Counterfeit books “shipped and sold by Amazon”? | Hacker News Reader

Counterfeit books “shipped and sold by Amazon”?

twitter.com

669 pointsfortran77299 comments

This happens because Amazon allows inventory commingling. For example Amazon has their own, legitimate inventory in a West Coast warehouse, and a third party seller has the same inventory with the original UPC manufacturer bar code on it, sitting in an East Coast warehouse. Amazon considers this 1:1 inventory. Amazon will debit their inventory on the West Coast, and credit the inventory that belongs to the third party seller on the East Coast but they will send the inventory from the East Coast to the customer since it's closer to them.

Now in theory this seems like a reasonable approach to deliver products to customers faster, the catch 22 is that third party vendors have clearly taken advantage of Amazon's complete lack of quality control. Third party sellers can sign up for a Seller Central account, and send in counterfeit products with fake bar codes because Amazon doesn't check at all.

I could sit here and talk for hours about mess that is Seller Central. I've dabbled with Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA), and I would never recommend any company use AMZN for third party logistics.

This is probably old news to seasoned Seller Central users, but I was surprised how easy it was to "take over" product pages from already existing products.

Our sales figures definitely weren't high. I think it may have been related to how much stock we had for all the sizes of the product.

Soon the product images and descriptions we provided became the canonical version and overrode whatever was there before. Even previous customer reviews from other sellers would continue to be shown on was what now basically our product page.

Product reviews are meant to be of the product, so it shouldn't matter which seller it is if you're all selling the same product.

But without Amazon doing their own QC there is no way to say it is the same product. You should at least be able to see reviews based on the supplier and pick the supplier you will be fulfilled by. But I suspect that would ruin their whole 2-day/1-day shipping bit.

They do QC: sellers that have too many complaints get kicked off.

But you can’t identify which seller your product came from. That’s the whole problem here.

But when you return the defective product, Amazon can see what seller it came from.

Only if they only purchased one.

Counterfeit products are still a huge problem on their platform. Great QC.

Are you sure about that? I thought part of the whole incentive for commingled inventory was that Amazon no longer kept track of it separately per vendor and just lumped it all into the same bin without a unique serial number.

Am sure and posted the link elsewhere on this thread

If they wait for complaints, that's not amazon doing the QC, it's the client.

Ah yes, like how if a drug company poisons enough people then the market will make them go out of business. You know, because people died.

> I suspect that would ruin their whole 2-day/1-day shipping bit.

They are no longer offering 1-day shipping. When I signed up for prime, one of the benefits was discounted 1-day shipping on items for which the free 2-day shipping wasn't fast enough. I recently had need of that, and learned that the options are now (1) "prime shipping", with no particular service guarantee. There is no second option. I contacted customer service multiple times asking why I couldn't choose 1-day shipping and was told "because the item is out of stock. There is only one item left in stock, that means the item is out of stock".

I've seen 1-day and even same-day shipping on a variety of items, so I suspect it's determined by some arcane combination of user location and item logistics.

They used to offer guaranteed two-day shipping and a paid upgrade to one-day shipping; now they just have "Prime Shipping" as the parent said, and what "Prime Shipping" means varies from item to item and time to time. It can mean one-day. I don't think I've ever seen same-day shipping, but I'd imagine I just don't live close enough to a fulfillment center.

If the product is a "Philips Boilermaster 3000" kettle then this is true (if we ignore counterfeits).

But not all Amazon products work that way. The "t-shirt with eagle print" could be made by a number of companies with wildly varying quality, all fitting this product description. Similarly there are lots of 10m Cat 7 S/FTP lan cables.

If you buy a generic product with no brand name and no intellectual property, then all you have is the pictures. If they all look the same, they could technically be different quality but there's no reason to expect a certain level of quality without a brand name.

You should expect to get the same product if you buy the same product, though, whatever the quality.

Reviews can still be important. If you have a lot of positive reviews and don't need a brand name, it could be worth the risk to save money. But you don't want to be the first to test out.

Even for non-counterfeit books, Amazon defines "product" too broadly -- reviews for a book tend to combine both the printed and Kindle versions and you'll see people complaining about the formatting of the Kindle version on the page for the printed copy.

That's a fair point, although people should read the reviews and can tell if it's content or formatting.

The alternative of separating Kindle reviews seems wrong. Most reviews are useful to buyers of both formats.

The one thing that really frustrates me is how poorly they curate editions. This is especially bad with translated works. Like - you're on the hardcopy version of a nice, modern translation, then you click over to the e-book version and it's some random bowlderdized public domain version from 150 years ago.

This is a problem with everything being sold on amazon. I read reviews for a stamp (dates for ISO8601) and very few of the reviews are relevant to the product I was looking at. Almost none of them made sense for the product I was viewing, actually.

I was trying to buy a Grimm's Stories book for my kids and it was basically impossible. They had 5 different translations and selections of stories under the same entry.

Perhaps people who write product reviews should get into the habit of starting their review with a description of what they are reviewing, who they ordered it from, and how much they paid for it. That last bit of information is definitely very relevant if you're going to comment in your review on whether the product was good value for money.

Perhaps also put the date in the review itself and state that you do not give permission for the review to be edited.

Unfortunately, I think that some sites don't allow reviews to mention prices.

Even if the T&Cs say you give up all your rights in the review you perhaps still have a right not to be misrepresented so they shouldn't edit your review if the review is still going to be attributed or attributable to you.

We've had a very similar experience. On more than one book our product pages were replaced with images from the counterfeit. In a certain way it was quite funny. Ultimately it was very frustrating

This sounds very much like amazon is actively participating in conspiracy to mail fraud, across state lines. Have you called the FBI?

Haven’t taken over images but have sold into oem equipment on ebike stuff before. It’s pretty cool because you get sales you can’t from an independent listing of the same product.

When I’ve done it, it is legit the same thing and verify it, but I can easily see scale or greed causing people to do the wrong thing with this.

There seems to be a scam where product pages are sold off to host a completely different item. They usually have lots of 5 star reviews and high search rank but the reviews are all talking about something different than what's now being sold.

I thought it was a bug at first but I've seen this too often. I don't understand how Amazon doesn't know this is happening, or why it even lets it happen in the first place. Product pages should be immutable.

What they also do is that they sell a quality product for 1-2 years, get good reviews and then switch to inferior materials.

Luckily the review system can catch this, as long as you look at recent reviews and the seller isn't buying any new reviews.

I find this happening everywhere. Loss leader, great product, next season the product cost the same and is now crap.

Anecdote: in my country they sell Toppits brand cling film, and it used to be great. Now it’s absolutely useless! Doesn’t self adhere at all.

Not familiar with that brand of cling wrap, but they probably reformulated from PVDC to LDPE like Saran did due to toxicity concerns.

I found some old Saran wrap when I moved in to a new place from like the 70s and that stuff was the bomb. Anyway, I ban brands that do this, and I never buy them again. Kingston and PNY, you've lost me forever.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184253-ssd-shadiness-kin...

I seriously doubt many people are catching it otherwise the scam wouldn't be so popular. People probably stop reading after the second or third review and don't check that entire pages are talking about a different product.

I was looking through some old Amazon orders last night. A pair of MPow bluetooth headphones I bought in 2013 now appear as an MPow fitness tracker.

It seems like sellers recycle old listings to keep their reviews.

This is sadly so true.

I have stopped using Amazon after 15 years due to the unacceptably high rate of counterfeit, grey market or used items I got on a daily basis.

It's totally insane. I have even emailed Jeff Bezos and got into the trouble of talking to all middle managers. They don't care.

How could you identify a grey market item? And what/how much were you ordering that this was a daily issue?

At some point I was using Amazon for almost all shopping. Obviously daily is an oxymoron, but it'd happen several times a month.

I can identify grey market items easily. Buy an item in Amazon UK of product X and get version packed to be sold in Italy (with all labels in Italian) or Russian (with all labels in Russian), instead of the UK version. This is because some smart supplier is doing arbitrage.

I've noticed that a significant number of my recent TV/film purchases from Amazon UK looked new on the packaging but had some sort of mark on at least one of the discs, suggesting that something had been handled previously. This seems to be a clear trend over the past 1-2 years that I had never previously encountered. In some cases, it's been obvious enough that I've returned the product, though I also have lingering doubts about whether others with just a small mark might have been me when opening the packet but might have been something else.

