've requested a refund of $ 4.99 for "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America by Garry Wills | Summary & Study Guide." If the item is still on your Kindle (or a Kindle-compatible device), please delete that copy. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access this item.

Refunds are issued to the payment method used to make the original purchase and usually complete within two to three business days.

Once processed, you'll be able to see the refund request here:

However to compensate with the inconvenience that your received, I've applied a $3.00 promotional credit to your account because . When you make your next Kindle purchase, any available promotional balance on your account will automatically apply to your order total. Your promotional balance doesn't appear in Your Account, but you'll see the promotion amount applied in your Order Details once the purchase is completed. These promotional funds can only be used on Kindle books sold by Amazon.com and cannot be applied to Kindle books sold directly by the publisher.

For more information about the terms and conditions of this promotion, visit:

http://www.amazon.com/promos

I hope this helps. However if the problem still persists or you need any other assistance please feel free to contact us and we will be more than happy to help you. You can reach us by email, chat or phone directly and toll-free from many countries by clicking the Contact Us option in the right-hand column of our Kindle Support pages at:

http://www.amazon.com/kindlesupport

When you visit our website and select Contact Us, click on the "Phone" tab, enter your number, and we'll call you right back. If your country isn't listed or you're unable to take advantage of the Contact Us feature, you can call us directly at 1-866-749-7771 or 1-206-206-2992 (if you're calling from outside the U.S.).

Thanks for using Kindle.

Best regards_

So from what it seems, there is some sort of error with it. I didn't have issues with mine but maybe it's something with the paperwhite, which I didn't have when I read it. It also seems like she won't be hurt by this. From what I'm gathering, they are just using a random book as the buffer so she doesn't get it. It's not a book I own so that's the only explanation for this. Lastly, I'm glad they offered the credit. Now I can go buy back the other copy.

Now here's the million dollar question, why in the world didn't they try this from the start? They could have easily said that the book wasn't going to be available but we would receive a gift copy of the newly published version. I think someone must be in a world of hurt right now.


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

I take comfort in the fact that Amazon has a good record of treating authors fairly. If the author somehow ends up in a situation where Amazon wants a bunch of money back from her, Amazon has got to know that there will be thousands of us in the indie author community, each of whom has worked hard to build a platform of Amazon readers we speak to regularly, who will scream to high heaven about this. In a situation like this, her loss is our loss.

I hope she hears something soon from Amazon that sets her mind (and our minds) at ease.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Amazon knows more then we think they know -- or, at least more then _I_ thought they knew...even things you don't tell them about ...

Example: Several nights ago I rented a movie on Prime that wasn't available on my OnDemand cable service. During the movie, I switched from my television to my iPad to finish watching because the quality was so poor on the big screen. The stream of the video was strange and froze a few times ... nothing major. A day or so later I received an unprompted e-mail from Amazon letting me know they had refunded the charge for the movie because _they_ detected issues with the streaming. I didn't complain, ask for a refund or bring it to their attention. They just _knew_.

So, as far as the BD situation ... Amazon may have been alerted to something in the file during a standard quality check -- as readers have alluded to, maybe a slight formatting issue. Or been told about it.

Either way, it's time for us all to go on *high alert* ...

As someone who is a FT writer, makes 100% of my income from Amazon, this terrifies me ... and my sales are super small potatoes compared to others. I *hope* it was Amazon error that caused this and not a new normal -- if it is the new normal (and, we're beginning to see changes...) I feel anxiety about the future.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> They issued you a refund for a book you don't own?
> 
> Nothing about this makes any sense whatsoever. If there was a legitimate technical problem, I have to imagine at least some of the thousands of people who've bought that book might have made that known.
> 
> And if it is a technical issue with a new device, that's...equally unreasonable. She shouldn't be penalized because Amazon's new device can't handle files that were fine at the time of sale. There's just no way to format a file so that it works no matter what--Amazon can always come up with some glitchy stuff on their end.


Well not quite. They issued the refund for Beautiful Disaster, which I do own, by taking it out of the Lincoln book, which I don't own and isn't even an ebook. I assume that this is their way of offering a refund without it negatively affecting the author of Beautiful Disaster. That's just a guess though.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> Well not quite. They issued the refund for Beautiful Disaster, which I do own, by taking it out of the Lincoln book, which I don't own and isn't even an ebook. I assume that this is their way of offering a refund without it negatively affecting the author of Beautiful Disaster. That's just a guess though.


I'd like to hope that's what's happening, but if it were, I don't understand why the author would be seeing all these returns in the negative in her KDP account. And even more significantly....if Amazon's processing these returns in the thousands and going to lengths to make sure the author isn't adversely affected by this....and the author of the one book they're processing all these returns for (which can't possibly be a normal activity for them on this scale) emails them in a panic, I would think they'd be able to find a second to clue that author in and and reassure her she's not going to owe them thousands for an action that was initiated without a word of warning or explanation to her.

I really get the feeling that it comes down to someone somewhere screwing up, and everyone involved is rushing to figure out who even to blame still, hence the silence. (And I'm not buying the 'oh its a weekend.' Giant international 24/7 retail conglomerates don't exactly limit themselves to normal 9-5 hours).


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Bethany B. said:


> Well not quite. They issued the refund for Beautiful Disaster, which I do own, by taking it out of the Lincoln book, which I don't own and isn't even an ebook. I assume that this is their way of offering a refund without it negatively affecting the author of Beautiful Disaster. That's just a guess though.


That sounds very odd and sketchy bookkeepingly-speaking, no?


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I'd agree, Monique. Really, really weird way to do things considering they should just be able to adjust/credit/debit customer accounts as they please.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

All I know is what I got in the email. Can't really say what the deal is. I'm sorry that the author is going through this trouble but I have a feeling it will all be sorted out. Likely just a glitch in the system (the whole epublishing system not the actual amazon system). The more I think on it the more likely it's just that the ebook got flagged by paperwhite readers. It's a pretty common issue right now. Since it's out of print, that was the go to. Just doesn't really work in this system as it is. 

I'd also like to note that if I had seen the authors issues with this I wouldn't have requested the refund right away.  I actually assumed it was a publisher issue. Not the first time I've seen that.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't understand what is...did someone slip some gamma-hydroxybutyrate into my Guinness?

B.


----------



## Sara Fawkes (Apr 22, 2012)

Well, I'll be honest: this could very easily have been me, Ms. McGuire and I took similar career paths with our bestsellers right around the same time. I did a blog post of my own this evening about the subject before I came here, and I'm glad to see people quoting the TOS in this thread instead of pure emotion (which is what I'm still running on) because 1) that showcases just how confusing this whole situation really is, and 2) how downright illegal their actions so far have been.

And seriously, did they really take a portion of the refund off of a separate book?  Because that's just, just.....

WTF Amazon?!   



B. Justin Shier said:


> I don't understand what is...did someone slip some gamma-hydroxybutyrate into my Guinness?
> 
> B.


THIS!!!!! ^^^^^


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

I got the email from Amazon, and found it a bit strange - especially as the link to buy the new version took me to .com and I'm in the UK. The original BD is a bit rough round the edges, so I wouldn't mind a proofread and edited copy, but not if it's twice the price...and these days, publishers sometimes don't bother to improve a best seller when they take it over anyway.

I think it's a major mistake by an Amazon employee.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

The fact that the e-mail references a different book entirely suggests to me that there might be an underlying database problem of the type that should never, EVER, in a billion years happen to a company that takes pride in their data.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Scary stuff for the author in question.  I hope it resolves without costing her a small fortune.

I am keen to find out the cause behind this.  Someone, somewhere, has majorly screwed up.


----------



## L.M. Pfalz (Aug 31, 2012)

Very scary, and I feel for the author. What I don't understand is, if it's not a mistake on Amazon's part, what would they get out of initiating this? They lose money on every refund too. The only one I can see having a motive for pushing something like this is the new publisher, but it was stated that the author is sure they didn't do it (I would like to think authors can trust their publishers at their word).

I think you'd have to be a pretty diehard fan to turn around and buy the new edition (at a higher price point no less) of the book if you've already read it. Seems like this a no-win situation for anyone. Hopefully it'll be resolved quickly


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm surprised I haven't received an email on this as I bought the original Beautiful Disaster. It's really odd that they're doing this as it seems like they'd be losing money handing out $3 credits. Very odd, and scary.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Someone on McGuire's Facebook site is asserting that this is happening to other authors who've subsquently been published, too. No way of knowing for sure till we hear from them, but I sincerely hope this isn't a widespread thing.


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

MegHarris said:


> Someone on Maguire's Facebook site is asserting that this is happening to other authors who've subsquently been published, too. No way of knowing for sure till we hear from them, but I sincerely hope this isn't a widespread thing.


Wow, can you imagine the chilling effect this would have on indies deciding to sign print contracts in the future? Tin foil hat, tin foil hat...


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Gretchen Galway said:


> Wow, can you imagine the chilling effect this would have on indies deciding to sign print contracts in the future? Tin foil hat, tin foil hat...


Potentially more dangerous for those who sign away the ebook rights it seems. Print only deals seems way to go, if you can get it.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Caitie Quinn said:


> It will sadly be one more weapon in our "Well, I won't give you digital rights" cache.


Not sure that's all that sad.

I like weapons.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Bethany B. said:


> So from what it seems, there is some sort of error with it. I didn't have issues with mine but maybe it's something with the paperwhite, which I didn't have when I read it. It also seems like she won't be hurt by this. From what I'm gathering, they are just using a random book as the buffer so she doesn't get it. It's not a book I own so that's the only explanation for this. Lastly, I'm glad they offered the credit. Now I can go buy back the other copy.
> 
> Now here's the million dollar question, why in the world didn't they try this from the start? They could have easily said that the book wasn't going to be available but we would receive a gift copy of the newly published version. I think someone must be in a world of hurt right now.


These things are all form letters. My bet is that the reference to the Lincoln book is a result of incomplete revision of the form letter -- some past customer had trouble with a refund on the Lincoln book, and the relic of that communication survived in the form letter b/c the Amazon worker only revised one paragraph to refer to _Beautiful Disaster_ instead.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Tin foil hat, tin foil hat...


Well, right now it's only hearsay. I'm rather hoping that if other authors had been similarly affected, they'd be shouting from the rooftops too. I wouldn't get out the tin foil hats just yet.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

MegHarris said:


> Well, right now it's only hearsay. I'm rather hoping that if other authors had been similarly affected, they'd be shouting from the rooftops too. I wouldn't get out the tin foil hats just yet.


But I have a REALLY stylish one all made up...



Caitie Quinn said:


> It's sad because someone is taking an unfair hit because of it. This could be any one of the indie writers who have cross-published or jumped a book to trad.
> 
> It looks a little too much like "punish the author" from this side of things.


Absolutely. My point was merely that having incidents like this (assuming it's something that isn't a one-time thing with a single author) filed away as a negotiating point benefits us in the long run.

I think everything would do well to remember that if tradpub does come knocking for a series, the immediate answer isn't "oh yes, yes, yes" . . . it's "let me hear what you're offering" . . .

They've been screwing authors for years, and the last few haven't gotten better. They've gotten WORSE.


----------



## Sharebear (Sep 25, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> These things are all form letters. My bet is that the reference to the Lincoln book is a result of incomplete revision of the form letter -- some past customer had trouble with a refund on the Lincoln book, and the relic of that communication survived in the form letter b/c the Amazon worker only revised one paragraph to refer to _Beautiful Disaster_ instead.


This letter is *really* poorly written. So many errors it makes me think it is spam, but I just can't be sure. Either way, crazy situation.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

MegHarris said:


> Well, right now it's only hearsay. I'm rather hoping that if other authors had been similarly affected, they'd be shouting from the rooftops too. I wouldn't get out the tin foil hats just yet.


I agree, but I also don't think we should necessarily write it off as a onetime amazon mistake. If they *are* setting a new precedent here, it's something we all need to be aware of when considering republishing a title. Hopefully more information comes out about it.


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

I've been reading about this and wondering why in the world Amazon would decide to do this. The best I could come up with was if a user purchased BD in 2011, then that version was taken off sale, would that user still be able to download the book to a new device? Since Amazon is no longer hosting this old file, would the old book still be available for download?

I just switched from an old school keyboard Kindle to the new paperwhite, for example. I am just curious if books that were previously self-pubbed and now trad. pubbed or even just removed all together from the Kindle store could be downloaded from the archives? I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, but this is the only logical reason I could think for Amazon offering a refund.

Does anyone have a new device with an archived purchase of a previously self-pubbed title like BD to test this theory? I might have the first book in Hocking's Trylle Trilogy I could use to test. I mean, Amazon stated in the email out to customers that if they didn't take the refund, their copy wouldn't be effected. Still... I'm just wondering if they can still download it to a new device or if it's just no longer on the Amazon servers at all? Maybe this is Amazon's way of trying to save money on storage and transfer fees for files no longer being sold in their store?


