Hey just want to say a massive thank you for everything you've done with this project. I've shot so much (short films, music videos, even a TV pilot!) on my pair of 600Ds and ML has given these cams such an extended life.
Just wanted to chime in here and say that I, too, got banned from KDP, but in a rather sinister way. They initially locked me out of my account totally, only for access to be reinstated after an email to them. I thought, phew, that was lucky! Little did I know I was still banned…
What I hadn’t realised until releasing my next novel was that whilst I was free to publish work to the platform—and free to run and pay for ads—I wasn’t actually able to collect my royalties! It took me a while to realise this as there’s quite a lag between sales and payout. I was livid. After many emails I’m still not able to collect unpaid royalties on the new novel.
It was suggested that I could take them to small claims, but I've never done anything like that before, and looking into it seems that Amazon makes it rather hard and admin heavy to do.
I've basically written off KDP for all future publications, and most of my current stuff is for sale through all the other book retailers.
It's a real shame as Amazon is the heart of a lot of indie publishing and provides a good service but ultimately they don’t care about the individual.
I have seen stories of slightly bigger indie authors also raising hell on Twitter and getting various other people involved (BSFA in this case) to speak to Amazon. In that case I believe they got paid.
I’m still shocked that Amazon let me pay for ads for a novel that I would never get the sales money for. That hurt more than just being delisted.
If you took them to small claims court, my concern is that they might do something like ban you from future publishing on Amazon/Kindle -- either because you've become a nuisance, or as a warning to other authors.
(Which could be bad for you, considering they're a gatekeeper to your access to much of the market.)
My thinking is that a regulator could offer some protection against retaliation, because that's a basic part of regulation, when you have people reporting.
Or a lawyer might be able to figure out how to protect you. Which might involve doing particular things, a particular way, at particular times.
Congrats! I find I'm using Marginalia more and more, it's especially great for researching for novel writing, and can’t wait to see what the future holds! Good luck!
The great thing for me at university was that no one forced me to go to the lectures. I was on a computer science course, but was more happy making games in my bedroom or writing fiction, and just skipping everthing course related.
For me, life's best served when there's no one badgering you for your attention or your time. If a friend randomly walks up to my flat and rings the buzzer, there's a good chance I'll use it as an excuse to stop work and go hang.
Even if it takes us like 5 extra years to get that deep knowledge of physics, who really cares? You get there in the end if you have the time and space to actually learn it. The modern world is so focused on optimising for time, it can really hinder some people.
Easily one of my favourite novels. It's riddled with beauty; there is a lens held up to the shepherding of knowledge that made me really appreciate what it means to be a scholar.
It's a wild ride and I think a book people should read.
My fav quote,
"When you tire of living, change itself seems evil, does it not? for then any change at all disturbs the deathlike peace of the life-weary.”
Definitely one of my favorites, too. There's an elegiac quality to it that I haven't quite seen in any other novel.
I have a number of quotations jotted down from it, but since this a tech site I'll restrict myself to sharing this one that I sometimes think of when dealing with a recalcitrant machine or mysterious bug:
"That contraption--listen, Brother, they claim it thinks. I didn't
believe it at first. Thought, implying rational principle, implying
soul. Can the principle of a 'thinking machine'--man-made--be a rational
soul? Blah! It seemed a thoroughly pagan notion at first. But do you know
what?"
"Father?"
"Nothing could be that perverse without premeditation! It must think!
It knows good and evil I tell you, and it chose the later."
I would like to read the book and I’m sure it’s good. But whenever a character says “does it not?” I want to soak the book in gasoline and light it on fire.
The 'does it not?' breaks the flow of the quote perfectly. It was intentional, I like to believe; it's as if your peace of a flowing sentence is suddenly interupted by the life of a fantastic writer! :D
There’s no shortage of sci-fi books with incredible creativity about what could come about in the future…and little care placed in creating realistic dialogue or character development.
I get where the OP is coming from. If you’re coming from the modern world of well-rounded fantasy sci-fi storytellers of Sanderson and Rothfuss, then reading stories of the past can be very frustrating.
I think it boils down to public adoption, right? Like, everyone, even the bell-hop, was telling me to buy. It was beyound insane. But they said that because they all saw the graphs. It made the news, etc. But I rarely meet people who will happily take BTC or what have you. Now, is this because it's still in geeksville, or because it's harder to pay taxes, or because its slow? Where do you draw the line on usability? We know why it was made.
Would you mind sharing more of your thoughts on what might play out if the SEC loses? And then also, if you don't mind, what would happen if the SEC wins?
If the SEC loses, unless Congress were to pass a law to grant more authority, the SEC would have almost no ability to regulate cryptocurrency as they would have no ability to define cryptocurrency as a form of "security" (which is the purview they are granted legal authority over, even in their name, the Securities and Exchange Commission).
If the SEC wins, they can define some cryptocurrencies as "securities" which then automatically becomes part of their regulatory authority.
This is why they are being careful to say only Bitcoin isn't a security now. That speech in 2018, centerpiece of the lawsuit, said Ethereum also was not a security. If that speech is found a legally binding statement, it's really hard to find anything smart-contract-powered from Ethereum to XRP as a security.
> This is why they are being careful to say only Bitcoin isn't a security now. That speech in 2018, centerpiece of the lawsuit, said Ethereum also was not a security. If that speech is found a legally binding statement, it's really hard to find anything smart-contract-powered from Ethereum to XRP as a security.
That seems like a leap. Paper is a commodity, but a stock certificate is (or represents, whatever) a security. A contract may be written on paper, but create a security. A database isn't a security but an entry in the right database, in the right place, might be. It seems to me all it would do is keep smart contracts from being securities simply because they use Ethereum—if they are, or create, securities, I see no reason why those would be any harder to regulate than any others.
> unless Congress were to pass a law to grant more authority, the SEC would have almost no ability to regulate cryptocurrency as they would have no ability to define cryptocurrency as a form of "security"
This is a fringe theory no administrative lawyer backs. Neither, based on crypto’s lobbying of the Congress, do those with influence in crypto.
Ripple’s case is narrow. This legal theory sounds like it’s being pitched by someone making a “times are about to change” pitch.
It’s been a huge blessing!