I already basically gave up buying anything important and/or fragile from Amazon and now avoid them for almost everything around holiday seasons. Far too many instances a few years ago of things like different sizes of items thrown into a box with obviously inadequate packaging, resulting in damaged electrical items, would-be Christmas presents turning up unfit to give as gifts, and so on. They're pretty good about accepting returns without quibbling much these days, but it's still a huge hassle when things go wrong so often and so avoidably.

It's a shame, because for a while Amazon was a convenient alternative to bricks and mortar stores and carried a wider range of books and TV/film/music than any physical store. I'm glad I supported the better local stores now, and that some of them are still there so I can buy from them instead today.

You might want to look up the definition of 'oxymoron'

I'm thinking "exaggeration" was what he was looking for.

Grey market items may say things like "not for sale in [your country]" on the box. They may contain labeling that's not consistent with the standard labeling for your country. They might not have certain disclosures that your country requires for certain types of products. Certain features may not work. Stuff like that. They aren't always identifiable though.

I went from 90% of my online orders at amazon to maybe 35%. Some things have always sucked, liked clothes.

Thanks to software like Shopify, ordering from other e-commerce sites is pretty painless now. When you factor in finding the product, many sites are now more convenient to order from than Amazon.

It must be becoming more and more common. I ordered some bluetooth headphones a few weeks ago and received a counterfeit product. I was able to return the item, but by the time I had the product page no longer existed and the seller had vanished. It was a "fulfilled by amazon" situation including Prime shipping.

Months back I ordered some Miele vacuum bags and they too were counterfeit.

I had never experienced this until 2019.

My family gets several Amazon packages every week and I don't think we've received a single counterfeit or gray market item. We have had other problems with our orders but Amazon has always fixed the problem very quickly.

Some problems they seem unable to fix. I have a Nespresso machine and a few times now I've ordered a decaff selection and every single time they send me the caffeinated version of whatever I order. I call them and they refund the order. They've probably sent 16 sleeves of coffee for free (worth around $150) and have never sent the product I've actually ordered. It feels a little wrong to take advantage of their incompetence like this, but hey, free coffee!

I always remember ordering small "apple" things and always getting fakes.

I mean apple cables, apple chargers, apple headphones.

This was probably > 5 years ago, I stopped ordering them after that.

I would assume there are other product categories still suffering the same problems.

Can people who know they got a knock-off return the item for a legit copy? Don’t know if the counterfeit volume is high enough to force Amazon to care...

Yes. Amazon cares enough to push for higher criminal penalties for counterfeiters (see https://www.aboutamazon.com/our-company/our-positions)

But they don't care enough to actually stop co-mingling stock, which would nearly eliminate the problem.

It wouldn't help significantly. People would still get counterfeits when buying from bad sellers.

What? That would help enormously. If they stopped commingling it would be easy to quickly identify and eliminate bad sellers. Consumers would also have the option of sticking to a known-good seller like Amazon and be able to trust that they weren’t going to get some comingled bullshit copy.

That’s a pretty damn far cry from the current situation.

Easy for who? Amazon knows which seller sent in the inventory for every order, so they know to punish the right seller when a complaint comes in.

You are correct that customers could themselves choose better sellers, but most customers don't care and prefer cheaper over more reliable. That effect is not enough to help "enormously".

> Amazon knows which seller sent in the inventory for every order, so they know to punish the right seller when a complaint comes in.

Huuuuge citation needed.

It’s precisely because of comingling that they don’t have the ability to do this: they put multiple sellers goods, including their own, in the same storage bins, provided they have the same UPC. By what means do you suggest they can distinguish Seller A’s widget in Bin 37624 from Seller B’s? They do not appear to attach any additional tracking stickers to their goods.

And they do not have a formal system for complaining about counterfeit goods. They don’t even offer it as a distinct option on returns — probably quite purposefully. All you can do is request a return for some vaguely-related reason and manually add a note about it being counterfeit. They’re clearly not attempting to automate identification of bad goods, let alone removal of bad actors.

I link to it every single thread like this, but here goes:

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200141480?...

"For inventory tracked with the manufacturer barcode, each seller’s sourced inventory of the same ASIN is stored separately in our fulfillment centers. We can also track the original seller of each unit."

Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549623, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13952939, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12062856

This is the biggest misconception about Amazon I've seen, and has been for years, at least on HN.

I know they claim that, and it may be their official policy, but it obviously is not working in practice. Either that, or it's become direct fraud in their part.

And it may work to benefit Amazon in finding problematic sellers, and it may scare most legit sellers to never supply fake products.

But it doesn't seem to do anything to actually benefit sellers or buyers, at this point.

For one, I suspect resold returned items to be a major weakness of this policy. Or orders of multiple quantity with different sources, which are picked, boxed, then returned to inventory for whatever reason.

You don't see the counterfactual where Amazon didn't enforce much and counterfeiting was much more prevalent. Without knowing how much counterfeiting would take place without enforcement, you can't say enforcement is useless.

I see the other side: I was suspended after false counterfeit complaints from tp-link, and was forced to sue them in federal court. In my case, Amazon suspended me despite having provided extensive proof of authenticity, simply because the brand didn't want me to legally resell their product and was willing to lie about it.

I agree that returns are a weakness, where counterfeits can enter the supply chain. But returns are a low percentage of sales, and counterfeit returns (fraud) are a low percentage of returns. Seems like a relatively small problem.

Multiple quantity from different sellers shouldn't be combined. If they're in the same warehouse they would just ship from the same seller. I don't know for sure how Amazon handles it but again, doesn't seem like a huge problem.

I agree, we may not know the extent of the problem. But if they are tracking sources as well as they claim to be, the problem wouldn't keep growing like it is. There's a major disconnect somewhere...

And you kinda make my point. The practice is for the benefit of Amazon, not us.

(It still benefits Amazon to sell fakes already within their inventory.)

>Multiple quantity from different sellers shouldn't be combined

Yet it's happening. I don't claim to know all the whys, but I've ordered enough to know that it's happening. And a lot.

Why do you think the problem is growing, and that it has to do with commingling?

Re multiple quantity: have you gotten counterfeit and authentic product in the same box?

It's growing because it's happening in a higher and higher percentage of my orders. Plus based on public knowledge of the issue. 4 or 5 years ago, it took serious searching to find other people talking about it. The last 2 years, it's become fairly well known. And is now common.

Some problematic products, I've ordered a couple dozen times and never gotten a genuine product.

>in the same box?

Yes, multiple times, although probably less than 10. And a couple were supposed single seller items. Didn't matter.

(One case initially got my account flagged and couldn't buy anything else until I sent pictures for proof. One of the only times I've ever had Amazon call me.)

However, the much more common occurrence is variance over separate orders.

Wow, HN is really turning into a hive mind. First time I see someone post this. Thanks for this data point.

With this in place, it seems vendors get to choose if they want commingling or not. Would be nice to provide a checkout option to buyers as well, like choose a slower shipping but guarantee your getting the item from the vendor. Or even if it asked you... getting item from alternate vendor will ship faster? Is that okay? And mentioned the alternate vendor.

Except go read the seller's forums. Sellers who (claim to) opt out are constantly complaining that their product still gets mixed in. Even sellers who do their own asin / personal barcodes have problems with it.

Amazon is either ignoring the preference when it suits them, or has significant flaws in how they're implementing the policy.

Either way, they're destroying their brand reputation.

This is true, except it doesn't help the problem at hand. The problem at hand being that people are still receiving counterfeit products in the meantime.

Knowing how Seller Performance works, they aren't about to close off a listing that is doing $nn-K revenue per month because of a couple of copyright reports. The economics simply don't make sense for Amazon to poison the inventory of a seller because of a couple of reports, to fix this problem Amazon truly needs to figure out a way to verify the validity of inventory sent in to their warehouses.

That's a question that I don't have an answer to, but I do hope that someone from Amazon is really working on it. Inventory commingling and a myriad of other issues present in the processes of selling on Amazon are the reason that I decided to not pursue FBA further.

Yes, but that's a problem with or without commingling. My point was that commingling doesn't contribute significantly to the counterfeit problem.

Regarding your points:

1. Amazon takes action when a brand complains, even with only a single complaint. Sellers have to prove the complaint is wrong to be allowed to continue to sell the product, or in some cases to be reinstated. Usually this is done by providing an invoice which Amazon verifies.