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, I just tested my own theory with Hocking's Switched and it's still in my "cloud" and I was able to download it to my Paperwhite with no problems. It's still the self-published version with the old cover.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I agree, but I also don't think we should necessarily write it off as a onetime amazon mistake. If they *are* setting a new precedent here, it's something we all need to be aware of when considering republishing a title. Hopefully more information comes out about it.


I agree. It's a big, big problem for sure. Unless Amazon apologizes and says outright they won't do it again, we should all be very, very worried. I just want to make clear that although one person has said it's happening to other authors, I have no real proof of that.



> Does anyone have a new device with an archived purchase of a previously self-pubbed title like BD to test this theory?


I have archived versions of my own books which were previously through Samhain but for which I've gotten the rights back. They show up on all my devices (although the title has been changed to OOP and then the title, which can make it a little tricky to find in an alphabetical search). I don't know for sure that they'd show up on a Paperwhite, but I would assume so.

I think the most likely explanation is what others have offered-- that it's not formatting right on new devices for some reason, and that some underling at Amazon decided to offer a global return, without realizing the ramifications. I really hope that's the case, and that it won't happen again.


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

If it's a formatting issue, they really should have contacted the author and given her a chance to fix it somehow. So awful.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Absolutely. My point was merely that having incidents like this (assuming it's something that isn't a one-time thing with a single author) filed away as a negotiating point benefits us in the long run.
> 
> I think everything would do well to remember that if tradpub does come knocking for a series, the immediate answer isn't "oh yes, yes, yes" . . . it's "let me hear what you're offering" . . .
> 
> They've been screwing authors for years, and the last few haven't gotten better. They've gotten WORSE.


I agree, Mathew, though I'm not sure who's screwing the author in this case -- the publisher, Amazon, or both.

I'm so far from getting offered any kind of deal that it feels still to talk about it. Nevertheless, what seems to be happening with _Beautiful Disaster_ is one more nail in the coffin of ever giving away my erights: not only do I want to continue making 70% instead of 25% on those sales, but I don't want to risk losing the income from the sales I've already made.

It's one thing if Am finds a problem with my book's formatting, makes me fix it, and then offers replacements to past purchasers. That's going to come out a wash because I'm still the publisher, and the royalty rate is unchanged. But if a 70%-of-$4.99 sale is being replaced by a 25%-of-$7.99 sale, that is a whole different thing, especially considering how delayed trad pub's royalty payments are. You'd lose $3.50 for each return, and six months later, you get $2.00 of the $3.50 back. Multiplied by tens of thousands of sales, perhaps? Talk about a financial hit -- devastating in the short term, and only slightly better than devastating in the long term.

P.S. Sarra, the book's trad pub, now. The author has no control over the situation anymore -- the indie version of the book has long since been off sale.
P.P.S. I see what you're saying about those old indie versions of books like Hocking's still being in your cloud, but I don't think that means Hocking has any way to do stuff to the files. I think those indie versions are orphans, now.


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm not on the verge of making any traditional print deals, but if Amazon issues returns for any of my books sold over the past two years, I'm on the hook to give them back the money?

What are our protections, for any of us, from Amazon doing this? It seems like Amazon is acting like a bookstore making returns and then demanding their money back from the publisher. Us.

So, waiting for our legal eagles to chime in here. What a mess.


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> P.S. Sarra, the book's trad pub, now. The author has no control over the situation anymore -- the indie version of the book has long since been off sale.
> P.P.S. I see what you're saying about those old indie versions of books like Hocking's still being in your cloud, but I don't think that means Hocking has any way to do stuff to the files. I think those indie versions are orphans, now.


I realize the book is trad pub now, but apparently Amazon has the file somewhere on their servers. They have to if I'm able to download it from the cloud. Since it's there, why couldn't they just allow the file to be replaced by one that's properly formatted? I mean, Hokcing or MacGuire might not have any way to do stuff to the files from where they sit now, but Amazon surely does. It would be as simple as an email to the author, an email back to Amazon with a properly formatted file, and then a replacement in the archives.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Gretchen Galway said:


> I'm not on the verge of making any traditional print deals, but if Amazon issues returns for any of my books sold over the past two years, I'm on the hook to give them back the money?
> 
> What are our protections, for any of us, from Amazon doing this? It seems like Amazon is acting like a bookstore making returns and then demanding their money back from the publisher. Us.
> 
> So, waiting for our legal eagles to chime in here. What a mess.


It's in the agreement.

Now, the problem is in the fact that they SAY they're not issuing returns after 7 days. That's ALSO written down, but seems to be something they can break as it's a policy, not an agreement.

Looks pretty grim.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

sarracannon said:


> I realize the book is trad pub now, but apparently Amazon has the file somewhere on their servers. They have to if I'm able to download it from the cloud. Since it's there, why couldn't they just allow the file to be replaced by one that's properly formatted? I mean, Hokcing or MacGuire might not have any way to do stuff to the files from where they sit now, but Amazon surely does. It would be as simple as an email to the author, an email back to Amazon with a properly formatted file, and then a replacement in the archives.


Yeah, no doubt technically possible, but I bet it'd contravene the trad pub agreement -- in effect, the author would be republishing the book, which she no longer has the right to do.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

The CORRECT response from Amazon is to post:

"This book version is no longer available. The new version of this book is <here>."

FULL STOP.

Nothing else. No returns, no refunds, no credits, period.

Allowing people to get credit for a book they bought MONTHS ago when their published policy says no returns after 7 days and then taking it out of the author's paycheck is intolerable and utterly unethical.

Would now be an appropriate time to mention that Smashwords doesn't allow returns so authors can't get screwed like this?


----------



## Missy B (Aug 20, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> It's in the agreement.
> 
> Now, the problem is in the fact that they SAY they're not issuing returns after 7 days. That's ALSO written down, but seems to be something they can break as it's a policy, not an agreement.
> 
> Looks pretty grim.


This is what bothers me the most. Harlequin does reissues all the time of older titles, especially now that they've digitized a whole chunk of their backlist. I don't think anyone has ever received this notice. So my question, why is this situation, somehow, different?


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, no doubt technically possible, but I bet it'd contravene the trad pub agreement -- in effect, the author would be republishing the book, which she no longer has the right to do.


This is what I'm thinking..._maybe_, the original file has a problem on the newer Kindles? (Which files don't? I've had to revise mine to fix some of those issues late summer when they first came out.) My guess is that J. McGuire can't fix the old file because she sold all the rights to the publisher. Amazon seems hell-bent on a quality control issues right now. (Although they are a not a viable resource for fixing said problems. IMHO) I think Amazon is covering themselves by offering an updated version of BD, via the publisher, including a refund as part of their continual focus on quality control. (I can't imagine the publisher not being aware of this situation or being a part of it. Maybe, it's a bad PR ploy that seriously backfired. She has the 2nd book coming out _soon_.)

Also, has it been said here; yet? Ebook readers don't actually own the book--they have access to it because they've paid for that access.

I got the email and was more annoyed that they seemed to be encouraging me to buy the new one. _Why would I do that? I've already read this one? _However, like many writers/readers, I do collect books on my Kindle and go back and re-read or reference them. Just yesterday, I just made sure I had my original copy of BD and it still worked. I wasn't going to do anything more about it. I was curious why her book was being offered for refund since I have several self-pub ones that went on to be sold by trad. publishing. I've never seen an email from Amazon quite like this one.

Where the problem arises for McGuire is that it's a great way for readers to get the updated version because there's not much of a price difference because of the refund Amazon is giving. Incentive. Why? Amazon's good will? The publisher thought it would be a good way to jump start sales on the trad pub version of BD We don't know, but somebody does.

Just another point if you're going to hand over your rights to a publisher for a traditional deal you better carefully consider all those digital self-published sales that could be affected down the road, if Amazon decides to overreach their policy and offer a refund. Always good to remember that Amazon giveth and Amazon taketh away.

REFUNDs: What do we know? Amazon never provides data about those refunds and the reasons to why they're occurring. I had more refunds 6+ on each of my books this last month (across all three). I usually see one or two across the line. I have no idea why it was higher this last month (Feb.), however, sometimes I think it's related to a sale (such as 99 cent run). I swear to God; there are readers who will pay for the book on sale, read it, and return it within the seven days. It becomes their own distorted version of FREE.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

If someone complained and was offered this, that would be one thing. Sending out an email suggesting everyone, including people happy with the existing book, get a refund is something else.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

How very disturbing. Is that even completely legal to do that? Returns several months after you bought and consumed the product? 

I know for me, the only frustrating part about an ebook that was originally self-published and subsequently sells to a traditional publisher is the fact that now I can't lend the old version I have on my kindle. I wanted to lend my sister both EASY and ON DUBLIN STREET and couldn't. They were lendable when I purchased them... There should STILL be a way a reader can do that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Caitie Quinn said:


> If it's an across the board formatting issue then why haven't all of us with books over 2 years old gotten a notice? It can't possibly effect one book only.


Yeah, I think there must be something more going on, here. I mean, I *know* there's a (small) problem with _Nolander_'s formatting for the Paperwhite, and Amazon hasn't sent me any threatening messages telling me I must fix it.

I think we're collectively pretty sure, based on what's been reported here on KB, that Am does not go trolling for editing or formatting problems in ebooks. We get those "quality control" emails from Am when readers lodge a complaint. Am just passes the complaint along to us with a request that we look into the matter. We do, we write back to Am, and the matter is over. Am doesn't then send an email out to everyone swapping out the book for the new and improved version. Heck, you have to *beg* them to send out an email alerting readers to the availability of an update.

No, what seems to be happening with _BD _is weird and inexplicable to me. ("Seems" because maybe we don't have a fully accurate picture, yet.)


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

...


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

summerdaniels71 said:


> Did anyone see this ...? From Author Jamie McGuire's page on Facebook ...
> 
> *****************
> 
> ...


I just has a look at the new book and noticed that she has changed her blurb. She no longer mentions it being a revised edition - as she did when it was first released. I think that she shot herself in the foot when she first released the Simon and Schuster version by making seem to be an improved edition. I don't think that it is a change in Amazon policy - they have always suggested a reader upgrade to a revised edition. If you change publishers - say nothing about revision, improvement, error corrections etc.


----------



## Justen James (Mar 3, 2013)

Never heard of such a thing! Very Bizarre.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> So it's okay for amazon to revoke my copy? Uh no. The only reason ebooks work is that readers have faith that they will be able to access those books. Otherwise, why would I even buy them?
> 
> This statement irks me to no end. I'm not unethical. I went and bought the newer version of the book that I can access, seeing as most of my stuff is in the cloud and I wouldn't be able to gain access to this copy otherwise. Before you go slapping readers in the face for being "unethical" you should remember who supports you in your writing career.


I don't understand why you're upset about his post. He's saying if there is something wrong or corrupt with the file, Amazon should notify those who purchased it to let them know the old file is gone and where to get the new one. And that it shouldn't cost anything. Just an FYI, there was a problem, here's the fix.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

The author might not mind all this drama lama that much. She has always created much of it on her own anyway. 
Because of the letter many have returned and re-bought the new version, making it move right back up on the sale charts. Just in time for her followup book that is coming out 2nd of April. 

I don't believe for a second that amazon is going to make any author pay back money like this.

But it sure is all conveniently happening right in time for a new release.

And yes, many are going ahead with returning because of the actions of the author towards her readers.

The only thing that concerns me here is the readers and that they might lose access to a book they bought. If I bought a book 3 years ago, I want to be able to always get it off the cloud. That to me is the real issue here. And that is the reason I "liberate" all of the kindle books I buy and store them. I bought them, I will read them when and where I want.

There are a few books I bought that were indy and then moved to a publisher.



romanceauthor said:


> How very disturbing. Is that even completely legal to do that? Returns several months after you bought and consumed the product?
> 
> I know for me, the only frustrating part about an ebook that was originally self-published and subsequently sells to a traditional publisher is the fact that now I can't lend the old version I have on my kindle. I wanted to lend my sister both EASY and ON DUBLIN STREET and couldn't. They were lendable when I purchased them... There should STILL be a way a reader can do that.


That is something that really bugs me too. When I bought those same books I went and offered them up for loaning to a friend right away as I had a feeling they would be picked up. And I managed to loan out Easy. But I was too late for Slammed, which was another book I bought before the publisher. When I click on the book now in my account, it goes to an empty amazon page.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

yeah, seems like a lot of sky-is-falling nonsense designed to ramp up the drama. Do all authors go public when they have a problem or do they just try to fix it without all the obfuscation, hype, tears, and accusations? And this doesn't even begin to touch on the legal definition of an ebook purchase--which are not sold but licensed. All the lawyers in all the lands could create six billion different outcomes for this. Invoking the collective outrage of the uninformed does nothing to address the problem--and in fact multiplies the problem (if indeed, an error even occurred.)

