# Amazon suing over "inauthentic reviews."



## Marc (Apr 13, 2015)

Doesn't matter if you're paid to give a good review. This will fall under free speech and nothing will happen. The article is from publisher's lunch.

https://authors.penguinrandomhouse.com/industry-news/?article=69667


----------



## Caragula (Apr 14, 2015)

Can't see this, seems it's a login page it redirects to?


----------



## Marc (Apr 15, 2015)

Caragula said:


> Can't see this, seems it's a login page it redirects to?



Sorry, try this link:

http://fortune.com/2015/04/10/amazon-sues-sellers-bogus-5-star-review/


----------



## Terry D (Apr 15, 2015)

Buying reviews is a fool's errand. I'd like to see Amazon win this, but I don't think they will. Spending money with these 'buy reviews' web-sites is about like star naming web-sites, it might make you feel good, but it won't do anything for your sales.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 15, 2015)

Hey Terry, I like your sig. Are those your words?


----------



## Terry D (Apr 15, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Hey Terry, I like your sig. Are those your words?



Yes, they are, Schrody. It's distilled from much of what I learned at the writer's confrence I attended recently.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 15, 2015)

I'd think much more highly of Amazon if they won and distributed the money to the consumers affected.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 15, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Yes, they are, Schrody. It's distilled from much of what I learned at the writer's confrence I attended recently.



I knew you're a wise man, Terry ^^ Needless to say I absolutely agree with those words.


----------



## Blade (Apr 15, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Buying reviews is a fool's errand. I'd like to see Amazon win this, but I don't think they will. Spending money with these 'buy reviews' web-sites is about like star naming web-sites, it might make you feel good, but it won't do anything for your sales.



Agreed. Anything that rid the world of planted reviews, or even take a step in that direction cannot be a bad thing. Strange though that anyone thinks it is a reasonable strategy.[-X


----------



## Marc (Apr 15, 2015)

Blade said:


> Agreed. Anything that rid the world of planted reviews, or even take a step in that direction cannot be a bad thing. Strange though that anyone thinks it is a reasonable strategy.[-X




In the US they won't win. All speech is protected under the First Amendment, even if it's a crock of shit. Look at Fox News. They're constantly lying or misrepresenting the truth. Doesn't matter. In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 15, 2015)

The free speech issue here is actually subtle, as this isn't a situation where the government is trying to restrict the speech. In a defamation or libel case, there are often free speech concerns because the topics discussed are of public interest and the person in issue is usually a public figure by choice. I get to tell lies about the president I don't get to tell about my neighbor. I'm not saying Amazon will win, but they do have a chance.

Also: this board is a no debating, no flaming, and no arguing zone. Political discussions are not pertinent to the matter at hand and should not be the topic of conversation.


----------



## Blade (Apr 16, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> I'm not saying Amazon will win, but they do have a chance.



It seems to me that there is more than a hint of fraud here and that it should be challenged by someone, given Amazons deep pockets and high public profile they would certainly seem the natural choice to take a stab at it.

I personally would not rely on posted reviews to find my own reading material but it would seem reasonable that such postings not be stacked by interested parties one way or the other. As far as I can see if the meddling cannot be repressed it would be better not to have the reviews at all.


----------



## LeeC (Apr 16, 2015)

If I remember correctly, some years back there was a hullabaloo about authors creating alternate accounts/identities on Amazon and giving their own books glowing reviews. Don't know whatever came of that because I wasn't interested, thinking it par for human behavior.

The only time I've gotten a book from Amazon was when I knew ahead of time what I wanted. To me some unknown part of the self-published Fiction there is a fraud itself, so I'm not surprised at the questionable tactics employed in promoting it, given our manipulative economic practices in all walks of life.

It's got to be a tough road to hoe for unknown authors with with decent writing skills (subjectively labeled as something I'd enjoy reading). I might even think, not necessarily fairly, that being self-published on Amazon tainted a book, until someone, whose opinion I respected, noted otherwise. Of course, even then, and written by a respected author, I've felt more than one book to be claptrap. 