2. The enforcement is usually at the seller level, not the listing level.

>1. Amazon takes action when a brand complains, even with only a single complaint.

The owner of No Starch Press shows up at a lot of CS shows and other shows. Next time you are at one, seek him out for a chat. Tell him Anazon takes action after a single complaint. Be prepared for him to disabuse you of your misconceptions.

Source: I heard his story first-hand at PyCon.

I'd be fascinated to know why he didn't sue Amazon, if they're refusing to process DMCA takedowns. My experience is that if anything, it's too easy to file a case and brands abuse this to get rid of grey market sellers that are selling authentic products.

No one wants to sue their major unless they're pushed to the wall.

I've sued Amazon (privately in arbitration) and I have friends who've sued them in court. Nothing wrong with suing to prevent infringement. It'll just get them to fix the problem, and you'll get nice money out of it if it's as clear cut as you say.

I very much doubt Amazon is rejecting DMCA notices, and suspect the story is more complicated than that. I've heard from many sellers that it's easy to file complaints, and I know many sellers who have gotten false complaints, which is also what you'd expect if it's super easy to file complaints.

It it has taken us months to get Amazon to respond to a counterfeit claim. I hope that they will respond quickly to this one.

How are you submitting your claim? You can do both counterfeit and DMCA reports, but DMCA reports have a deadline of two weeks where it must be processed and delisted by then. I've never heard of anyone having a legitimate DMCA report rejected by Amazon.

It's not a misconception - they claim to track inventory source, but I don't believe it for a second. There are warnings all over seller blogs and forums not to commingle inventory because you'll be held responsible if Amazon sends another seller's counterfeit product to a buyer on your behalf. People have experienced this en mass - including myself, I was dinged for selling a "generic" item instead of the name brand item while I actually sent in the correct name brand item. It was a Ninja blender. It seems to happen to every seller who commingles eventually.

On top of that I once sent in a box of items that was checked in twice several weeks apart. Amazon sold double the inventory I sent them on my behalf and paid me for the sales of products I never sent them. Stories of phantom inventory are common. It can get crazy - someone [1] sent in a shipment of four items and 72 were added to their inventory, which Amazon happily sold for them after checking with the fulfillment center and insisting that the inventory was correct. This sort of thing shouldn't happen if you're actually tracking inventory. Also, their system shouldn't allow a shipment to be checked in twice.

[1] http://www.orensmoneysaver.com/2016/06/turnover-tuesdays-ama...

There's lots of warnings about that, and virtually no one actually experiencing it.

Generic complaints typically come from customer complaints. Customers complain even when the product is authentic. There's nothing in your story to suggest commingling is the issue.

Phantom inventory is an issue, usually arising when someone else's units were checked into your inventory. There's always a record of that, and you should report the discrepancy to Amazon.

>virtually no one actually experiencing it

By "virtually no one" you mean "virtually everyone." Because what I described is very common. I've experienced it and I sell very little on Amazon - less than 100 sales a year. Less than 50 items a year in the past several years.

>you should report the discrepancy to Amazon.

How about you actually pay attention to people's experiences before discounting them? The author of the blog post I linked to literally reported the issue to Amazon and Amazon insisted the massive amount of inventory was theirs. It would be easy to see that it wasn't merely by looking at the weight of what was shipped (among other very obvious things...). Since they can't get their heads out of their ass enough to do that (or simply not check in the same shipment twice and double count that inventory), I'm not believing they have much inventory source tracking going on.

Amazon may think they are doing a great job tracking inventory but the facts say otherwise.

What exactly have you experienced that makes you so confident that Amazon is lying about tracking the original source of manufacturer barcode products?

I've sold millions on Amazon and am friends with many sellers who've collectively sold at least hundreds of millions. I've heard many people with issues with inauthentic complaints. I've never heard of one that can be traced back to commingling.

I've dealt with phantom inventory many times. The correct thing to do is report it. It doesn't always get fixed. The fact that they occasionally have stranded inventory and assign it to a seller doesn't mean they don't generally track transfers of manufacturer barcode inventory, like they say they do. They never claim inventory receiving is perfect. They do claim they track the original source of sales, and there's no reason to think it's not true.

Okay, so lets assume that you're correct, and they track the original source of sales. How? I have never once received a mass-produced media item (like a book or DVD) with any additional sticker, label, or other indicating device. Without that label, when a packer scans an item just before they place it in a shipping box for the customer, how do they know which seller's inventory to decrement?

Alternately, how does the picker know which item on the shelf to select to ensure they have selected the right seller's unit? Look at how amazon stores books in their warehouses:

https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+warehouse+books&sourc...

Without a label on the book, how do they know which copy to pull from the shelf and put in the box?

I know Amazon says they track inventory, but prime shipped and sold-by-amazon.com boardgames arrive as counterfeits pretty regularly in the board game industry. You can find plenty of reports, with detailed pictures and manufacturer confirmation on BGG. There has to be something going on here, even if it may be more complicated than Amazon is commingling counterfeit and genuine articles.

>Without that label, when a packer scans an item just before they place it in a shipping box for the customer, how do they know which seller's inventory to decrement?

It's very simple: they're stored in different locations. If seller A is on shelf B, and seller C is on shelf D, then even though the individual items are identical, if you pick up a unit on shelf D you know it's from seller B.

They don't store identical products from different sellers next to each other.

I agree there's a counterfeit issue. Amazon agrees there's an issue, and actually has it as a risk factor in their financial reports. But commingling isn't a significant contributor to it.

That could work, but it's fairly brittle. If an item comes out of its location, you have no idea which seller it comes from. If an item is pulled incorrectly, and then set on the return-to-stock pile, you have no idea where to put it. Perhaps that is the issue; there are two copies, the counterfeit one gets pulled incorrectly, then when put back, they put it in the amazon.com location.

>If an item comes out of its location, you have no idea which seller it comes from.

You can check if the location it was supposed to be in is empty. From my understanding, the main issues happen during receiving; if it's received to the wrong shipment it'll be incorrectly marked in the system and unlikely to be fixed. Once it's received to the correct system everything else is fairly robust.

>If an item is pulled incorrectly, and then set on the return-to-stock pile, you have no idea where to put it.

If it's pulled, then there'd be a record of where it was pulled from, and that place would be empty.

Amazon should known which seller sent in the inventory. That they intentionally choose not to know that, is their own intentional mistake, and their abdication of responsibility that really should be theirs. They intentionally create a confusing situation that enables counterfeiters. They are absolutely, totally responsible for this mess and should have hurried to fix this a long time ago. That they haven't, means they knowingly enable and profit from counterfeiting.

As above, they know which seller sent it in and at no point did they "choose not to know". Your entire comment is based on a false premise.

> ...so they know to punish the right seller when a complaint comes in.

Since (according to others in this thread) the Amazon "Reason for return" menu does not provide the option "Item is counterfeit", it does not sound like Amazon is very interested in receiving these sorts of complaints. So I have to wonder how interested Amazon is in punishing the sellers of counterfeit items. If you close your ears to bad news, you won't hear any.

> You are correct that customers could themselves choose better sellers...

That's right. For items where genuineness really matters, I choose the seller "Sold by Walmart" at walmart.com. There are no reliable sellers at amazon.com, not even "Sold by Amazon". Which is a shame.

P.S. Reply to msbarnett, since I can't reply directly: Amazon does not literally put all identical items into a single physical bin, so it is at least feasible for them to keep track of which item came from which seller, if they choose to. I recommend that you (and other readers) take a tour of an Amazon fulfillment center: https://www.aboutamazon.com/amazon-fulfillment-center-tours/ It's pretty interesting.

It has "not as described" as an option. You can put in text explaining what wasn't as described: if it has keywords like "counterfeit" or similar, it will go into that seller's CCR (counterfeit complaint rate), and sellers with a bad CCR get suspended.

Good to know. Thanks.

The exact thresholds aren't known, but they're pretty low: https://www.awesomedynamic.com/amazon-prime-wardrobe/ mentions thresholds of 30 PPM (and 500 PPM for just Materially Different Complaint Rate) to get into some seller program. Presumably the threshold rate for suspension is an order of magnitude or so higher than that. 500 PPM would be one complaint every 2,000 orders.

A facetious/serious question: If "Sold by Amazon" had too high a rate of reported counterfeits, could it be kicked off the Amazon platform?