I think I will wait for the facts and stick with my Simplest Answer theory. In this case, the answer is that some temp worker in India made a glitchy glitch and suddenly the Internet found out and then the indie authors had an amusing weekend of conspiracy theories.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Bethany B. said:


> So it's okay for amazon to revoke my copy? Uh no. The only reason ebooks work is that readers have faith that they will be able to access those books. Otherwise, why would I even buy them?
> 
> This statement irks me to no end. I'm not unethical. I went and bought the newer version of the book that I can access, seeing as most of my stuff is in the cloud and I wouldn't be able to gain access to this copy otherwise. Before you go slapping readers in the face for being "unethical" you should remember who supports you in your writing career.


Oh, sorry, not what I meant at all. To clarify:

Amazon cannot and should not revoke the original copy. The reader paid for the original, they should still have access to the original. End of story.

The original post stated that the author is basically get chargebacks for returns, implying that they are being billed for the credit...that's a pretty big accusation to make of Amazon if it is not true. And if it is true, this is a major _faux pas_ for Amazon.

My argument is that existing sales of the old book are a settled matter, no refunds, everyone who bought the old version still has it. But when NEW readers come to the original page for that book, they should be referred to the new page with the notice "A new edition is available <here/link>."

It's no different than an updated DVD with extra features being issued years (or a few months) after the original version was issued. The people who bought the old version still have it...but here's the new shiny one with cool stuff that you're going to want to buy today.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Atunah said:


> The author might not mind all this drama lama that much. She has always created much of it on her own anyway.
> Because of the letter many have returned and re-bought the new version, making it move right back up on the sale charts. Just in time for her followup book that is coming out 2nd of April.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that amazon is going to make any author pay back money like this.
> ...


Timing is everything; isn't it?

The idea of not being able to lend it out is a concern because that's what make collecting ebooks fun and helps with word-of-mouth when you lend it out to a friend.

And, I saw about an hour ago where BD was sitting at #40 in Top 100 paid on Amazon.

Also, below this paragraph is the email I got, I don't want Bethany to feel bad about the unethical reference...Amazon was vague (on purpose, I imagine!)... No longer available automatically sets off the alarms. This will be a customer service problem later as readers may go back and try to lend it or if they accidentally delete; they won't be able to get it to come up again. Amazon probably thought this was the least they could do for their customers by providing this warning. Also, I've seen on the Amazon forums and it's been said here that the price difference is a credit applied to your account, so readers do not have to go and buy BD per se. The next time they buy an ebook the $4.XX applied to their account. Think about that. It's like giving up the book and getting a credit for doing so in a sense.

The timing is interesting, since the book has been pulled from self-publishing for what over six months. So, if one were to ask the question, why now? Hmmm...

Walking Disaster is due out April 2nd. 
And now, the first book of Beautiful Disaster (trad. published version) is climbing the charts. 
Interesting.
Timing is everything.
I guess you have to follow the money. Who's making it in this case? In the end, all three win. Right?

EMAIL:

Amazon.com Customer Service <[email protected]>

Mar 2 (1 day ago)

to me
Hello from Amazon.com,

We want to let you know that the edition of Beautiful Disaster that you purchased is no longer available. You can order a new version that is now available here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JMKN4Y/

You can also request a refund on your original purchase by responding to this email. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access this item.

Thank you,

The Kindle Team


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

I don't blame the author for being alarmed. I just checked my inbox and here's the email,
Hello from Amazon.com,

We want to let you know that the edition of Beautiful Disaster that you purchased is no longer available. You can order a new version that is now available here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JMKN4Y/

You can also request a refund on your original purchase by responding to this email. After the refund is issued, you will no longer be able to access this item.

Thank you,

The Kindle Team

The way that is worded makes you think you might not have access to the book you purchased. This email will definitely encourage returns, and the policy has been in past that the author pays. But, where this is past 7 days, are they enforcing that? Or simply allowing the returns but not docking her? It also says nothing about a $3 credit. Whole thing is very odd. I checked to see if I can still access my original copy and it's there.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

That email is horrifying if authors are being charged for returns, especially since it is presumably being sent out to EVERYONE who bought this book. 

I guess it is no biggie if Amazon is going to eat the return costs and let the author off the hook.

This could be really interesting to watch as it plays out.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> Oh, sorry, not what I meant at all. To clarify:
> 
> Amazon cannot and should not revoke the original copy. The reader paid for the original, they should still have access to the original. End of story.
> 
> ...


I imagine there's a problem here with the old version of the book being out there and the publisher now controlling the license of the said book. I don't think you can compare DVDs to ebooks. I own DVDs. I don't own the ebooks. Liscensing, darling, as Scott Nicholson said. Big difference. It would be like me going to Comcast expecting to see the original version of a movie they no longer offer because ABC Films bought the film rights. I pay for the service, but now I can't get to it.

This is an interesting conundrum with those authors that self-published and now have traditionally published deals with those same books. Amazon offers the convenience of Kindle and promotes the idea of reading on any device with the Kindle app., but the original ebook file can't be updated if there are problems with it. Holy Toledo Batman, this can become a big problem for them (Amazon) to address just from a customer service standpoint, when that reader goes to lend that book or otherwise and discovers they can't do anything with it or access it.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> I imagine there's a problem here with the old version of the book being out there and the publisher now controlling the license of the said book. I don't think you can compare DVDs to ebooks. I own DVDs. I don't own the ebooks. Liscensing, darling, as Scott Nicholson said. Big difference. It would be like me going to Comcast expecting to see the original version of a movie they no longer offer because ABC Films bought the film rights. I pay for the service, but now I can't get to it.


Courts have generally ruled that when it is _represented_ as a sale, it is a sale. Amazon doesn't say "license this book," their tags clearly says "buy." That is representing as a sale. There are pending court cases on this that could really get this messy issue rolling.

Amazon hasn't cut off access to the original version, has it? Boy, nobody has said anything like this is happening. I hope it isn't.

That would be a HUGE issue...and a huge reminder that "you don't own your ebooks."

If Amazon goes back and retroactively restricts access to books people have legally and legitimately paid for, I smell a huge class action lawsuit brewing.

This is different than the Comcast example because Amazon has always told us that we have full access to our books in their library. The library is just for storing products we already legitimately own -- they should not be going in and taking out books months or years later.

Trust the cloud. The cloud is your friend.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> I imagine there's a problem here with the old version of the book being out there and the publisher now controlling the license of the said book. I don't think you can compare DVDs to ebooks. I own DVDs. I don't own the ebooks. Liscensing, darling, as Scott Nicholson said. Big difference. It would be like me going to Comcast expecting to see the original version of a movie they no longer offer because ABC Films bought the film rights. I pay for the service, but now I can't get to it.


But many indie authors have taken their books trad and not had this happen. Someone raised the example of Amanda Hocking's books upthread. No doubt they were reedited and reformatted before being released by Macmillan, but no one got emails saying the indie versions could be returned months after they were bought, with an offer of a refund + bonus that could be spent on a replacement Hocking book or, I'm guessing, something entirely different.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

Atunah said:


> The author might not mind all this drama lama that much. She has always created much of it on her own anyway.


Since a couple of posters have alluded to this, can someone explain what this is about? What happened with McGuire before?


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

I've been pondering this and why this book, why now?

Since the new publisher issued a new ISBN number, the old version and the new version shouldn't be linked. Unless someone requested (publisher or author) that they be linked so the reviews could transfer over.

I wonder if that happened? I didn't look up the author or the books, so I don't know if that's the case or not.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> Courts have generally ruled that when it is _represented_ as a sale, it is a sale. Amazon doesn't say "license this book," their tags clearly says "buy." That is representing as a sale. There are pending court cases on this that could really get this messy issue rolling.
> 
> Amazon hasn't cut off access to the original version, has it? Boy, nobody has said anything like this is happening. I hope it isn't.
> 
> ...


NO.

I have access to the self-published version of this book because it's downloaded to my Kindle and my iPad Mini via the Kindle app. What I'm gathering is that I won't ever get an updated version of it. I'm thinking If I delete the book from my device, I won't be able to put it back on the device; and, I can't lend it. Problem. This is probably "the problem" from Amazon's standpoint--in that they tout people being able to access their ebooks from any Kindle or a Kindle app. There may even be a problem with hosting this file, since the book has now been contracted with a major publisher. Who owns the original file now? It probably depends upon the contract terms McGuire made with the publisher; right?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Diane Patterson said:


> Since a couple of posters have alluded to this, can someone explain what this is about? What happened with McGuire before?


This is going to fall under the "What happens elsewhere....". Lets just say she was really nasty to reviewers that didn't like her book and some of her comments are still there on the book page, but she has been doing clean up these last 2 weeks. I assume in prep for the new book. In the amazon romance forum there is a current thread where you find out some of what went on. Or search in the forums for older threads on it.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Atunah said:


> This is going to fall under the "What happens elsewhere....". Lets just say she was really nasty to reviewers that didn't like her book and some of her comments are still there on the book page, but she has been doing clean up these last 2 weeks. I assume in prep for the new book. In the amazon romance forum there is a current thread where you find out some of what went on. Or search in the forums for older threads on it.


Er, exactly. Drama sells drama.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

I still have a self-published versions of the book that was a few months after its self-published début traditionally published in my cloud and available on all of my devices (I can see that little cloud on the cover), even though I didn't downloaded it on my PC's Kindle, yet (don't know about the lending though). And don't forget that when one unpublishes a book, that book is still available in one's Bookshelf. You can't delete that, not without Amazon's help. That's why all of this is very strange to me and I hope that we will soon learn what this is all about and who is at fault here, especially since the whole 'you have to cover the refunds that are not organic, but pushed by Amazon, even after six months' is scary. Very scary.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Atunah said:


> This is going to fall under the "What happens elsewhere....". Lets just say she was really nasty to reviewers that didn't like her book and some of her comments are still there on the book page, but she has been doing clean up these last 2 weeks. I assume in prep for the new book. In the amazon romance forum there is a current thread where you find out some of what went on. Or search in the forums for older threads on it.


And, again, timing of it all is interesting; right? Why go back and clean it up now, at this particular moment? BD has been out for a while now. Why do a Mea Culpa now? The more that gets put out on here, the more I feel like the whole da*n thing is just one big shared drama or ploy with the publisher, the author and Amazon to sell some books.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I have trouble believing this is some sort of publicity stunt. Of the three parties involved -- the author, Amazon, and the traditional publishing house -- only the last can be certain of a benefit. The author could lose a very large amount of money, should a lot of readers take Amazon up on the offer of a return and purchases of the traditionally published books not make up for it. And Amazon has nothing to gain ... at least not that I can think of. The transactions and staff time will, in fact, cost it some money. Why would Amazon agree to such a thing? (Not to mention that Amazon doesn't really strike me as a publicity stunt kind of outfit.)

Seems more likely that 1) we aren't grasping the situation correctly, don't have the full story, etc.; 2) someone at Amazon screwed up in sending those emails; or 3) Amazon is heading in a scary direction.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> And, again, timing of it all is interesting; right? Why go back and clean it up now, at this particular moment? BD has been out for a while now. Why do a Mea Culpa now? The more that gets put out on here, the more I feel like the whole da*n thing is just one big shared drama or ploy with the publisher, the author and Amazon to sell some books.


Maybe because the second book in the series is coming out soon, and a publicist at Simon and Schuster has explained that the review thing is a problem that needs cleaning up. I think there's a reason traditionally published authors don't get into arguments with reviewers nearly so often as indies do: they have someone in a position of some authority telling them, _Do Not Do That_.


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

sorry if this has already been covered, but I saw on Twitter that someone posted a pic from BD text re: this issue -- her self-pub version has very well known song lyrics in it, which may be precipitating all this. 

I should add -- this is someone's theory only, one that is being discussed on Twitter today. Whether it's true or not is another issue. 

Edited again - I have removed the link to Twitter, which is easily accessible if you follow this thread, as you've scared the pants off me about posting a link to a link to a page from a book that shows the lyrics.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Er, exactly. Drama sells drama.


x2. My first thought, before the outrage, was: a lot of people will be talking about this author now. I hadn't heard about her or her book, but now I'm going to go check it out. I'll even read the blurb. Then I might click on her author page to see her other titles. I might even stumble upon something among her back list that I want to read.

Then I might buy one of her books.

As they say, no publicity is bad publicity.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

David Kazzie said:


> sorry if this has already been covered, but I saw on Twitter that someone posted a pic from BD text re: this issue -- her self-pub version has very well known song lyrics in it, which may be precipitating all this.
> 
> pic.twitter.com/mS8QY1sOUF


Ahhhh. Now I bet that's a pricey tune to license. If you actually do license it.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

DDark said:


> That's what my conscience is for. And she has a big mouth.


With you on this, sister. _What goes around comes around_ is one of my favorite phrases. Karma is a b*tch.

I DO have a PR background...and this "drama" would have been cleaned up long before now and some things online/in the media never go away, no matter how much you pound them into submission.


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Ahhhh. Now I bet that's a pricey tune to license. If you actually do license it.


And the damages that the band could claim... shudder. (Again, assuming she didn't license the lyrics, and I'd be shocked if she had for a self-pub title).

