I'm not sure who's supposed to benefit from this. Fudging the editions seems like you're going to a lot of extra trouble just to hurt your customers.
Even when the reviews do technically apply, they are often useless (multiple 1-star top reviews: "I tried to use it for HDMI to DisplayPort, but it didn't work"; description: "From DisplayPort to HDMI only (not bi-directional)").
I've also noticed that as I'm going off-site to find accurate information about the product anyway, I'm more frequently buying off-site. Looking around to save 50p or so usually isn't really worth it, but when I'm off Amazon _anyway_, it is. I can think of at least three orders in the few weeks to other sellers that in the past would have gone to Amazon, either because I was wanting the information from the reviews or I'm just in the habit of not going to Amazon first.
This is very anecdotal of course, but it did get me wondering. I have never written a customer review myself, but I always put that down to being busy/lazy and never saw myself as representative for that. But I asked around among my peers, people I would have wanted to read a review from, and it turned out I wasn’t the only one who’s never written a positive review. A lot of them, it turned out, write negative reviews for poor services quite frequently, but almost no positive reviews had ever been written.
All completely anecdotal, but it seems to correlate with what other people on HN have experienced. Maybe we shouldn’t have outsourced book reviews to the anonymous population of the internet?
Modern translations (written in the last 30 years, say) are way way better than the public domain editions, not least because they don't have puritanical Victorians editing out all the "scandalous" bits.
He was an undaunted explorer and traveled widely and spoke 29 languages. He wrote extensively, but sadly his widow considered some of his papers too explicit to be published after his death and instead destroyed them.
His search for the headwaters of the Nile are the basis for the film Mountains of the Moon . See .
 Historical Badass: Explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton
The headline suggests that these typos are sinister ("newspeak"). If that were true, that would be an entirely different and also disturbing problem. I did not find any mention of these errors to be so.
He's dead. None of the copies do that. I understand that the main point here is about counterfeiting, but perhaps copyright shouldn't last more than 50 years either...
> Last year, a Chinese national who was a research professor at Kansas State University was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for stealing valuable American rice seeds — a trade secret — that can be used to treat gastrointestinal disease, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, hepatic disease, osteoporosis and inflammatory bowel disease.
God forbid someone release rice that cures various gastrointestinal diseases into the wild. Someone might be cured!
This whole thread started with
> He's dead.
The point being that they're not getting paid for their work. Perhaps their descendants are, or far more likely these days, their employer.
Copying without paying a >50 year old book: no real negative consequences
Copying without paying a seed that was developed in the last few years: significant negative consequences
(Obviously there are significant positive consequences to pirating that rice. But limited-term IP strikes a reasonable balance between getting more done and also releasing it to the public.)
Not quite as annoying as ordering a book listed as a hardcover and receiving a cheap photocopied paperback. (Has happened several times here).
edit - 'Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle' - https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
Would the whole shipping network, fulfilment, and distribution centers be repeated across all of these companies or would that be a separate company? What about the vendor marketplace and ecommerce code and massive analytics systems they built? Plus customers will have to go to multiple different websites depending on what they want (babystuff.com, bookstore.com, etc)?
These companies can't simply be divided geographically and regionally like oil and telecom companies can, that's counter to how internet companies work. So it'd have to be business unit / divisional.
It's easy to throw around anti-trust laws as a panacea for all the stuff we don't like by tech companies but we seem to be missing the whole concrete picture of what that actually means in practice.
All of these technical issues are problems of Amazon’s creation. Amazon wrote a bunch of software that doesn’t provide a supply chain that can maintain the integrity of what they sell. Sound like their problem.
Amazon's publishing platform is only a relatively small part of their wider business and doesn't answer any of my questions.
Who else is responsible for the upkeep of the marketplace?
The "break them up" argument works if there is an inherent conflict of interest that would get resolved if they were separate entities, but that isn't true in this case.
The inherent conflicts of interest are everywhere. It commingles inventory, competes with its partners and encourages an auction like atmosphere for constrained product. Retail Amazon and marketplace Amazon need to be segmented for consumers to understand who and how they are buying products.
>If you're wondering about some weird social ill plaguing society from the tech industry, 99% of the time the root cause of it is Section 230.
Which is also relevant to the big WSJ story today about Amazon's problem with fakes and unsafe products.
Which may be why you did it, to be fair. Is it?