But seriously, my point is that "Sold by Amazon" should have a counterfeit rate of near zero. I'm willing to help QC third-party sellers. But "Sold by Amazon" should do its own QC. Just as "Sold by Walmart" does (for now).

Sold by Amazon probably does have a very low rate. They're many times bigger than any third party seller, so the absolute number of counterfeits is probably higher.

From the tweets by the authors, the current situation is the bad seller is amazon.com. This is apparently not a commingling problem. Amazon is sourcing illegal counterfeit products directly.

Link to the tweet that claims Amazon are themselves buying counterfeits from suppliers? Are you sure you’re not misunderstanding the situation re: comingling?

It’s precisely because of commingling that, just because you buy a book “Shipped From and Sold By Amazon” you have no guarantee that the book they ship to you was actually bought and entered into their inventory by them. Their books and every other “fulfilled by Amazon” sellers’ are treated as completely fungible by their fulfilment centres.

“Ships From and Sold by Amazon” doesn’t really mean anything re: the actual book you receive, which could easily be one that came into their system from Bob’s Big Store of Counterfeit Bullshit.

These books are counterfeits. Counterfeiting is illegal and intent doesn't matter.

This is not a matter of some other seller providing Amazon with inventory. These are coming direct from a printer to Amazon and being sold in place of the legitimate inventory.

There is no third party to go after here. There's only one seller in this case. That is Amazon.

>The se are coming direct from a printer to Amazon and being sold in place of the legitimate inventory. There is no third party to go after here. There's only one seller in this case. That is Amazon.

No, it's not.

Even if it says "Shipped and sold by Amazon", it does not mean that the item originated from Amazon's purchase. Amazon considers co-mingled inventory as fungible.

Let's say Amazon has 10 warehouses, and every month, they order 100 copies of a book, and put 10 in each warehouse. Now, a third party seller comes onto the scene, and wants to sell the same book, fulfilled by Amazon, with co-mingling to reduce costs. To further reduce costs, he also only wants to send his inventory to the closest warehouse so shipping is cheaper. Let's say he has 100 copies of this book, and he sends them to warehouse 10. Amazon, seeing that there are 100 additional copies of this book in this warehouse, and knowing that demand is likely to stay relatively the same, knows that for the next 10 months, they do not have ship those 10 books a month to it. Now, Amazon has run through the stock they stored at warehouse 10, but they have an order from someone who lives down the street. They don't have any copies of the book that they purchased, but they have the co-mingled copy that should, in theory, be an exact copy of the original product. They then send it to the customer so that they have a shorter delivery time. If they were to ship all of the copies of the book that were sent to them by that seller, and had not replenished, when a customer ordered from that seller they could ship a copy from warehouse 3, but it would take an extra day to arrive. Or, someone who lives next door to warehouse 1 could order from the third party seller, but still get same day delivery because Amazon has a copy of the book there, even though it is their copy and not the seller.

This is what co-mingled inventory means. That all inventory is fungible, and it doesn't matter physically who sourced the item, as long as it is properly accounted for on the ledgers. That is fundamentally the point - you save significant costs and introduce real benefits to customers when you can ignore where the item was sourced from. The problems arise when not all of the sources for the items are good actors.

Looking at the No Starch Press Serious Python book, there are 41 sellers. I don't know how many co-mingle inventory or are FBA, but that means that any book sold that from any seller that co-mingles inventory (and items sold by Amazon directly are) can be fulfilled by items physically sourced from any other seller that also co-mingles inventory.

Thank you for your comment but with all due respect I'm afraid that this is a unique case.

These are counterfeit copies. They're not coming from legitimate suppliers. Frankly we don't care who resells our books as long as they're selling legitimate copies. These are not.

I've been dealing with this issue with Amazon since 2017. It's not that what you're describing doesn't happen but if this is like previous cases this is something different.

In this and other recent cases as has been shared online, Amazon replaced our legitimate inventory entirely with counterfeit copies that it was sourcing directly from a printer that it works with for print-on-demand. That printer supplies Createspace. We receive absolutely no revenue from the sale of these copies because we're not the ones printing them. They're produced from stolen files.

Once again, Amazon is stealing from authors and leaving it to vendors like us to police them. Why should we have to police Amazon?

In this case the copies that I received appear to be from that same printer. They look just like the other counterfeits that we've seen over the years.

As with other instances we receive NO revenue from these sales and as a consequence neither do our authors.

In this case and in previous cases Amazon stopped ordering directly from authorized resellers. They fulfilled orders only with counterfeit books.

This is not the case of commingling as you describe. This has nothing to do with FBA or other resellers. This is Amazon's supply chain sourcing counterfeit copies directly from a printer that they work with and selling them in place of our legitimate inventory.

Could one if your authors file a copyright claim against them? I assume you don’t want to yourself for strategic reasons, but you could help as third party do so. Or would the expense far outweigh the benefit?

Love your books. FWIW, I almost entirely stopped buying from Amazon 2 years ago in part because of issues like this. Canceling prime was scary and then liberating.

Can you please explain what evidence you have that this is no co-mingling? You have a ton of people selling copies of your books - how do you know that the counterfeit copies you are receiving come from the Amazon supply chain and are not co-mingled inventory?

Putting aside the strong allegations made by No Starch Press for a moment.

This is such a bullshit rationalisation.

If the product is treated as fungible, and it doesn't matter physically who sourced the item then of course Amazon is responsible for selling / fulfilling the counterfeit product because, as you say, it doesn’t matter physically who sourced the product.

Amazon is aware of this issue, but fixing it breaks their enabling-crime business-model.

I'm explaining how it works in theory, not rationalizing the current situation as okay.

I do think it's unfair to say Amazon isn't attempting to fight this - someone linked a website in here that shows them as employing thousands of people and spending hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting it. It just seems like they're not currently winning the arms race.

It's easy to identify the bad seller right now. It's Amazon.

That's not caring, it's redirecting blame.

If they were pushing for greater criminal penalties for distributing counterfeit goods, as a crime of negligence or strict liability, then I'd think they cared.

Or, if they just took tangible action to stop distributing counterfeits themselves, that would be even more convincing.

Most of the time I've only been offered a refund for a counterfeit complaint.

I suspect they're aware enough of the problem to know who's likely to get a 2nd counterfeit shipped after receiving a 1st, and realized it's cheaper for them to abandon the sale than continue to possibly send counterfeits to a customer who's now more likely to notice.

You can return the book, but (having been through this myself) tellingly when you select a reason for the return they do not give you an option for “Counterfeit Good”.

You have to pick a vaguely related reason like “Item Not As Described” and then you can optionally leave a comment noting that it is counterfeit. There is no indication that anyone ever looks at that comment, or takes any action about it.

> Can people who know they got a knock-off return the item for a legit copy?

I have with a camera lens, but Amazon didn't honor the original price. I had to pay the difference for the 'real' version. In my case though, it was not a knock off or grey market, but the seller was selling the cheap version of the same lens as the more expensive version.

That was my last time buying anything camera related on Amazon since it was impossible to ever get the right thing on the first try. I only use Adorama or B&H now.

This is why, IMHO, Walmart will eventually win this aspect of the online shopping war.

Supply chain control.

Amazon may continue to dominate AWS and even the 3rd party marketplace, but they've already ruined their brand reputation as a supplier.

Edit: Sold and shipped 3rd party marketplace may survive.

Unfortunately, Walmart has integrated a 3rd party marketplace onto their site too; so who knows when they will start fulfilled by Walmart and comingling. There's also persistent stories of Walmart demanding lower priced items and being ok with the lower quality, not always with different UPCs.

> so who knows when they will start fulfilled by Walmart and comingling.

Fulfillment is just fine (indeed - beneficial to small businesses) as long as there is no inventory co-mingling.

The funny thing about Walmart 3rd party, is it always seems to be drop shipped by a competitor, and comes in a clearly branded box. I've gotten boxes from Newegg, Target, Wayfair, and even Sam's Club.

Still a better option than Amazon (for now, at least).

Arbitrage at its finest!

I opened a Wal-Mart account for a product that was "reserved for Prime" and I couldn't buy from Amazon. It came from the same third party supplier.

Sam's Club is Walmart, though.

I can buy Sam's Club brands and/or sizes first party through Walmart.com, and I could do so before the Jet.com-ification of the Walmart website... it just wasn't well known until recently.