And if this is unrelated to the current issue, and she didn't license the lyrics, then she has a new gigantic problem on her hands.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Lady Vine said:


> x2. My first thought, before the outrage, was: a lot of people will be talking about this author now. I hadn't heard about her or her book, but now I'm going to go check it out. I'll even read the blurb. Then I might click on her author page to see her other titles. I might even stumble upon something among her back list that I want to read.
> 
> Then I might buy one of her books.
> 
> As they say, no publicity is bad publicity.


If that's the case, Amazon is asking me to pay back 1 million dollars in royalties.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> I have trouble believing this is some sort of publicity stunt. Of the three parties involved -- the author, Amazon, and the traditional publishing house -- only the last can be certain of a benefit. The author could lose a very large amount of money, should a lot of readers take Amazon up on the offer of a return and purchases of the traditionally published books not make up for it.


Actually out of the 3 the author is gaining the most. No way is she going to have to pay anything. Not buying it. Just not going to happen.

Author is getting all the publicity, getting not only new folks checking out the book now and buying, but all her fans she whipped into a frenzy on facebook, are now getting a chance to buy the book all over again and push her right back on the bestseller list.

Now all the drama lama that comes with this author is going to start all over again with the release of the new book.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

David Kazzie said:


> And the damages that the band could claim... shudder. (Again, assuming she didn't license the lyrics, and I'd be shocked if she had for a self-pub title).
> 
> And if this is unrelated to the current issue, and she didn't license the lyrics, then she has a new gigantic problem on her hands.


Beautiful Disaster [Kindle Edition] 
By: Jamie McGuire
Sold By: Amazon Digital Services, Inc. $2.99 I bought it on July 9th, 2012

My copy has Atria Books Simon & Schuster in the back of it which is weird because it states it was sold by: Amazon Digital Services as I cut and pasted above.
There is no mention of licensing of the lyrics to that song in this section in my version. $$$$ Holy Toledo Batman!


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

romanceauthor said:


> If that's the case, Amazon is asking me to pay back 1 million dollars in royalties.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> sorry if this has already been covered, but I saw on Twitter that someone posted a pic from BD text re: this issue -- her self-pub version has very well known song lyrics in it, which may be precipitating all this.


Yes, that could certainly put a different spin on the situation.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

romanceauthor said:


> If that's the case, Amazon is asking me to pay back 1 million dollars in royalties.


I'm not following....? Did you quote lyrics to a song in your book without permission from The Rolling Stones, no less?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Wasn't there a video of Stephen King here recently where he said 4 lines from Judas Priest would have cost him $20,000 dollars? Or was it $50,000. Can't recall now. 

Interesting. All speculation of course. If she did that, wouldn't she still be liable to pay now, or even a fee? She made a lot of money with that book though, even before she signed that it shouldn't be an issue to do that now. If that is the case of course. 

But this whole thing just has a smell to it. Part of it is because of the author involved. That is just a red flag for me. And I have other books in my account that went through that process and I never got an email for those, nor are they gone from the cloud, so why is this one so different. 

I have a feeling the drama lama will continue well until after the release of the next book. The author will make sure of that.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

genevieveaclark said:


> I don't know why you don't "buy it." Multiple people have had returns show up on books that have been unpublished for months. They absolutely do debit your account. It's not like...a hypothetical. It has happened before, it happens now. The only difference in this situation is the scale of the returns, and that Amazon seems to be encouraging them.


Its the scale of this that I just don't think they will put that on her. That would be a publicity nightmare for them and it just doesn't jive with the history of Amazon and their customer service. Especially since they were the ones sending out that email that makes a lot of folks take action as it sounds like you won't be able to get your book from the cloud anymore if you don't do anything.

They can eat that cost I think and make money with all the sales of this book and the new ones they are already getting again.

Now the lyric issue is another ball of fur all together. Oh my.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I don't know why you don't "buy it." Multiple people have had returns show up on books that have been unpublished for months. They absolutely do debit your account. It's not like...a hypothetical. It has happened before, it happens now. The only difference in this situation is the scale of the returns, and that Amazon seems to be encouraging them.
> 
> Yeah, delving into this rabbit hole made me want to stay faaaaaar away from this author. I shouldn't be cringe-laughing that she included the lyrics to "Satisfaction" in the self-pubbed version of her book, but...I mean, wow. That is dumb. And it's not like she screwed up a *little* bit, with some obscure indie song. _Satisfaction._ Wow.
> 
> Hopefully her publisher took care of it...


From the sound of things, the trad published version doesn't have the scene with the song, and a few people did mention that they'd received responses from Amazon saying that this was all at the request of her publisher. Could it be possible that her publisher did initiate this action somehow, in an attempt to 'clean up the author's mess' so to speak, and get rid of all the copies with unlicensed song lyrics in them?

I know the author said her publisher had nothing to do with this, but if she has a history of drama, she could either be lying to save face with all the fans pissed off about losing their original copy, or she could just not be in the know, as her publisher figured it would be easier to work around her and didn't count on the returns showing up in her KDP.

Just a thought.


----------



## @Suzanna (Mar 14, 2011)

The Rolling Stones now get 100% of the royalties from the Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony because they supposedly sampled more than the license they'd arranged for allowed when they sampled whatever Rolling Stones song they used on that track.

Either way, this is bad all around. Bad that the author is having to pay back royalties and bad that she used a song's lyrics in her book without permission. (Especially the lyrics of a group that has no compunction in going after someone's royalties!)

_Edited for Clarity._


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

One thing I am confused about as I am not an author. Are there still return reports on a book that is not even in the store anymore? If a customer can't get the book from the cloud, or if you try to click on the link at its dead, is it still in the account of the author? She doesn't have the ebook right anymore, so it would be the publisher now that sees the sales and return report, right?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

genevieveaclark said:


> If the lyrics thing is the source of the Amazon's email, bc they got a copyright notice from the Rolling Stones (who are litigious!), I very much think they'd make her pay for it.


Well yes, in that case it would be rightfully so for her to pay. If this is all true, that does change things. Would explain why this book is so differently handled as the others that gone trad.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Atunah said:


> One thing I am confused about as I am not an author. Are there still return reports on a book that is not even in the store anymore? If a customer can't get the book from the cloud, or if you try to click on the link at its dead, is it still in the account of the author? She doesn't have the ebook right anymore, so it would be the publisher now that sees the sales and return report, right?


I don't have any unpublished books personally, but I believe Deanna Chase mentioned earlier in the thread that she has a book she took down and she still occasionally sees returns from it due despite it not being available anymore. It was a couple pages ago....perhaps she can clarify further, but from what I gather, the record of a book the author took down is still in their KDP account history, and if for whatever reason a late return IS processed, it would then show up there.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I don't know why you don't "buy it." Multiple people have had returns show up on books that have been unpublished for months. They absolutely do debit your account. It's not like...a hypothetical. It has happened before, it happens now. The only difference in this situation is the scale of the returns, and that Amazon seems to be encouraging them.
> 
> Yeah, delving into this rabbit hole made me want to stay faaaaaar away from this author. I shouldn't be cringe-laughing that she included the lyrics to "Satisfaction" in the self-pubbed version of her book, but...I mean, wow. That is dumb. And it's not like she screwed up a *little* bit, with some obscure indie song. _Satisfaction._ Wow.
> 
> Hopefully her publisher took care of it...


All right; I'll take it on.

I seriously doubt her publisher took care of it. Which would so easily explain why they are probably pushing to have the file "buried or burned"/inaccessible to readers, now at this late date. And yet? IT LIVES out there with lyrics of a song down the whole page (location pg 173 of 437 39%) . I have it. It's there. She doesn't say ANYWHERE that she licensed for it. I'll bet she didn't. And now, it's been discovered and I'm betting this was the workable solution. Amazon reaches out with their email to all these customers ~ {paraphrase} Hey reader, you have this book. It's no longer available. Buy this version here. Or, Get a refund." It's all good.

In the mean time, social media grabs hold and it goes beyond her fan base at this point as the "lyric" page leaks/filters out. You can't use song lyrics without permission or pay big bucks to use them. It can't even be considered a rookie mistake. It's stupidity at its finest.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Plus, like Suzanna mentioned earlier, look at what happened with Bittersweet Symphony.  Rolling Stones wasn't just awarded damages.  They get all royalties from that song.  If for whatever reason JM's publisher didn't do their due diligence when buying Beautiful Disaster and take care of the licensing then, they could feasibly be facing a lot of lost profits as well, should the Rolling Stones go after this book and receive a similar victory.  It might be too late at this stage to just pay the band a fee and call it a day.

This whole thing makes a lot more sense when put in the context of 'someone with enough pull to set this in motion realized what a land mine they were sitting on and tried to apply a quick fix ASAP without taking the time to think everything through.'  And if urgency was the primary motivation, the author might easily have been left out of the loop.

Ouch.  This could still get a lot uglier yet.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Katherine Owen said:


> ...
> In the mean time, social media grabs hold and it goes beyond her fan base at this point as the "lyric" page leaks/filters out. You can't use song lyrics without permission or pay big bucks to use them. It can't even be considered a rookie mistake. It's stupidity at its finest.


Ah, I don't know. I think that's sort of the definition of a rookie mistake. We all make mistakes!


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Won't she now be paying twice? Because she won't have made any money if everything's returned, and then paying royalties to The Rolling Stones for books that she won't have profited from. 

I mean, it's all her fault for using the lyrics in the first place (wow!) but I don't think she should have to pay twice.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

But what would Amazon care of the author had unlicensed lyrics in her books? The author would be the one on the line for that not them. When someone plagiarizes someone else's work, it's not on the onus of the distributor or retailer to resolve the issue. The offended party would merely take the author -- (and perhaps her publisher) to court for damages. As the publisher in question is Jamie Maguire herself, I don't see why Amazon would offer readers a refund of something where they bear no responsibility.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Dalya said:


> Ah, I don't know. I think that's sort of the definition of a rookie mistake. We all make mistakes!


Dalya (sweetie),

It's goes on for the entire page in my version of BD. You don't use song lyrics. You don't use song lyrics, not a phrase, not the chorus only, and definitely not _most of the song_. It's writing 101. You can use a song title but you cannot use lyrics in your writing, whatsoever, without permission.

This looks more and more like it was staged. Everyone's rallying around her on Facebook and Twitter, for the most part, except the ones who have a pic of the song page. That's out there on Twitter. OMG. This is HUGE. She'll be lucky if all she has to pay back are refunds on KDP with the Zon. The Rolling Stones should be all over this.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2013)

Wow.  Just, wow.

Watching this whole thing play out is like watching a high-speed train wreck during rush hour.  

And the book itself is titled "Beautiful Disaster"?  How topical did that turn out to be?

Wow.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Dalya said:


> Ah, I don't know. I think that's sort of the definition of a rookie mistake. We all make mistakes!


Yeah, absolutely. If I didn't hang out on KB, I wouldn't know about the expense of song-licensing, or even that you had to license songs. In the writing I do for my day job, I can pretty much quote whatever the heck I want and publish it with no permission sought, much less licensing. I might've assumed it was the same in creative writing if I hadn't read otherwise here.

But here's what I don't understand about the Stones lyrics as an explanation for Amazon's refund notice: it doesn't take care of the problem, does it? The Stones could still sue and win, even if many of the books were refunded. Plus, if McGuire didn't license the song, Amazon is not liable for her error, right? We avow when we publish that we hold the rights to what we're publishing. I'm pretty sure the TOS put that responsibility squarely on us (just as Barnes & Noble is never held liable when a book containing plagiarized material turns up on its shelves). So why would Am be participating in some ineffectual effort to get the books off the streets?


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Because Amazon profited off the sale of those copyright-infringing books, too.
> 
> Jane from DearAuthor just tweeted that the lyrics don't appear in the S&S version.
> 
> Does anyone think it's possible Jamie McGuire didn't know this would be a problem after her publisher excised the scene? I mean, there's dumb, and then there's...that. Dunno. Her fb drama does look fairly disingenuous now. Wonder if S&S is just going to leave her hanging.


Her publisher knew it was a problem so they excised the scene. When was it changed? Way back in late summer when it was re-published on Amazon?

What they should have allowed for is McGuire going back in and updating the self-pub file; right? But there's an unseemly side to that since thousands, hundreds of thousands of copies? were sold. Ooohhh, but then, it get's messy because who is aiding and abetting this with her? What did her contract stipulate? Did the book come off sale right away? Did Amazon just find out about the copyright infringement? Did they all come up with this "workable" solution? Please do note as someone reiterated earlier (Bethany, I believe)...It's not a straight refund for Beautiful Disaster; it's a credit in the amount of $4.37 from the S&S BD version of $7.36 and the amount the reader paid which in most cases seem to be $2.99.... On the Amazon forums discussion on this, it even mentions a third party for the refund... I didn't explore it further. The whole thing is just...Oh God...stupid and terrible.

And, the questions remain...
Timing. Why now?