Too many write for materialistic objectives, without desire towards quality. Like everything else in life though, quality is in the beholders eye. I've no doubt many surface readers will find my book boring claptrap, if I do get it published. 

I'm sure I've said too much already.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Apr 24, 2015)

Sadly, Amazon is really no great friend of the indie writer.  They are in the business of selling Kindles.  Indie writers giving books away for free is the hook for kindle buyers.  
But then Amazon won't let someone who got the book free write a review.  (apparently) No wonder some folks cheat.
Then there are the vultures$$$ ... marketing sites that suppossedly promp your book for a price.  PAYOLA.  
THE INDIE REVOLUTION IS OVER.


----------



## movieman (Apr 24, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Sadly, Amazon is really no great friend of the indie writer.  They are in the business of selling Kindles.



Amazon make little to no profit on Kindles. They make lots of profit on ebook sales.

The Kindle is a loss-leader (or, at least, low profit margin device) to hook people to Amazon, like a game console hooks people to Sony or Microsoft. This is why they release the Kindle app for just about every device available, rather than trying to force people to buy their own hardware. They want to make it easy for people to buy all their digital stuff from Amazon. That's where the money is, not hardware sales.


----------



## Blade (Apr 24, 2015)

movieman said:


> Amazon make little to no profit on Kindles. They make lots of profit on ebook sales.
> 
> The Kindle is a loss-leader (or, at least, low profit margin device) to hook people to Amazon, like a game console hooks people to Sony or Microsoft. This is why they release the Kindle app for just about every device available, rather than trying to force people to buy their own hardware. They want to make it easy for people to buy all their digital stuff from Amazon. That's where the money is, not hardware sales.



I think you are right on this one. It is nothing new though. I was reading an article recently on the Michelin brothers who founded the tire company. They came out with their "Michelin Travel Guide" to encourage people to travel thus wearing out their tires and eventually buying more. At first they gave it away but since it was not being taken seriously they began to charge for it.:eagerness:


----------



## movieman (Apr 24, 2015)

Blade said:


> I was reading an article recently on the Michelin brothers who founded the tire company. They came out with their "Michelin Travel Guide" to encourage people to travel thus wearing out their tires and eventually buying more. At first they gave it away but since it was not being taken seriously they began to charge for it.:eagerness:



Clever! I'd never even thought of that.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 24, 2015)

Is it really 'inauthentic', not 'unauthentic' ?


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 24, 2015)

Olly Buckle said:


> Is it really 'inauthentic', not 'unauthentic' ?



I would probably call them, "unauthentic," but I've been accused of writing like a Brit before. I've seen the prefix "in-" being used more and more where I used to expect "un-." Apparently it's an accepted usage in the States.


----------



## Phil Istine (Apr 25, 2015)

Olly Buckle said:


> Is it really 'inauthentic', not 'unauthentic' ?



I would use inauthentic too.
Mind you, you're in East Sussex and I'm in West Sussex so we don't really have a dialect issue


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 25, 2015)

When I went and looked they are refered to as synonyms, so it's what you're used to.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Apr 26, 2015)

It would be nice if they did win, I'm getting pretty tired of having to skim over the 5 star reviews just to find some honest opinions. Usually what I will do is check out the one star reviews first to see what they're complaining about. If their complaint about the product is something that would not be a con for me I look at the three star reviews because they're usually the most realistic. Usually the one star reviewers will also rat out the company if they attempt to buy their good review. Unfortunatly reviews are only somewhat helpful even when the person is being honest since everyone is so different.

I don't think there is anything wrong with buying an HONEST review, the problem is that there's no way to guarantee honesty.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 26, 2015)

Publishers have been buying jacket blurbs for ages. I think the only reason I would waste time looking at reviews, instead of browsing the text, is if I knew the reviewer.


----------



## Paul Frantizek (Apr 26, 2015)

ppsage said:


> Publishers have been buying jacket blurbs for ages. I think the only reason I would waste time looking at reviews, instead of browsing the text, is if I knew the reviewer.



That's the way I look at it as well.


----------