I know... that's part of what makes it so interesting.

There are still 3rd party sellers somehow selling Walmarts own product cheaper via Sam's Club. Or sometimes for products that aren't available on both public facing sites. (Sam's and Walmart)

Which is probably why Walmart made the effort to better integrate the brands.

This is the legacy Wal-Mart took over by acquiring Jet.com in 2016. They were a brand new site with millions of products in their catalog, yet didn't actually stock a huge portion of them. When I bought a wifi router from Jet, they simply ordered it for me from the Newegg website, and paid Newegg more than I paid Jet. It arrived in the Newegg box with the Newegg invoice.

> paid Newegg more than I paid Jet.

Gotta love startup funding.

Walmart has ... issues ... with their supply chain for their physical stores. Part of the problem is that they're big enough to enable Walmart-specific versions of products.

As someone who hates this practice, including store-brand labels (ie Sam's Choice)...

At this point I'll happily take the Walmart-specific version over the risk of an Amazon supplied product.

As someone who buys 90% Kroger-brand stuff I'm wondering what you have against store-brands?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm with you that co-branded products like "Only at Target" KitchenAid are pretty much trash but store-brand stuff doesn't really seem that different to me than any other brand on the shelf. Kroger brand pretzels are dope, their Oreo clone is garbage, c'est la vie.

I think you kinda answered it yourself. For an unknown product, the store brand is a crapshoot.

The store has an incentive to stock it's own brand product beyond what the incentive for competitors is. Ie, they are going to carry a competitor either because it's a good product that sells, or the competitor has paid for shelf space (and is betting it's own money that it's product is good).

Neither of these necessarily applies to a store brand. So even if it's between store brand and unknown 3rd party competitor, I'll go 3rd party first.

That said, there are some store brand products that, having tested, I enjoy. It's just usually not worth the 25¢ to me for the gamble.

Hmmm, interesting. My philosophy has pretty much always been to work my way up on price until it's acceptable. If store brand cookies turn out bad then I've only been hurt once and go back to the brand name -- but if I find a gem it means I'm saving money for a long while.

It's not like shopping at Wal-Mart isn't without its own kinds of bait and switch practices.

There was a time when I went to Wal-Mart to buy a new package of cheap cotton ankle socks every month or so, incrementally replenishing my cache, over the period of about a year.

The exact same brand, make, and size of socks, what were ostensibly identical, would vary in their constituent materials at what seemed to be random. One month they'd be ~80% cotton. The next month ~80% polyester. For what appeared to be the same damn product.

I don't know if this is something the big brands do in cooperation with Wal-Mart, or if it's entirely out of Wal-Mart's control and something Hanes/FTL has started doing independently. But next time you see packages for socks, check out the contents. In Wal-Mart the contents are printed on an adhesive-backed sticker. They use a sticker because it gets switched all the time, presumably to whatever was the cheapest recipe/supplier at the time. There's basically no persistence to what the SKU actually represents.

The Wal-Mart advantage, in my opinion, is that I have the opportunity to actually scrutinize the instance I will take home of the thing I'm purchasing, before doing so.

With Amazon I can't possibly know if they'll send me the 80% cotton or 80% polyester variant of the same SKU.

I've noticed similar practices with canned fish. Depending on what day of the week it is, the same canned fish e.g. beachcliff sardines in water, will have salt or won't have salt in the ingredients list. It seems to correlate with the country of origin. Same SKU, different ingredients. You have to look really closely at the package to notice it, but you definitely notice it when eating the stuff.

Yes, they certainly have their own supply chain issues, but at least they still tightly control it.

Even if product quality might vary (or even different items under the same upc), the product is never (ime) misrepresented, and I've never had any concern about getting a counterfeit.

Expecting 100% consistency.... Thats probably going to be a disappointment.

There's quite a good book I read a while ago about store-brand supply chains called Where the Underpants Come From [1]. It's a travelogue where the author travels through Asia tracing the entire logistical chain for a pair of underpants. It's a fun read and covers a lot of this stuff.

> There's basically no persistence to what the SKU actually represents.

I disagree. The SKU represents generic ankle socks. They're a commodity.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3322867-where-underpants...

What newnewpdro describes is definitely not a commoditized product. Real commodities have exacting standards. E.g., US grain standards: https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/fgis/usstandards.aspx

Or the standards on commodity exchanges, like Kansas City Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures, which come in 5,000 bushel lots and require a deliverable grade of "No. 2 at contract price with a maximum of 10 IDK per 100 grams; No. 1 at a 1 1/2-cent premium. Deliverable grades of HRW shall contain a minimum 11% protein level. However, protein levels of less than 11%, but equal to or greater than 10.5% are deliverable at a ten cent (10¢) discount to contract price. Protein levels of less than 10.5% are not deliverable." -- from https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/files/fact-car...

Real-world commodities have exacting standards precisely to prevent this kind of nonsense.

That’s why its a discount chain.

If you want consistency in terms of quality, go upmarket. Even a JC Penney or Kohl’s will be more consistent for the socks.

Surprised nobody has mentioned Target here. It’s not quite as broad as Amazon or Walmart, but for what they carry I’m under the impression their inventory control is superior to the other two. It’s not a marketplace, and AFAIK they don’t drop-ship or commingle inventory.

Unfortunately this case may be a bit different. When you order this book by pressing just the Buy button, as in shipped and sold by Amazon, you get the counterfeit.

I know because I ordered two copies last week. Both came and both were counterfeit.

> When you order this book by pressing just the Buy button, as in shipped and sold by Amazon, you get the counterfeit.

i think most items that are "sold and shipped by amazon" are commingled as well.

I think you're thinking Amazon separates its own SKUs from third party SKUs. That's not the case, it's all comingled.

The only way to be somewhat sure, is to find a 3rd party seller who doesn't use Fulfilled by Amazon.

Amazon has managed to completely invert the original hierarchy of seller trust.

Do we know that Amazon doesn't comingle their "sold by amazon" stock with FBA third-party sellers? I can't see anywhere that they say they don't on some research, and it would seem to be an obvious thing to do.

I found this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/13/how-to-p...

Which says they do commingle their "sold by Amazon" stock with their FBA stock. I'm actually pretty surprised, I had no idea this was the case.

Yep. They commingle because they use the UPC code as the identifying barcode for the item. If any party wants to avoid commingling, they either need to manufacture with a different barcode, or cover over the barcode with a different, vendor specific one.

Why is it different? That sounds like it could be exactly what mariomariomario described.

No this is classic inventory commingling, for brevity let's say that Amazon has 100 fulfillment centers (FCs). When you ship in 10,000 units, Amazon will then take those 10,000 units and spread them to the FCs closest to the top of the bell curve of the normal distribution of your orders. And the same goes for any third party sending inventory to be sold on your listing. When you use a "manufacturers barcode" ie. UPC / ISBN as the only identifier on the product, that's the only way Amazon can identify what it is unless you use an Amazon barcode.

If people didn't sell counterfeit products, we would enjoy the amazing logistics network that Amazon has built.

My recommendation is that you become Brand Registered on Amazon, you get a hell of a lot more weight to throw around on your listing, ie. kicking off sellers who are not authorized to sell your products. Go look at any Anker product, you will see that "AnkerDirect" is the only seller on any of their listings because they are Brand Registered.

You could also go the Seller Fulfilled Prime route for full quality control, which allows you to keep access to the Amazon marketplace but you are responsible for logistics end of the bill which is a tall order but there are 3PLs that can help with that sort of ask.

Certainly makes for a convenient excuse for Amazon.

I don't see how it's an excuse. I don't care how they handle their processes internally. If they sell me counterfeit items I will report them to the police.

It might be the result of a clever trick by Amazon, but it makes Amazon directly responsible for selling fakes. Even without this, Amazon should be taking more responsibility to fight counterfeit products, but with this, they're making themselves directly responsible, and I don't see how they're not criminally liable now.

Instead of hoping for Amazon to make this slightly less bad, I think legal action is called for at this point.

> I don't see how they're not criminally liable now.

Amazon's protection against state action has always been that it offers a good enough return experience that people will turn to it rather than public authorities with problems. It's not a legal shield so much as a practical one, though.

What is a "good enough" return experience? When I've tried to use it, I have to pay money and my own time to organise and ship things back to them. I only get that money back if they decide I was right to return the item. I can only return the item in a very short window after it is purchased.