Walking Disaster is out April 2nd, 2013
Meanwhile Beautiful Disaster is #41 on the Top 100 Paid on Amazon (3/3/13 3:46 PM PST)
FB statement as well as her blog from McGuire on Saturday (3/12) {paraphrase} "I'm getting all these refunds...on BD. Don't return...I pay for that..."

Well, what's the real story? Who knows?
But, S&S knew about the lyrics and that's why it was excised out of their version.
McGuire had to have known, too. Unless, I'm missing something on who's responsibility it is to make the edits/changes to a file. Some editor made them and didn't tell her Unlikely.
Timing is the question. It doesn't look good. Pardon the pun; It IS a beautiful disaster, at this point.
Like you eluded to above... Amazon profited off that book where the lyrics appear.

Somebody knows something or _everything_, except maybe _The Rolling Stones_, until the phones start ringing off the hook, tomorrow, if the lawyers aren't already working this weekend.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Katherine Owen said:


> Dalya (sweetie),
> 
> It's goes on for the entire page in my version of BD. You don't use song lyrics. You don't use song lyrics, not a phrase, not the chorus only, and definitely not _most of the song_. It's writing 101. You can use a song title but you cannot use lyrics in your writing, whatsoever, without permission.


I have the S & S print version -- and the first line of the chorus is on page 164, then another line on page 165. That's it. Was more of the song used in the original self-pubbed version? It doesn't really matter whether she used the whole song or just part of it as far as licensing goes, but I'm just curious . . . curiosity killed the purplepen, I guess


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

purplepen79 said:


> I have the S & S print version -- and the first line of the chorus is on page 164, then another line on page 165. That's it. Was more of the song used in the original self-pubbed version? It doesn't really matter whether she used the whole song or just part of it as far as licensing goes, but I'm just curious . . . curiosity killed the purplepen, I guess


You can see it on the twitter link provided about ten responses ago. I'm afraid to even print it here now because I don't make that kind of money to pay the Rolling Stones in case they have a problem with me referencing it. If it's in your S&S version, then there's still trouble ahead. *You can't use song lyrics without permission*. Period.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Coincidentally, this article was just linked in my twitter feed (completely unrelated to this discussion).

Its about the cost of using song lyrics in books, so worth a read, I think. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/01/blake-morrison-lyrics-copyright

(Note: I don't agree with the author's logic on why bands or music labels go after unlicensed lyric usage, but that's neither here nor there.)


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

I have never read Beautiful Disaster ... I know nothing of her copy-right infringing quotes ... but what I do know, is that she made a big mess with her mouth early on when people came down on her book.  

Maybe that's what this whole things is?  A big overhaul, a big clean up job.  It makes sense.  Makes more sense then "oops, there is a formatting error" ... and the drum of the publicity, perfectly timed mind you, is a head-scratcher too.

So ... yeah.  There's that.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

Who needs cable when there's KB? Honestly.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Katherine Owen said:


> You can see it on the twitter link provided about ten responses ago. I'm afraid to even print it here now because I don't make that kind of money to pay the Rolling Stones in case they have a problem with me referencing it. If it's in your S&S version, then there's still trouble ahead. *You can't use song lyrics without permission*. Period.


Thanks! I don't have that kind of money either.  I'm not on Twitter, so my eyes totally skipped over that link. I can't believe the chorus is in my S&S version. PRINT version no less. I bought it used off Amazon awhile ago because I kept seeing BD references and was curious and don't have an e-reader yet. What strikes me as sad is not only did McGuire miss the error, but her editor(s) at S&S apparently did too. I've flipped through my copy and see no "reprinted permission of the Rolling Stones" anywhere.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> You can see it on the twitter link provided about ten responses ago. I'm afraid to even print it here now because I don't make that kind of money to pay the Rolling Stones in case they have a problem with me referencing it. If it's in your S&S version, then there's still trouble ahead. *You can't use song lyrics without permission*. Period.


No way would S&S have let that go by. If it wasn't licensed in the indie version (and we shouldn't assume it wasn't), it sure as heck is now.

ETA: I bet the quantity of the song quoted was reduced to bring down the price tag. And come to think of it, when S&S negotiated the licensing, the book's previous use of the song must've come up. It's hard to imagine it hasn't been taken care of, at this point.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Katherine Owen said:


> Dalya (sweetie),
> 
> It's goes on for the entire page in my version of BD. You don't use song lyrics. You don't use song lyrics, not a phrase, not the chorus only, and definitely not _most of the song_. It's writing 101. You can use a song title but you cannot use lyrics in your writing, whatsoever, without permission.
> 
> This looks more and more like it was staged. Everyone's rallying around her on Facebook and Twitter, for the most part, except the ones who have a pic of the song page. That's out there on Twitter. OMG. This is HUGE. She'll be lucky if all she has to pay back are refunds on KDP with the Zon. The Rolling Stones should be all over this.


They'll have to to protect future trademark. If they don't someone can use this case as an example of where they let it slide. Now they could be nice, and ask for minor damages, but they may not, because they don't want others thinking they can get away with it. Also, if this is handled by their legal team, the members of the stones may never really be aware of it, the legal team would handle everything.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Here's a thought.

How about letting the author involved sort it out and slow down a bit? Although, the author herself went public with it. On Saturday and today is Sunday.

I have few facts about this and neither do most of us. It could be an automated thing that has now exploded over the weekend before it can be dealt with, as the author herself notes. It could be Amazon trying to "screw over" an author who goes from KDP to a traditional publisher.

It could be the gremlins on the wings unscrewing the bolts of publishing. Which frankly, are already off, except most of NY doesn't realize it.

I don't know.

There is a rush to judgment, which CNN just had an op-ed piece on which kind of, sort of, made sense to me. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/opinion/obeidallah-outrage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Really. This was first posted on this loop at 20:04 (military time) yesterday and since then it's gone ballistic.

I understand. I'm a contrarian. Some of you have seen my posts and comments where if you said the sun rose in the east, frak it, I'd argue it rose in the north. Because, as my wife points out to me, I can be an a-hole at times. Sigh.

Furthermore, based on the outrage, if it is real, then the solution is for those so offended to pull their titles from Amazon as fast as they cry for lawyers to investigate. Based on the number of responses on this loop in less than 24 hours, if everyone who thinks Amazon is screwing over this author pulls their books, that would certainly make a statement. Being former military, I'm a big believer in putting it all on the line when I believe in something. The good news in this case, is that I don't think real bullets are involved. Just sales.

This reminds me of those traditionally published authors, like Malcolm Gladwell, who publicly announced Amazon was the devil incarnate, but continued to sell books there. I see many people, both traditional and indie, denouncing Amazon while still cashing their checks that come from books sold on Amazon. We simply can't keep having it both ways. I remember when B&N was the devil incarnate for putting indie bookstores out of business. Now people are wailing about B&N struggling. I'm old enough, yes, sadly, to remember an indie bookstore on 18th in Manhattan my uncle, a NYC Firefighter, used to take me to on Sundays to wander about. Called Barnes and Noble. Strange, isn't it?

I also remember a web site that allowed eBook lending to get attacked so viciously and so quickly before most of those people who were attacking knew what they were talking about, getting put out of business. And the web site was doing nothing wrong or illegal. Most authors still don't even know Amazon allows eBook lending.

Yep. Let's grab our pitchforks and torches and race around and kill that monster, except at the moment (and maybe just for the moment) it is the biggest tourist attraction in town and our town lives off tourism?

Or how about we act like the professionals we are, assimilate the information. Let those actually involved and affected to deal with it? Keep ourselves updated? And then take action, other than ranting and raving, as appropriate?

But here's the real key to all this. Let's be brutally honest. We'll each take action as it benefits our own situation in publishing. Because there are many roads to Oz and Oz means something different to each of us.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Funny how this thread has migrated from shock and sympathy for McGuire to calling her "stupid" and casting the whole thing at her feet, based on assumptions about the licensing of the Stones song, or worse yet, imagining it's all an elaborate publicity stunt hatched up among McGuire, S&S, and Amazon, which I find ... how to put it? Highly unlikely. A case of oh-how-the-mighty-have-fallen, perhaps?

She still has my sympathy, FWIW, and I continue to be worried about the precedent this sets for other indie authors making the move to a trad pub deal. I'd be really reluctant to surrender my ebook rights.


----------



## Jeff Shelby (Oct 2, 2011)

What both Bob and Becca said.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Anyone know the normal accounting treatment Amazon uses for replacing version-1 with version-2? Neither do I.

Anyone know if the results being reported are what Amazon intended? Neither do I. 

This can all be fixed with a single adjusting entry to the author's account. If it illustrates a systemic problem, that will take a bit longer, but will address the larger situation.

Accountants don't usually work on weekends.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jeff Shelby said:


> What both Bob and Becca said.


Oh good heavens, don't group me in with Bob. I'm bound and determined to apply my pitchfork to *someone* ... just not sure who.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Oh good heavens, don't group me in with Bob. I'm bound and determined to apply my pitchfork to *someone* ... just not sure who.


I volunteer as tribute!

(Not really. Please don't pitchfork me. I just felt like this thread was really missing a Hunger Games reference at this point).


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I find it interesting where it's all gone in less than 24 hours.

For my part:

1) As I said before: I sincerely hope that Amazon gets their shit together on the wording of any future emails.
2) And again, as I've already said: watch yourself in tradpub deals. Publishers are not operating in your best interests, but theirs. As long as those align, fine . . . but otherwise? Be careful.
3) And the new point: I hope everyone is clear now: don't use song lyrics (I'd avoid even titles, personally, and just use descriptives) in your work unless they're public domain.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I volunteer as tribute!
> 
> (Not really. Please don't pitchfork me. I just felt like this thread was really missing a Hunger Games reference at this point).


Not even one little poke with one single tine?


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Not even one little poke with one single tine?


Well as long as its a tine and not a tune. Those can get you in trouble, you know.

*pauses for groans*


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Well as long as its a tine and not a tune. Those can get you in trouble, you know.
> 
> *pauses for groans*


<groans!>


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I don't have any unpublished books personally, but I believe Deanna Chase mentioned earlier in the thread that she has a book she took down and she still occasionally sees returns from it due despite it not being available anymore. It was a couple pages ago....perhaps she can clarify further, but from what I gather, the record of a book the author took down is still in their KDP account history, and if for whatever reason a late return IS processed, it would then show up there.


Yes, I have one title that I unpublished. It's been down for over two months. Last week I got one return on it. At first I was like, huh? wtf? But then I just shrugged it off and decided maybe it was a credit card charge back or something.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

*groans!*


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Funny how this thread has migrated from shock and sympathy for McGuire to calling her "stupid" and casting the whole thing at her feet, based on assumptions about the licensing of the Stones song, or worse yet, imagining it's all an elaborate publicity stunt hatched up among McGuire, S&S, and Amazon, which I find ... how to put it? Highly unlikely. A case of oh-how-the-mighty-have-fallen, perhaps?
> 
> She still has my sympathy, FWIW, and I continue to be worried about the precedent this sets for other indie authors making the move to a trad pub deal. I'd be really reluctant to surrender my ebook rights.


NOT AN ASSUMPTION. I'm looking at my self-published version with the song lyrics in it on page 137 at 39% in. There isn't a licensing statement for using The Rolling Stones lyrics for that entire page anywhere in my copy of BD. The copyright page at the back is Atria Books Simon & Schuster. I've stated this all before, but, as usual, everyone comes on here and doesn't read the whole thread and just jumps in and starts lecturing.

I have no problem with Amazon.
I don't have a problem with Simon & Schuster.
I don't have a problem with Jamie McGuire.

Nor, do I like having it inferred that I do. However, this looks like a coordinated effort to me. The timing is questionable and as the miscellaneous stuff comes out, it appears to affect everyone involved. Her books are selling. They all make money (I'm inferring the publisher, the author, and Amazon). However, The Rolling Stones lyrics in MY VERSION of BD are not showing that it was licensed in any way by Ms. McGuire. So, if you think that's a side show; fine. I don't.

And yes, I agree with you, I would be reluctant to surrender my ebook rights for trad pub deal. This is bigger than just this case because it is a problem when you sell a version of book one-way and then it's picked up by somebody else (the publisher) and yet, there's this little problem (formatting, content, _something_) with the original that is now distributed to thousands..... It appears to me that they (I do not KNOW who all they are) tried to mitigate the problem, but the work is out there with the lyrics in it in copies of BD with people like me. And, it appears to be in print copies as well according to Purplepen79's post.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> She still has my sympathy, FWIW, and I continue to be worried about the precedent this sets for other indie authors making the move to a trad pub deal. I'd be really reluctant to surrender my ebook rights.


Regardless of what's going on now, I'd be extremely reluctant to surrender the digital rights for a book I self-published to a publisher.


----------



## kvannobrien (Oct 19, 2012)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I volunteer as tribute!
> 
> (Not really. Please don't pitchfork me. I just felt like this thread was really missing a Hunger Games reference at this point).


That made me spit milk through my nose.