People seem to talk about amazon as if it has some unprecedented customer service and that is why it's so successful. But this is the bare minimum for pretty much any shop. Is it different in America?

> What is a "good enough" return experience? When I've tried to use it, I have to pay money and my own time to organise and ship things back to them. I only get that money back if they decide I was right to return the item. I can only return the item in a very short window after it is purchased.

I feel like you didn't returns something with Amazon, but a third party seller instead.

Amazon will ship you the replacement as soon as you confirm and give you a return shipping label to print and stick on the package, which you can bring to your local post office. The process is quite painless.

> I can only return the item in a very short window after it is purchased.

Their return windows is 30 days for most stuff, which is good enough.

In most civilized countries shipping counterfeit items knowingly is Illegal as F. Return policy ranges from useless to encouraging to break the law.

Indeed - and there have been cases of dangerous goods being shipped, e.g. counterfeit chargers.

I've stopped buying things from Amazon and instead gone back to using bricks and mortar stores with online presences and do click and collect, there's just too much crap to sift through these days.

I've found that (at least when it comes to lower-end electronics) even brick and mortars appear to have supply chain problems that allow counterfeit items into stores en masse. In the USA, I've encountered things like counterfeit Microsoft mice at Microcenter, and counterfeit Audio Technica earbuds at Fry's Electronics (both confirmed as fakes by the manufacturer). I'm starting to suspect there are other cases of this that I simply haven't noticed.

I wonder if this differs at all between the EU and the US?

I have been a frequent Amazon customer since 2000 and no longer order anything expensive or safety related (including things like USB chargers or any baby related furniture) from Amazon. I just no longer trust them at all to not be shipping counterfeit or unsafe goods. I've even started going to Best Buy to purchase certain peripherals that I needed on short notice because of this. Besides, at the rate my wife has bought stuff and then sent it back - paying the return shipping fee - we would come out ahead shopping local anyway for her cloths and things.

Yup, agreed 100%.

I recently purchased 2 Lenovo 65w USB-C chargers. One came shrink-wrapped in a legitimate Lenovo box. The other was in a plain cardboard box with a prominent "Made in China" as its only branding. These were sold from the very same product page.

When I told Amazon, I had to go to UPS to return the fake product to them to receive my refund, so not only do I have to purchase it again (obviously not from Amazon), I have to go to a store to send it back to them -- defeating the whole purpose of ordering it online to begin with.

I've received fake books and other things before as well. Each time I reported it to Amazon, and each time nothing happens.

This is completely unacceptable, and I just now cancelled my Prime membership, which I had since pretty much day one.

For whatever reason, the counterfeiters have no problem lying about anything, except the "Made in China" label.

I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but it's been the only consistent red-flag I've encountered.

I'd imagine customs can identify "that came on a boat from China but says 'made in USA'" more easily than "the internal electronics in that charger aren't up to snuff".

I'm sure. It's just become so normal to doubt every aspect of a product, that it's strange to have some element of consistency.

Of course the label of origin still isn't likely to match what was on the product page. But that's almost a plus in helping to ID fakes.

Because when you import stuff to the U.S. it has to have the country of origin clearly marked somewhere. That's why it says Made in China.

Generally, it's because the manufacturer is honest and not interested in scamming people, but the middlemen are.

Are chargers made anywhere else? Even with official chargers (i.e. that came with the new laptop/phone) I don't think I've ever seen a charger that wasn't "Made in China".

For a while at least, all the Samsung fast chargers sold in the US were made in Vietnam. If you got one from China, it was fake. Or a slow charger.

So was it a fake or just not retail packaging? Lenovo always sends me parts in plain cardboard boxes.

It was fake. The USB-C connector didn't even sit flush with the port and wiggled around.

Daimler AG’s lawsuit, filed in 2017, over allegedly counterfeit Mercedes-Benz wheel caps that were, similarly, sold by Amazon.com and not a third party, is apparently still pending:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6173730/daimler-ag-v-am...

The complaint:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/EY4BP4Y/Daimler_AG_v_Amazo...

They just settled two weeks ago. See the last document filed.

There's no information on a settlement, only that both parties agree to drop the lawsuit.

A case being mutually dismissed with prejudice means a settlement happened. If it's dismissed without prejudice it could be either way.

As an aside, why does nearly every Twitter link take you to a page not found thus requiring a reload? This is a terrible user experience that should be easy to fix.

"We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter?"

> Clicks button

> Nothing happens

> Right Click Inspect Element

> Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete

Revenue US$3.04 billion Operating income US$453 million Net income Increase US$1.2 billion Total assets US$10.16 billion Total equity US$6.8 billion

> Hmm...

$ to support non-JS users > $ revenue from non-JS users

$ lost serving non-JS users < $ lost getting an engineer to spend his time implementing dark patterns targeting non-JS users

It's spiteful.

That is simply not true in this case. All I need to get twitter readable with no-script is this ublock origin rule:

    ! 7/24/2019 https://twitter.com
    twitter.com##form.NoScriptForm

The data (tweets) are there already, they just intentionally hide it.

Could you please explain how you add that (those?) rules to uBlock Origin?

I use UBO to block js across the web by default and would like to include twitter but their "no-js" site is garbage.

left click > options > filters

Like Amazon is intentionally enabling counterfeiting, Twitter's website is now intentionally broken. Somehow Twitter forgot how to build a functional website.

I've wondered the same thing. It seems to only happen on mobile browsers, and on both iOS and Android. I wonder if people who are logged in are subject to the same?

It seems to happen at least much less often when logged in.

But yes, it is by far the jankiest thing I've ever seen in a supposedly serious tech company. No idea what failure has allowed that to happen for so long, it seems to be a permanent feature at this point.

Holy moly. I thought it was a thing with my phone and not a wider problem...

This has been going on for years. Twitter is just really bad at this software thing

This has been going on for so long they simply must not give a shit.

I’ve specifically noticed it when using the embedded browsers in apps. If I “open in safari”, it will load.

Oh, when I open Twitter in Firefox on Android tweets fail to load in 95% of the cases, however the Twitter site itself loads fine enough to show me a Retry button I can press to fail at loading the tweet again. All the while accessing via 'app' and even embedded tweets on 3rd-party sites load fine. Can't recall when this started; must have been some time in 2018.

On the desktop (in Firefox also, same addons and addon config too) things always work (as far as that can be said for a site as horribly slow as theirs).

They have been completely below the bar in terms of UX for a long time now, at least for me. They used to have a lean, good/available and fast site, and now they don't.

I'd assumed it was on purpose to push you toward the app. I don't see it as much on desktop.

On Reddit, I almost always downvote the "broken" link, just to make Twitter marginally less visible.

At this point, the platform is so full of horrible UX and dark patterns that I want it to die.

I always thought this was some sort of rate limiting that twitter applies to visits from aggregators like reddit or hn. I'm not sure how I originally made that assumption, though.

They implemented a mitigation for an issue that had this as a side effect. See https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/insights/2... and the last time this came up at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20123942

Terrible engineering on their part.

thanks for this. when they released their new twitter version, i started getting all these pages where it would error out and none of the reload buttons would work. couldn't search the cause for this very well. i can't believe the resolution to this is to force users to reload yet again to load the site... ugh.

Whenever I get that error on my iPhone, I can just press the browsers reload button, and it works. (The reload button displayed on the page does not work)

lmao and I thought it was just the apps I was using, glad to know it is Twitter

It's worse than that...they provide a reload button even that does absolutely nothing, requiring you to manually reload the page. With all the money they've spent on engineering, it's mystifying why their system is such a dumpster fire.

Firefox on iOS simply won’t show me Twitter any more, even in private mode. Always says “something went wrong,” no matter how many times I reload. Oh well, didn’t need it anyway.

I think it has something to do with their cookie requirements. Not too sure, I just stopped opening Twitter links rather than debugging why I couldn't load their contents anymore.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07B452QQS/

Check this product out. It's made in a chinese guy's garage in northern california using equipment he imported in 2014.

It doesn't have legitimate GMP or FDA licensing.

This is the kind of problem we are talking about.

And the issue is worse than it appears, just as toast0 mentioned, because the same exact product with same product page and AMAZON barcode, NO UPC, is also in the online walmart marketplace now! Amazon so controls the market that the other companies just do whatever amazon does. This is a literal antitrust situation we are in- sherman act violations.