Just a little.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Okay, I checked the S&S print version against the Twitter link, and the Twitter link does include a lot more of the song than the trad-pubbed print version does.  The print version quotes only one line from the song, one word of which is the title of the song, so perhaps that's okay?  Still not seeing anything on the copyright page or anywhere else stating "reprinted with the RS's permission."  

Anyway, whether or not this is the reason Amazon is offering the refund, licensing/permission is a valid issue to discuss, especially for those of us writing stuff set in contemporary times who might want to use song lyrics, etc.  I can completely understand how this could happen--someone gets caught up writing a scene, visualizing it so vividly, and then forgetting to edit out the lyrics after she's done.  And likely never thinking to herself, "Oh, I'm going to hit it big, and I need to fix that before I do."  She's on to writing the next book by that point.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

My policy on song lyrics is to write my own. 

I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms. McGuire. I read BD the Atria version, and I was surprised to see the few lines of the Rolling Stones song, because I know that is not okay without a license. At the time, I didn't even bother to look and see if they had one. Still, if there is a bunch more of the song in the SP version, that's unfortunate that she obviously didn't know she couldn't do that. It's going to be a painful lesson that comes back on her. And I still feel badly for her.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

The title of my upcoming book is a song lyric but from what I read I don't need to worry about it. I also looked into the Fair Use Act.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I volunteer as tribute!
> 
> (Not really. Please don't pitchfork me. I just felt like this thread was really missing a Hunger Games reference at this point).


 I love the Hunger Games.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> Oh, sorry, not what I meant at all. To clarify:
> 
> Amazon cannot and should not revoke the original copy. The reader paid for the original, they should still have access to the original. End of story.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying. I was close to bursting a blood vessel when I first read it.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

romanceauthor said:


> The title of my upcoming book is a song lyric but from what I read I don't need to worry about it. I also looked into the Fair Use Act.


_Song titles_ and _book titles_ are okay, but lyrics? You need written permission, which you usually have to pay for. Even churches pay fees to use modern songs in their services.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Deanna Chase said:


> My policy on song lyrics is to write my own.
> 
> I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms. McGuire. I read BD the Atria version, and I was surprised to see the few lines of the Rolling Stones song, because I know that is not okay without a license. At the time, I didn't even both to look and see if they had one. Still, if there is a bunch more of the song in the SP version, that's unfortunate that she obviously didn't know she couldn't do that. It's going to be a painful lesson that comes back on her. And I still feel badly for her.


Me too--in that I feel sorry for Jamie McGuire, and also that I write my own lyrics--kinda have to in a fantasy world. One of my favorite essayists, Florence King, wrote all her own lyrics for 1890s songs so she could avoid getting permission. Apparently it can turn into quite a lengthy process.
Now, because of this thread, I'm listening to the Rolling Stones.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> NOT AN ASSUMPTION. I'm looking at my self-published version with the song lyrics in it on page 137 at 39% in. There isn't a licensing statement for using The Rolling Stones lyrics for that entire page anywhere in my copy of BD. The copyright page at the back is Atria Books Simon & Schuster. I've stated this all before, but, as usual, everyone comes on here and doesn't read the whole thread and just jumps in and starts lecturing.
> 
> I have no problem with Amazon.
> I don't have a problem with Simon & Schuster.
> ...


Katherine, I've read every post in the thread, including all of yours. Whatever the indie version of the book does or doesn't say inside, we won't _know_ that McGuire has a licensing problem until she or the Stones' reps say so.

Purplepen79 was referring to the traditionally published paperback edition, and I'd be very surprised if Simon & Schuster let its version of the book go out with a song-licensing problem. If there's one thing traditional publishers have plenty of, it's lawyers. If S&S let that happen, okay, I'll happily agree to the "stupidity at its finest" label for them.

As I said above, it seems odd to me that S&S would've negotiated for their edition's use of the song (assuming for the moment that they did) while never dealing with the indie edition's much greater use of it. Didn't that usage come up at the time? If McGuire didn't license the song for her edition, wouldn't it have been dealt with when S&S brought the matter to the record company's attention?


----------



## L.M. Pfalz (Aug 31, 2012)

purplepen79 said:


> Okay, I checked the S&S print version against the Twitter link, and the Twitter link does include a lot more of the song than the trad-pubbed print version does. The print version quotes only one line from the song, one word of which is the title of the song, so perhaps that's okay? Still not seeing anything on the copyright page or anywhere else stating "reprinted with the RS's permission."


Nope, even one line would not be okay without permission. Some musicians might let it slide, but I certainly wouldn't chance it. Mentioning of song titles is fine (I also include the band/singer's name to credit them), but lyrics are a no-no. I even read once on another writing forum that if a character sings the title of a song, it turns into it being used as a lyric instead of as a title. For example:

(using a public domain song as an example here )

Using a title as a lyric:
"Amazing grace," she sang.

Using a title as a title:
She sang "Amazing Grace" at church.

I honestly dunno if that part is true or not, but again, I wouldn't chance it.

Using a single song lyric without permission I can see as being an honest mistake, but using most of the song? Eep. And there was no mention of The Rolling Stones even on the page, so basically she used someone else's work without even an ounce of credit. Not that it would've protected her from being sued, but it certainly rubs salt in the wound IMO. I'm sure her publisher got permission to use the line in her new version, but it would surprise me if it's not listed somewhere in the acknowledgments.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Amazon cannot and should not revoke the original copy. The reader paid for the original, they should still have access to the original. End of story


."

Anyone know if Amazon has the right to continue distribution of a version of a book after a publisher has acquired rights to the book? Who grants them the right to do that? Who controls the right to distribute that book today?

Can rights given to Amazon by the prior rights holder (author) survive the transfer of rights to the publisher?


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

UPDATE:  8:45pm 03/03/13

Now readers are reporting getting an email from Amazon asking them to disregard yesterday's email and that they are "sorry" for any misunderstanding.

Yikes.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Katherine, I've read every post in the thread, including all of yours. Whatever the indie version of the book does or doesn't say inside, we won't _know_ that McGuire has a licensing problem until she or the Stones' reps say so.
> 
> Purplepen79 was referring to the traditionally published paperback edition, and I'd be very surprised if Simon & Schuster let its version of the book go out with a song-licensing problem. If there's one thing traditional publishers have plenty of, it's lawyers. If S&S let that happen, okay, I'll happily agree to the "stupidity at its finest" label for them.
> 
> As I said above, it seems odd to me that S&S would've negotiated for their edition's use of the song (assuming for the moment that they did) while never dealing with the indie edition's much greater use of it. Didn't that usage come up at the time? If McGuire didn't license the song for her edition, wouldn't it have been dealt with when S&S brought the matter to the record company's attention?


Well, that's what I was wondering. If it was changed for S&S version than you would think somebody would have went back and changed the original self pub one because at some point someone must have known there was a problem. However, I don't know what a trad pub contract would stipulate about that for previous works. Is it possible that it's something they haven't considered fully and just handed down the standard ironclad version of the contract. "All rights belong to us blah blah blah..." So the author couldn't make any changes? It's weird.

On the other point, I thought you had to have the licensing stated for things like this (song lyrics, quote references) in your book; anyone know? Usually, it's on the copyright page; right? In my version, it's not there. I've checked twice, which is where the whole discussion ensued on this tangent. And Purplepen79 checked hers, according to her post, and couldn't find the licensing statement. Indeed.

Lessons all around for everyone with this one...


----------



## L.M. Pfalz (Aug 31, 2012)

summerdaniels71 said:


> UPDATE: 8:45pm 03/03/13
> 
> Now readers are reporting getting an email from Amazon asking them to disregard yesterday's email and that they are "sorry" for any misunderstanding.
> 
> Yikes.


Craziness. I wonder what they plan on doing about the ones that have already been returned.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> ."
> 
> Anyone know if Amazon has the right to continue distribution of a version of a book after a publisher has acquired rights to the book? Who grants them the right to do that? Who controls the right to distribute that book today?
> 
> Can rights given to Amazon by the prior rights holder (author) survive the transfer of rights to the publisher?


Excellent question. This would be a good thing to know; n'est pas?


----------



## trublue (Jul 7, 2012)

What the hell is Amazons problem

I'm so sorry. I hope this gets worked out quickly. 
I LOVE the first cover.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> Well, that's what I was wondering. If it was changed for S&S version than you would think somebody would have went back and changed the original self pub one because at some point someone must have known there was a problem. However, I don't know what a trad pub contract would stipulate about that for previous works. Is it possible that it's something they haven't considered fully and just handed down the standard ironclad version of the contract. "All rights belong to us blah blah blah..." So the author couldn't make any changes? It's weird.
> 
> On the other point, I thought you had to have the licensing stated for things like this (song lyrics, quote references) in your book; anyone know? Usually, it's on the copyright page; right? In my version, it's not there. I've checked twice, which is where the whole discussion ensued on this tangent. And Purplepen79 checked hers, according to her post, and couldn't find the licensing statement. Indeed.
> 
> Lessons all around for everyone with this one...


I have a little scenario in my head <cue the cigars, single-malt, expensive suits, &c.> where the Simon & Schuster lawyers say to the Virgin Records (or whatever) lawyers, "Look, we have a little problem with this self-published book we just picked up. The little lady didn't know about licensing lyrics. What can you do? <everyone laughs knowingly> So whadya say she just gives you forty grand and we pretend it never happened?" Then they go on to negotiate a smaller fee for the much more limited use of the song's lyrics in the S&S edition.

Of course, those companies' lawyers are probably all 32-year-old women who do yoga and would yak if they smelled a cigar, but there you go: my brain works in stereotypes.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Katherine Owen said:


> Well, that's what I was wondering. If it was changed for S&S version than you would think somebody would have went back and changed the original self pub one because at some point someone must have known there was a problem. However, I don't know what a trad pub contract would stipulate about that for previous works. Is it possible that it's something they haven't considered fully and just handed down the standard ironclad version of the contract. "All rights belong to us blah blah blah..." So the author couldn't make any changes? It's weird.
> 
> On the other point, I thought you had to have the licensing stated for things like this (song lyrics, quote references) in your book; anyone know? Usually, it's on the copyright page; right? In my version, it's not there. I've checked twice, which is where the whole discussion ensued on this tangent. And Purplepen79 checked hers, according to her post, and couldn't find the licensing statement. Indeed.
> 
> Lessons all around for everyone with this one...


S&S must have had McGuire change the scene at some point because the trad-pubbed print version uses only one line from the song compared to the whole lyric in the self-pubbed version. But no permission from the RS listed anywhere in the print version for that one line, at least not that I can find--though the line is broken up by dialogue attributions, etc., I would still think they'd need permission? Anyway, it's a crazy situation all around, especially now that Amazon is retracting its e-mailed statement from yesterday.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> I have a little scenario in my head <cue the cigars, single-malt, expensive suits, &c.> where the Simon & Schuster lawyers say to the Virgin Records (or whatever) lawyers, "Look, we have a little problem with this self-published book we just picked up. The little lady didn't know about licensing lyrics. What can you do? <everyone laughs knowingly> So whadya say she just gives you forty grand and we pretend it never happened?" Then they go on to negotiate a smaller fee for the much more limited use of the song's lyrics in the S&S edition.
> 
> Of course, those companies' lawyers are probably all 32-year-old women who do yoga and would yak if they smelled a cigar, but there you go: my brain works in stereotypes.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

purplepen79 said:


> S&S must have had McGuire change the scene at some point because the trad-pubbed print version uses only one line from the song compared to the whole lyric in the self-pubbed version. But no permission from the RS listed anywhere in the print version for that one line, at least not that I can find--though the line is broken up by dialogue attributions, etc., I would still think they'd need permission? Anyway, it's a crazy situation all around, especially now that Amazon is retracting its e-mailed statement from yesterday.


Are they really?? What are they saying now? Jeepers, I feel like that prairie dog. Or whatever that thing is. <DDark, I watched that video eight times in a row. I'm holding you accountable.>

ETA: "Hello, You may have received an e-mail from us yesterday stating that the edition of 'A Beautiful Disaster' you purchased is no longer available. This e-mail was incorrect, and there is no action required to continue enjoying th[ ] book. ..." (quoted from a fan's screen shot on McGuire's Fb page)


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> Are they really?? What are they saying now? Jeepers, I feel like that prairie dog. Or whatever that thing is. <DDark, I watched that video eight times in a row. I'm holding you accountable.>


Wait until someone posts the light-saber version...


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Are they really?? What are they saying now? Jeepers, I feel like that prairie dog. Or whatever that thing is. <DDark, I watched that video eight times in a row. I'm holding you accountable.>


I haven't actually gotten any e-mail from the 'zon, thank goodness--I just noticed Summerdaniel71's latest post:



summerdaniels71 said:


> UPDATE: 8:45pm 03/03/13
> 
> Now readers are reporting getting an email from Amazon asking them to disregard yesterday's email and that they are "sorry" for any misunderstanding.
> 
> Yikes.


Mercury must indeed be in retrograde.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

MegSilver said:


> Wait until someone posts the light-saber version...


There is not.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

romanceauthor said:


> The title of my upcoming book is a song lyric but from what I read I don't need to worry about it. I also looked into the Fair Use Act.


I would start worrying about it if you don't want to end up in court. Using it as a book title makes it commercial and puts you in a potentially litigious area. Not exactly fair use. Song lyrics are often tenaciously defended in courts. I was witness to an instance where both the author and publisher of a book that used a line of one of the Beach Boys song lyrics (as a title) were sued - five years after publication. It was in pre-internet days and wasn't until publicity about the possibility of the book being used as the basis for a television series that the lawsuit was initiated. The defendants settled out of court for what was the cost of a couple of new homes. The TV series didn't go ahead.

If you insist on using it, get legal advice first.


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

L.M. Pfalz said:


> Nope, even one line would not be okay without permission. Some musicians might let it slide, but I certainly wouldn't chance it. Mentioning of song titles is fine (I also include the band/singer's name to credit them), but lyrics are a no-no. I even read once on another writing forum that if a character sings the title of a song, it turns into it being used as a lyric instead of as a title. For example:
> 
> (using a public domain song as an example here )
> 
> ...


My current manuscript has some sensitive fair use issues and I'm doing the whole vetting by an attorney thing--whoa what a pain. 
One major component of fair use is how much you use. Because songs are short just one line my be infringing. Most publishers error on the side of caution and get clearance.

But I'm also 100% sire that singing, versus saying two words from a song wouldn't make any difference. Also, I think 2-3 words is probably okay, but of course you can get sued for just about anything, even if you use is protected.


----------



## readingril (Oct 29, 2010)

I've not read this book and didn't read the thread at first as I had no interest in it, but as it got longer and longer today I decided to read it to see what all the fuss is about.  

So just to add to the conversation, an aside: The Song Remains the Same is the title of Allison Winn Scotch's latest book.  I remember googling it last year upon release and coming up with a heck of a lot of Led Zeppelin hits.

And now to bed I go....as I have to go to work tomorrow after a two week 'staycation'.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2013)

Quote about song lyrics:

"Using it as a book title makes it commercial and puts you in a potentially litigious area. Not exactly fair use"
This is incorrect. Lyrics from songs and poems have been used at book title for a long time.
How About _Gone With the Wind_, _Days of Wine and Roses_

Or these titles by Mary Higgins Clark
I'll Walk Alone
The Shadow of Your Smile
I Heard That Song Before
No Place Like Home
He Sees You When You're Sleeping
On the Street Where You Live
We'll Meet Again
You Belong To Me


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I have a little scenario in my head <cue the cigars, single-malt, expensive suits, &c.> where the Simon & Schuster lawyers say to the Virgin Records (or whatever) lawyers, "Look, we have a little problem with this self-published book we just picked up. The little lady didn't know about licensing lyrics. What can you do? <everyone laughs knowingly> So whadya say she just gives you forty grand and we pretend it never happened?" Then they go on to negotiate a smaller fee for the much more limited use of the song's lyrics in the S&S edition.
> 
> Of course, those companies' lawyers are probably all 32-year-old women who do yoga and would yak if they smelled a cigar, but there you go: my brain works in stereotypes.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Quote about song lyrics:
> 
> "Using it as a book title makes it commercial and puts you in a potentially litigious area. Not exactly fair use"
> This is incorrect. Lyrics from songs and poems have been used at book title for a long time.
> ...


How 'bout _Beautiful Disaster_ by Kelly Clarkson?


----------



## MommaSaysRead (Feb 10, 2013)

Wow! This all seems really unacceptable. It isn't as though the formatting was so bad that it couldn't be read, otherwise the return would have happened within the allotted time. 

Regardless of whether this is Amazon or the publisher I'm sure that somewhere in the contract the statement is that you have to accept returns made within the allotted time frame. This clearly violates that clause.


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

I have a theory and that's all it is.

Author has a break out hit.  Sells book to a publisher at it's peak and has to unpublish her version.  Six months go by, best seller isn't a best seller anymore because it's been unavailable for 6 months.  Publisher bat phones someone at Amazon and says "Hey, it's a new version.  How about a email blast offering to return the old book and buy the new one?"  Amazon guy looks over and says sure, enough has changed and fires off the email.  Publisher watches thousands of sales come and the book shoots up the chart on "new sales" while the author sees thousands of returns come in.  

Panic hits and weird solutions start coming in like using some other book to process returns.  Finally someone important enough shows up and slaps the Amazon Rep and/or Publisher guy and a disregard email goes out.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Okey Dokey said:


> Quote about song lyrics:
> 
> "Using it as a book title makes it commercial and puts you in a potentially litigious area. Not exactly fair use"
> This is incorrect. Lyrics from songs and poems have been used at book title for a long time.
> ...


It is absolutely correct.

I have no idea what Mary Higgins Clarke or anyone else has done with regard to obtaining permission for use of lyrics and it make little difference to the issue. If the person who owns the rights decides to sue, a judge will hand down the final decision, no one else.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Quote about song lyrics:
> 
> "Using it as a book title makes it commercial and puts you in a potentially litigious area. Not exactly fair use"
> This is incorrect. Lyrics from songs and poems have been used at book title for a long time.
> ...


Using titles as titles is fine. However, if any of those are lyrics, and not titles, I'm sure Mary Higgins Clark's publishing company *paid to use them*, just as Stephen King's publishers paid to use the lyrics he has in the front of almost all his books.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

A friend (who got the original email) just got this update:



> Amazon.com Customer Service
> 9:18 PM (3 minutes ago)
> 
> to me
> ...


Hopefully this means that it was a mistake and all will be corrected soon.


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

Re the lyrics, the title of the Stones' song is, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" - so if those are the only lines Travis sings in the S&S version, they wouldn't need authorization.

(I got the second Amazon email this morning cancelling the first.)


----------



## kvannobrien (Oct 19, 2012)

SBJones said:


> Publisher bat phones someone at Amazon and says ...


Bat phones.

Nice.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2013)

You know, if someone wrote a short story with this plotline my first response would be "nobody will believe this."

The truth, they say, is always stranger than fiction.   And this is a strange tale indeed.

*grabs popcorn and waits for the conclusion.*


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

A lesson here is that "author professionalism" is an attitude and set of behaviors, not an income level.

While surely this type of error would panic any of us, going on a viral tirade is not likely to either solve the problem or endear you to the partners you have just smeared worldwide. I'd be surprised if Amazon ever touches this book or author again. And I was dismayed to see authors out there feeding this frenzy.

My advice is, when something breaks, go to the source instead of the crowdsource.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2013)

scottnicholson said:


> A lesson here is that "author professionalism" is an attitude and set of behaviors, not an income level.
> 
> While surely this type of error would panic any of us, going on a viral tirade is not likely to either solve the problem or endear you to the partners you have just smeared worldwide. I'd be surprised if Amazon ever touches this book or author again. And I was dismayed to see authors out there feeding this frenzy.
> 
> My advice is, when something breaks, go to the source instead of the crowdsource.


Unfortunately, Scott, I can understand why the author would want to be "first" out the gate even if she knows she is wrong. It's the old concept of a lie can get around the world twice before the truth even puts on its shoes. People tend to believe the first version of a story they hear, and then filter all other facts to "fit" with how they interpreted the first version of the story. By jumping out the gate first, she rallies her fans and other indies who are pre-disposed to "buy" into the idea that the Publisher and/or Amazon is screwing her over.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Perhaps, Julie, but by making it a viral issue, it is now unavoidable to "face the music." No way the Stones can't publicly pursue this now when it could have been settled quietly and perhaps calmly and perhaps even cheaply.

More:
http://dearauthor.com/news/monday-news-amazon-v-indies-round-500-u-of-mississippi-cures-baby-of-hiv-trusted-friend-best-source-of-book-recommendations/

For whatever reason this particular author ignited the drama--again, I don't know this author nor particularly care, because I veer well away from this personality type--historical reasons for such behavior are cunning and calculated promotional gain, crowd sympathy, or emotional/mental illness. By exponentially compounding the problem, I would suspect all the cumulative losses will offset any gains. And now all the authors who disseminated this nonsense have egg on their face and shown indies out to be not a suppressed underclass, but volatile amateurs who are best avoided.

And even now, when a reasonable explanation emerges, people are still cooking up the Amazon conspiracies. If I was Amazon, I'd just boot her book off the store. After all, it could well be illegally used material for which Amazon could be seen as liable--which might have been the trigger in the first place. Sticking with my Simplest Answer theory on this one.

P.S. The last time we had this level of indie hysteria was the Fake Review scandal--and we all see who ended up getting punished with that one. Wouldn't be surprised if Amazon institutes new restrictions on KDP review because of this. One thing we can count on with the Zon is that they will ALWAYS react to negative publicity and address the PR problem with a dubious "action." Congratulations, self-publishers, for making your life harder.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

readingril said:


> I've not read this book and didn't read the thread at first as I had no interest in it, but as it got longer and longer today I decided to read it to see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> So just to add to the conversation, an aside: The Song Remains the Same is the title of Allison Winn Scotch's latest book. I remember googling it last year upon release and coming up with a heck of a lot of Led Zeppelin hits.
> 
> And now to bed I go....as I have to go to work tomorrow after a two week 'staycation'.


Big difference though as Allison Winn Scotch is with a traditional publisher, so they would have vetted use of any lyrics.

I remember now as I read that scene in Beautiful Disaster wondering how she was able to use so much of the song. I have a short story I wanted to publish that I wrote ages ago, but it has two lines of a very old, Tom Petty song and I decided against it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2013)

scottnicholson said:


> P.S. The last time we had this level of indie hysteria was the Fake Review scandal--and we all see who ended up getting punished with that one. Wouldn't be surprised if Amazon institutes new restrictions on KDP review because of this. One thing we can count on with the Zon is that they will ALWAYS react to negative publicity and address the PR problem with a dubious "action." Congratulations, self-publishers, for making your life harder.


Scott, I'm not disagreeing that keeping-your-mouth-shut is the best option most of the time. I rarely discuss my business dealings with various partners precisely for this reason. I don't build my business on drama and I don't need to attract potential legal actions. It's just unfortunate that I know this mentality and have seen it too many times.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The most successful managers I have seen concentrate on avoiding problems, and when they occur, minimizing their effects. Problems can be solved the hard way or the easy way. It's amazing how often people will work with you if you try the easy way first.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

They just needed to update the BD cover to include:

Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> Perhaps, Julie, but by making it a viral issue, it is now unavoidable to "face the music." No way the Stones can't publicly pursue this now when it could have been settled quietly and perhaps calmly and perhaps even cheaply.
> 
> More:
> *And now all the authors who disseminated this nonsense have egg on their face and shown indies out to be not a suppressed underclass, but volatile amateurs who are best avoided.
> ...




I think Scott is onto something. AS I said before, it would be very easy for Amazon to make one minor change and stick Indie books into a new CATEGORY (not website) Fiction>genre would stay for trades and Amazon's lines but for us Fiction>indie>genre.

The customers would notice no change. Still all the same best seller lists, just some different books. Indies however...


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I think Scott is onto something. AS I said before, it would be very easy for Amazon to make one minor change and stick Indie books into a new CATEGORY (not website) Fiction>genre would stay for trades and Amazon's lines but for us Fiction>indie>genre.
> 
> The customers would notice no change. Still all the same best seller lists, just some different books. Indies however...


This would actually be quite difficult to implement.

Yours and Scott's and Bob's and Julie's point that everyone needs to be chill is a good one, though.

B.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> This would actually be quite difficult to implement.
> 
> Yours and Scott's and Bob's and Julie's point that everyone needs to be chill is a good one, though.
> 
> B.


No, it wouldn't; everyone that uploads books through KDP would go into this category. They could roll it out the same way they do every change...server by server...not hard at all.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> No, it wouldn't everyone that uploads books through KDP would go into this category. They could roll it out the same way they do every change...server by server...not hard at all.


My question is, why do you think they would do such a thing when there's no apparent reason to?


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> For whatever reason this particular author ignited the drama...


At first glance, the story seemed like an interesting Amazon snafu, but I think Scott has pretty much nailed it. The author in question certainly has a dramatic back-trail.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> My question is, why do you think they would do such a thing when there's no apparent reason to?


1) It will double their best seller lists.

2) It will strengthen the brands they are building, Encore, 47North, and the romance line, which they will keep in with the trade books. They will undercut the pricing of the traditional publishers, and get readers used to reading the "Amazon brands" and equating them as equal to the other big six publishers.

3) They can cross market the bestseller list of the indies to the trades and vice versa, plus do the same thing for the top genre best sellers. One more reason to send an additional email out to their existing customers.

4) It takes self published works out of much of the competition (while switching those sales to the Ammy' brands & some trade), which will appease readers who decry indie editing, and make trades happy that their stuff isn't having to compete as much to be at the top of those bestseller lists.

Again, I used to get paid to help make competitive decisions like this to increase market share, and it worked. To me it's the next logical step.