There are international food products on amazon marked "made for/picked exclusively for amazon". That's a violation of the FTC act. We are in a situation where our government is failing to regulate.

I wonder if we could catch counterfeits by checking a code against some sort of ledger on the manufacturer's end, and do this at scale.

Amazon has a voluntary program called project zero where a manufacturer can serialize every unit they send in. I'm not sure how widely it's used. For a lot of A-list brands it's almost certainly better if consumers lose faith in Amazon (and buy directly from their sites instead).

Some brands, like FiiO (high end audio gear made by a Chinese company), have a web portal for checking authenticity of UUID "serial" codes

Many pharmaceutical manufacturers offer the same sort of online verification portal, especially for products sold outside the USA.

I'm curious, how do you know details about the operations of the seller for the listing? I couldn't find anything with a cursory Google search.

I do a lot of "forensics" style spidering through different information sources, databases, port manifests, registered businesses, etc.

I have long since submitted the evidence involved to the FTC and FCC. They have failed to act on the information. I have stalked down the people who run listings on amazon and contacted them to verify their product is legitimate.

I could not do so with this product, and I assure you, even precursory digging will fully inform you. There is no return policy, the phone number on the product goes to a dead answering system, etc.

https://belivestore.com/pages/about >fda registered facility Contacting FDA indicated they had no knowledge of this. >GMP facility GMP authority I contacted had no knowledge. >search TESS for trademark muliple trademarks found to address in california >search opencorporates for "belive llc"

(California (US), 22 Sep 2017- , 21800 OXNARD ST STE 250 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367) United States flag inactive BELIVE LLC (California (US), 13 Mar 2017- , 4846 SCENIC AVE LIVERMORE CA 94551) Trademarks: MOON BURN FUSION BURN<another product from belive United States flag branch BELIVE LLC (California (US), 23 Apr 2018- , 30 N GOULD ST STE R SHERIDAN WY 82801)

Word Mark MOON BURN Goods and Services IC 005. US 006 018 044 046 051 052. G & S: Dietary supplements. FIRST USE: 20170101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20170101 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 87591965 Filing Date August 31, 2017 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition January 16, 2018 Registration Number 5437416 Registration Date April 3, 2018 Owner (REGISTRANT) BeLive LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 4846 Scenic Ave Livermore CALIFORNIA 94551< some lady's house Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=04...

business owner is weizhen li, goes by john li on facebook. I cant link his social media as i believe that would be a breach of privacy.

I had turned to Target for online shopping, and recommended it to others, but now they’re opening their site to third-party sellers too. They’re claiming they’ll be more selective about who they allow on their platform, but it’s still a worrying development.

>It's made in a chinese guy's garage in northern california using equipment he imported in 2014.

There's nothing on that link that indicates this. So either you're making it up or back up your statement.

It's probably their listing, Amazon factors in product views in the search ranking and if you suddenly start getting a bunch of people clicking...

Amazon is a TRILLION dollar company with 230 billion in Revenue and over 10 billion in Profits. Bezos himself is worth over 100 billion dollars. Amazon is a technology leader.

I normally am not a "wealth-hater" or whatever you want to call it, but Amazon (and Bezos personally) are on a whole different level. This is NOT a cash-strapped mom-and-pop struggling to understand a complex marketplace. This is a company so large it created and controls the marketplace. Depending on the day, this could be the most valuable company in the world and Bezos is the richest person on the planet. There are few, if any, companies with more skills, knowledge and resources.

The magnitude of the existing wealth in comparison to the relative pittance it would cost to put a stop to this it what makes it so shameful.

Yeah. TBH I just want them to do business properly, you know, just give us regular quality books. I don't think I'm asking for a lot.

My local Chapters (A Canadian bookstore) closed door a few years ago, and some second-hand shops also closed their doors since then.

I have been selling books for the last decade and started seeing an influx of counterfeit books on Amazon about two years ago.

I've even gotten cease and desist letters from lawyers representing the top publishers because I resold a few by mistake.

The worst part is that there is no clear way to tell if a book is counterfeit, the publishers wont actually tell you specifics, and the only way to know for sure is to send the book to the publisher.

When you send it to the publisher, you will get an answer in about 6 months (yes/no) and the answer is always yes.

You have no way to get your original money back for the counterfeit and nothing is learned about how to more easily detect counterfeits.

I feel like this is intentionally vague so they can go after anyone for counterfeits and there is really no way to know if you have a counterfeit or not without a lengthy court case.

I finally had to get an attorney involved and I just had to pass along Amazon seller information. They went away and I haven't had any issues since then (about 2 years ago).

If I had to take a guess this is related to books that have illegal PDF(s) in the wild. Paired with Amazon making little to no effort to verify product authenticity.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/amazo...

Or legal PDFs. No Starch Press books are regularly featured in Humble Bundles in PDF form, including the book from the Tweet.

I got a control theory book from Amazon once which was just the cover. The inside was a veterinary handbook by a different publisher.

I don't think there's a PDF for that controls textbook anywhere, so clearly the counterfeiter just substituted in a different one...

Just this year, one of my team members ordered a Blue Yeti microphone off Amazon. We were in a WebRTC meeting when it arrived and I watched him excitedly open it and his facial expression turn sour because it was a glass jar in a Blue Yeti box!!! The sadder part is he left it in the kitchen at his home with the intention of dealing with it later and his dad, not knowing what it was threw it out with the garbage. There was nothing my team member could do or return to Amazon to prove of the fraud. He ended up buying again from another retailer, completely out of the money spent on the first order.

Couldn’t he just have replaced it with another glass jar?

That would open Pandora's box of ethical concerns.

I just ordered a carbon monoxide detector from Amazon, supposedly shipped from the manufacturer. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t immediately think of Amazon’s many counterfeit scandals before ultimately ordering it as I do most things, out of habit. Still, this is a thing for which silent failure is catastrophic, so maybe I’ll send it back tomorrow.

> maybe

Just do it. You'll sleep better at night, and you'll have a higher chance of waking up.

I no longer buy any products from Amazon anymore that's made to go in, on, or protect my body.

Add most electronics, IMO, especially things like memory cards and hard drives.

I bought a hard drive from Amazon about four years ago. It came in a large cardboard box half full of packing paper. The unprotected drive was rattling round in the empty half of the box. Never again. That's the last thing I bought there.

I've had the opposite experience. Hard drives from Amazon have been in factory-original packaging (involving a lot of foam) whereas hard drives from Newegg have been in plastic clamshells rattling around in the box. In fact, 100% of hard drives I've ordered from Newegg have failed. (The replacements received from the manufacturer were packed like the drives I've gotten from Amazon.)

I think the TL;DR is that resellers are clueless about how the products they sell work. No doubt in my case Newegg got a big box of them designed for OEMs that were putting them in fully-built computers, but instead shipped them out individually. Maybe it's because they don't care, or maybe it's because someone made a mistake. Either way, it's annoying.

I am surprised people aren't selling fake m.2 SSDs yet, like they do with SD cards.

Both Amazon and Newegg are marketplaces, and at least Amazon has commingling issues which can obscure the actual source from the customer, even when you think you are buying direct from Amazon.

It's possible the differing experiences reflect different actual sources on the same marketplaces.

Newegg has recently had problems with their own stock being listed inaccurately, especially selling white box or oem as retail, or listed with incorrect warranty info.

If you call to return it, many of the call center reps seem to get genuinely aggravated at the company for allowing this to repeatedly happen.

I just bought a 1TB nvme driver and they sent me a 500GB drive the first go. In isolation that's barely an anecdote you'd mention to people over drinks but this stuff happens ALL. THE. TIME. to me with Amazon.

They ship everything like that, including 30k cameras

And glass products.

In addition to doing so, just consider having multiples. I followed the fire code and then put an extra two in the basement near the furnaxe/water heater and fireplace. And an extra in the bedrooms hallways. One of those things where I think it's okay to overdo it.

In addition to addition, consider testing it. Last time I was buying carbon monoxide detectors for myself & family, I also bought a "tester" - basically carbon monoxide in a spray can + a bag to put your detector in. Costed me extra $10 or something, but worth the peace of mind.

Or you could just strike a match underneath the detector, which is what the manual for my detector says to do. Set it off after a few seconds.