Remember, in the beginning Amazon needed to lump KDP books in with tradtional, because traditionals were trying to "control" Amazon, to the point they wanted to boycott. This is no longer the situation.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> Perhaps, Julie, but by making it a viral issue, it is now unavoidable to "face the music." No way the Stones can't publicly pursue this now when it could have been settled quietly and perhaps calmly and perhaps even cheaply.
> 
> More:
> http://dearauthor.com/news/monday-news-amazon-v-indies-round-500-u-of-mississippi-cures-baby-of-hiv-trusted-friend-best-source-of-book-recommendations/
> ...


Nice summation. What a debacle she created without admission. I wish Amazon _would_ react appropriately and wield their TOS her way.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unfortunately, Scott, I can understand why the author would want to be "first" out the gate even if she knows she is wrong. It's the old concept of a lie can get around the world twice before the truth even puts on its shoes. People tend to believe the first version of a story they hear, and then filter all other facts to "fit" with how they interpreted the first version of the story. By jumping out the gate first, she rallies her fans and other indies who are pre-disposed to "buy" into the idea that the Publisher and/or Amazon is screwing her over.


Yes...exactly so! Love the lie and shoes analogy.

I've decided that this bothered me so much because it was a twisted version of a similar type of scenario as the FB plea last week by another author that garnered 1000 reviews, in 48 hours for her latest release, by whipping up/inciting her fan base to post those reviews, so that she would write a third book. 

I don't know...You (me; we..._here_) follow the rules and stay above board and then others come along and break them and/or lie about it and it just drives me absolutely certifiably flipping crazy (says me). The good news is that I managed to spend the entire day offline, so there's that as an accomplishment. It's also nice to see the saner people prevail here. I saw some of the blog posts and just started laughing. She got them whipped up but good.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> No, it wouldn't; everyone that uploads books through KDP would go into this category. They could roll it out the same way they do every change...server by server...not hard at all.


Are self-published authors the only entities using KDP?
Is KDP the only means by which a self-published author can get a book on Amazon?
What about Createspace print titles?
What about Lightning Source print titles?
What about used versions of self-published books sold by third parties?
What about Audible editions?
What about books in the public domain?
What about ebooks distributed via D2D?
What about small author collectives?
What about large author collectives?
What about small non-profit publishers, are they to be considered indies?
What about small for-profit publishers, are they to be considered indies?
What about medium-sized publishers, are they to be considered indies?
What about hybrid authors, should only half of their novels be pulled?
What about self-published authors with print-only deals, should only their print books be permitted?
Those are the questions I've come up with in 5 minutes. 
I imagine there are quite a few more hiding underneath the floorboards.

B.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Let me get this straight. Amazon screwed up, probably costing McGuire quite a bit of money, and she reacted by asking for her fans' help. Therefore, the right course of action is that Amazon should apologize for its mistake and refund her lost royalties ban all her books from its site.

Am I missing something? Didn't McGuire write just one blog post asking fans not to return the book despite the Amazon email? Maybe post something on Fb? How is that so awful, much less a sign of mental illness? Is it her fault the post went viral and caused something of a panic? Let's be honest: if there was a panic, its true source was not McGuire's situation. It was the way that situation reminded us of our own scary dependence on Amazon. The fact is, if Amazon changes the playing field on us, we could all be SOOL, and anything that reminds us of that fact is understandably distressing.

Boy is this thread discomfiting. The impression I'm getting is not that indies are unprofessional. It's that they eat their young.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

I, for one, have no idea what Becca's talking about.  I would never eat my young.

I do eat my mates though.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Boy is this thread discomfiting. The impression I'm getting is not that indies are unprofessional. It's that they eat their young.


No matter how you slice it, I don't think that Jamie McGuire counts as one of the indie "young." She sold a bunch of copies, made a ton of money, hit lists, and sold the book for more money to a Big 6 publisher where she sold a bunch more copies. In the indie world, she's hardly a whippersnapper.

This is more like eating the elderly.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I, for one, have no idea what Becca's talking about. I would never eat my young.
> 
> I do eat my mates though.


Mmm, chunky. <passes the floss>


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Courtney Milan said:


> No matter how you slice it, I don't think that Jamie McGuire counts as one of the indie "young." She sold a bunch of copies, made a ton of money, hit lists, and sold the book for more money to a Big 6 publisher where she sold a bunch more copies. In the indie world, she's hardly a whippersnapper.
> 
> This is more like eating the elderly.


Mmmm, stringy. <much more floss>

ETA: But seriously, the people indie spins off into the trad pub world -- they're still our folks. And compared to authors who've been playing the trad game for a long time, they may still be babes in the woods.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

March business doesn't close until the latter half of May. This hasn't cost anyone money. I agree that KDP report is very important to many, but it's not a definitive accounting document. There's lots of time to make adjusting entries. Companies try to minimize this stuff, but it happens.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Are self-published authors the only entities using KDP?
> Is KDP the only means by which a self-published author can get a book on Amazon?
> What about Createspace print titles?
> What about Lightning Source print titles?
> ...


*Only self and small press are using KDP.* 
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
_All _your examples would be lumped into the new category. They would all be lumped into the new category. All your examples above would be moved into fiction>indie>genre

Q. How hard was it for Amazon to implement the new teen category? 
A. Lol, not hard at all. 
Q. How hard was it to break the free list out from the paid? 
A. Not hard at all.
Q. How hard will it be to break out KDP and Create Space from the trades? Not hard at all, as a matter of fact, *they already are*. Trades get preorder buttons, a different site to upload their books, and up to sixteen categories. Plus, special promotions sponsored by their publishers who spend millions on the advertising.

As I said, the reader will see no change. If they want to see indie books though, they'll have to choose the indie path.

Otherwise they'll be offered the trade books from the biggies and their offshoots, *which do not upload through KDP or Create Space*. They actually do set runs for their books, which is why their paper books are cheaper than our Create Space ones.

Do you realize when you click on a category path on a "Free" book, it doesn't take you to the free list, it takes you to the paid? This is a recent change.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm not sure why you are so upset, Lisa, but I apologize.

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Trades get 16 categories? Example?


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

We get it already, Lisa. You think Amazon is going to shuffle the indies to the back of the bus. But, please, keep screaming about it. THAT'S the way to make people listen.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I'm not sure why you are so upset, Lisa, but I apologize.
> 
> B.


I'm not upset, I'm not sure why you would think I am. I highlighted areas I thought were important.

I was just pointing out it's a simple matter of rewriting some code to transfer over the shebang to another category. This is common when categories get too big.

For instance, if you open a shoe store if you're small enough everything is just shoes. But then you might break it down into high heels, sneakers, boots, etc... but if you have too many of those, you might break it down even further sneakers might become: running shoes, basketball shoes, walking, boating, waterproof, classics, fashion, etc.

This helps target marketing-not hurt. However, for us, the re-direction could hurt those without a solid fan base and marketing in place.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Using titles as titles is fine. However, if any of those are lyrics, and not titles, I'm sure Mary Higgins Clark's publishing company *paid to use them*, just as Stephen King's publishers paid to use the lyrics he has in the front of almost all his books.


Let's not get carried away here. Some of those lines are everyday sayings that happen to be lyrics, and no one has a copyright over everyday sayings. You would have to be a very, very good lawyer who has a deal with a senile judge to get him to rule in your favour, if you tried to sue over the use of "We'll Meet Again" as a book title. And even then he'd be overturned on appeal.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> *Only self and small press are using KDP.*
> Why is this so hard for you to understand?


Boy will small presses appreciate being lumped in with self-publishers. University presses, too, perhaps. I bet a lot of them use KDP. Once the complaining begins, I foresee a real PR mess for Amazon. The latest books by the most famous scholars, grouped in with someone's four-page error-riddle paean to their childhood cat. Not to mention all those books by authors who went the small-press route specifically because they _didn't _want to go indie, wanted the imprimatur of a real publisher. Oh yeah. Poop, meet fan. I almost hope Amazon does it, just so we can watch the fireworks.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Lady Vine said:


> Let's not get carried away here. Some of those lines are everyday sayings that happen to be lyrics, and no one has a copyright over everyday sayings. You would have to be a very, very good lawyer who has a deal with a senile judge to get him to rule in your favour, if you tried to sue over the use of "We'll Meet Again" as a book title. And even then he'd be overturned on appeal.


Since she's made over 64 million for her publishers, I'm sure Simon & Schuster paid the fee to use the lyrics from the different songs she uses as titles. It's a very common practice. For instance, "I'll Be Seeing You" song copyright


> is owned by Fain Music Company and The New Irving Kahal Music Company, the latter being administered by Bughouse. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_the_copyright_to_the_song_I%27ll_Be_Seeing_You


Simon & Schuster would negotiate the fee, and pay it to use the lyrics of that song in her book.



> http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/maryhigginsclark.html : She has written over 30 novels in all, many of them with titles taken from song lyrics, including I'll Be Seeing You (1993), Silent Night (1995), and No Place Like Home (2005).
> 
> Read more: Mary Higgins Clark Biography (Writer) | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/maryhigginsclark.html#ixzz2Mdac9eUX


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

The whole indie sub-category debate seems like too much of a threadjack.  I'm much more interested in seeing how this beautiful train wreck of a disaster resolves.  Now excuse me while I munch on some young impressionable indies.

nomnomnom


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> The whole indie sub-category debate seems like too much of a threadjack. I'm much more interested in seeing how this beautiful train wreck of a disaster resolves. Now excuse me while I munch on some young impressionable indies.
> 
> nomnomnom


I think it's over. Amazon sent out an email saying it was a mistake, end of story. It was so yesterday. What's going on today?


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

Are you kidding?  With the Rolling Stones controversy?  This fireworks show is just getting started!


----------



## Sara Fawkes (Apr 22, 2012)

My career took the exact same turn as Ms. McGuire's, which is why I got reeeeally nervous about these emails. Just because Amazon backed down doesn't mean the threat wasn't there. What if it had been me that posted about this? I try and keep out of "drama", but you bet your bottoms I'd have kicked up as big a fuss as possible if I saw something like this happening to me, and it's why I wrote my long blog post.

Oh, and another thing:



Becca Mills said:


> ETA: But seriously, the people indie spins off into the trad pub world -- they're still our folks. And compared to authors who've been playing the trad game for a long time, they may still be babes in the woods.


*waves hand* This babe in the woods just turned down a (pretty substantial) offer from her publisher, and is going to continue releasing her (bestselling) serials/series by herself. So we don't necessarily disappear once we sign a publishing contract.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> This babe in the woods just turned down a (pretty substantial) offer from her publisher, and is going to continue releasing her (bestselling) serials/series by herself. So we don't necessarily disappear once we sign a publishing contract.


Are you really, Sara? I wondered about that when I read a couple of recent posts on your blog, but I wasn't sure. I admit I'm surprised, as _Anything He Wants_ is still sitting prominently on the shelf just about everywhere I go, and I would assume you could get exposure and distribution through a major publisher that you are less likely to get when self-publishing. Any chance you could do a thread or a blog post about why you chose to go with indie publishing again? I'd be interested to read it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Are self-published authors the only entities using KDP?


No. In fact, Amazon forced all small publishers who were previously using Mobipocket.com for distribution into KDP when they shut down that company. I think some folks don't realize this. A LOT of small presses use KDP themselves. KDP is not just for self-published authors.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I was just pointing out it's a simple matter of rewriting some code to transfer over the shebang to another category. This is common when categories get too big.


Lisa, I think part of the problem is that you confuse the _technology_ to create a book with the _method _ in which it gets to press. TONS of small presses and university presses now use print-on-demand and KDP. Amazon does not know who is a self-publishing author and who is a small press. I'm a royalty paying publisher. If Amazon suddenly moved me to an "indie only" section of the website and labeled all of my books self published, I and my authors would have fits because that is inaccurate.

And truth be told, Amazon can barely get books in the right GENRE 50% of the time. I doubt they have the acumen to manually sort indies from small presses and university presses.

But as others have said, this conversation is neither here nor there in regards to the original post.


----------



## Sara Fawkes (Apr 22, 2012)

MegHarris said:


> Are you really, Sara? I wondered about that when I read a couple of recent posts on your blog, but I wasn't sure. I admit I'm surprised, as _Anything He Wants_ is still sitting prominently on the shelf just about everywhere I go, and I would assume you could get exposure and distribution through a major publisher that you are less likely to get when self-publishing. Any chance you could do a thread or a blog post about why you chose to go with indie publishing again? I'd be interested to read it.


Thanks Meg. I only just found out about it last week; the publisher didn't offer what I felt was enough so it was an amicable break-up.  It was disappointing, but my agent was on board with my decision and we're going the Hugh Howey route, looking at foreign rights and putting US on the back burner.

I could probably do a post but it all happened so quick, I'm still scrambling to get it ready now on my own.  I've been "gone" from self-publishing for a year, lots has changed! 

ETA: Okay, new thread posted with a few details! http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,144272.0.html


----------