Didn't know a burning match emits enough carbon monoxide to trigger the alarm. I always thought that with ample supply of oxygen, burning carbon compounds releases primarily carbon dioxide.

That yellow flame should tell you all you need to know about how complete the combustion is. It's yellow because there isn't enough oxygen in the mix, which is generating little particles of soot, which are glowing yellow. Not enough oxygen also means carbon monoxide.

I was recently looking for some dusk masks to have handy due to fires in my area. It's such a clusterfuck when you look on Amazon. They have special labels like "Amazon's choice" or "Editor Recommended" which have nothing to do with the efficacy of the mask. A lot of masks make claims about being NIOSH approved and N95 certified, but they don't provide the approval numbers and NIOSH has no records of the manufacturer. I even saw some masks that supplied an invalid NIOSH approval number (it had been revoked in 2014).

Some of the cheaper listings from legitimate companies sound like they're either counterfeit or some weird bulk reseller. A lot of reviews complaining about how the masks just came loose in the Amazon box with no packaging.

I ordered some legit looking masks but figure it's a bit of a crapshoot

> A lot of masks make claims about being NIOSH approved and N95 certified, but they don't provide the approval numbers and NIOSH has no records of the manufacturer. I even saw some masks that supplied an invalid NIOSH approval number (it had been revoked in 2014).

IMO, this is criminal.

Just like the fake eclipse glasses of a couple of years ago. At one point, essentially all were found to be fake/not-as-spec and Amazon had zero available two weeks before the eclipse.

I just don't understand why Amazon isn't held liable for the products they sell. If Walmart sold fake products that put people at risk or worse, lawyers would have a field day.

Water filters. Are the worst.

Besides a registration/ certification number, they should all have a stamped (not printed) serial number or date code or similar.

"Amazon's Choice" seems almost entirely algorithmic; base d on purchasing and review patterns. Easy to see how something like that could get gamed and become self-sustaining.

It's marketing / advertising and nothing else. Sellers can jump through some hoops (buy ads) to qualify their product listing, but it has nothing to with any sort of quality vetting.

Just get a CO detector chip, along with an organic vapors detector, etc, with I2C protocols, from aliexpress, and jango it into your preexisting DIY R-Pi or etc smart home system, like all hackers do.

Would you really trust your life to that?

Oh you know I was wondering why you thought he was being sarcastic. But I just now realized you think I was being sarcastic.

No, I'm not, that's the system I have. There are as many relevant sensors on each RPi as make sense. For example in the bathroom I monitor methane. I obviously monitor humidity and temperature at all stations since having those values is useful to adjust the accuracy of the measurements from several of the other sensors.

It works well, I have logs that allow me to understand effects of people being in places and various cycles during the day, which I find interesting.

I trust it much more than Nest or whatever other crap is out their commercially which is on the most part designed by half-wits, marketed and maintained by sociopaths, and definitely is nothing one would want to trust their life to, or even trust it'll still be working 6 months from now after the company that took your money grows bored with the project and shuts their servers down. Who wants to share this sort of private and intimate household information with some sociopathic corporation anyway. IoT only makes sense when you have complete control of the servers your stuff communicates with, and full access to the software stack.

Cool! Guess I was wrong. Thanks for the follow up.

similarly when I needed to replace my smoke alarm batteries I considered buying replacements off amazon (9V ones are pretty expensive)

I decided against as I didn't want some counterfeit ripoff with weird failure modes

if this sort of consumer behaviour becomes common it will be the death knell for their retail business

I debated Amazon for this but decided to go to a hardware store instead. Found out they make smoke alarms with 10 year lithium batteries now, and they're not that much more expensive.

In some states (NY is one) those 10 year battery ones are the only ones legal to sell.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/04/01/n...

I wouldn't trust my life with Amazon's inventory practices, given their track record.

I stopped buying books from amazon since 2016. Bought an 80$ technical book that came as if it was printed from a pdf. Equations are barely readable. I made a review with pictures and no action has been taken. I have been buying from the local retailer since then.

This has been happening to No Starch for quite some time, with no action by Amazon. Shameful.

My business partners and I had a satire book published through Amazon's platform for a couple years. This past spring the book gained some viral traction thanks to Unilad (or similar site - I forget which), but that attention led to copycats submitting a takedown notice on the book before republishing our book as their own.

The appeal process was a complete joke; we had to get a lawyer involved to get Amazon to release the royalties it withheld because of the take-down.

Shipped and sold by Amazon is meaningless. Just search for "Amazon 3rd party commingling" Basically everything with the same UPC or SKU code is put into the same bin in the warehouses, regardless of where it came from. So legit and counterfeit inventory is stored in the same bin. When you order something it is the luck of the draw (literally) what you will get.

This is a problem for anything Amazon sells, not just books. I play board games and counterfeit board games are very very common. So much so that I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a boardgame from Amazon. Buy them from Cool Stuff Inc, Miniature Market, Cardhaus, etc. instead.

Incidentally, just this past week we allowed our Prime membership to lapse and don't plan on renewing it. With problems like this one, its just not worth it anymore.

Nowadays I'm inclined more and more to purchase from local stores. At least I can investigate the merchandises before making the purchases. Plus I found out that they also have nice discounts from time to time.

Re-packaging and mailing back the poor quality purchases is the major pain point here, and I'm pretty sure Amazon is losing some business because of that. Maybe the revenue from books sales is not much comparing to the others, but potential buyers buy other merchandises too.

Amazon's inaction is just welcoming and awaiting for a government-led crackdown

Maybe if someone gets a counterfeit copy of “Art of the Deal” the government will shut Amazon down.

Amazon leans heavily on convenience to sell lots of stuff. If I have to read a handful of reviews and cross my fingers whenever getting a legitimate product is important, is it really so convenient? So far the market says yes, but I sure would move elsewhere if there was an elsewhere.

There is an elsewhere.

The OP suggests bn.com (Barnes and Noble) for books. I haven't tried them myself. Yet.

For household goods I like walmart.com (the sold-by-Walmart items, not the ones from 3rd-party sellers). Free 2-day shipping (in the US) for orders over $35. A supply chain that (I hope and assume) does not allow 3rd party sellers to introduce counterfeits, unlike the so-called "sold by Amazon" items that are promiscuously commingled with items supplied by 3rd-party sellers.

So for anything where a counterfeit product could pose a health risk, I check walmart.com first.

(I feel a bit strange touting Walmart as the underdog, since it certainly comes with its own set of baggage, but it does seem to be one of the few companies big enough to keep Amazon from gaining a complete monopoly).

I've gone (back) to Target and Barnes and Noble for items that smaller shops don't sell. It has a lot to do with both of them being less than half a mile from where I live so I can walk there with ease, but both also still have very wide product availability and offer pickup from store for free or inexpensive rates.

There's plenty of small online stores selling all kinds of stuff. Recently I had ordered smoked paprika from Amazon UK because I can't find any where I live (France). I got regular paprika. So I ordered from a specialized online spice store, got my paprika and vowed never to order anything from Amazon ever again.

I have been using Alibris.com for most of my book purchases for almost a year now. They are usually cheaper than anyone else (Amazon, B&N, Abebooks, etc) and have fast enough shipping for my needs.

I have a counterfeit Horowitz and Hill from Amazon. I called twice and go no where with them.

https://artofelectronics.net/the-book/counterfeit-editions/

Isn't it illegal to sell counterfeit goods knowingly? I'm sure someone would be knocking on my door if I did it.

Amazon's position and efforts against counterfeits:

https://www.aboutamazon.com/our-company/our-positions

Wow. Are they fucking serious?

They blame federal law for not prosecuting counterfeiters instead of themselves for allowing them to run rampant on their website? (i.e. They want the federal government to do their house-cleaning for them.)

I never thought I'd read such a dumb excuse from a company this big.

You seem to have missed the part about the investments they have made for the same, perhaps doing themselves what you suggest.

Their counterfeit problem is rooted in policy, not technology.

I would like to hear more. What policy? :-)

Probably the co-mingled inventory policy.

The investments they've done for something that is their resposibility in the first place.

If I go to a restaurant and the food is rancid, I wouldn't be appeased when the owner tells me "we've made investments to stop the food from going bad, we even bought a refrigerator!".

The analogy is not valid.

The marketplace at Amazon makes it a (large scale) mall, or a food court for your analogy, not the shop that is selling. If the food from a restaurant at a mall comes out bad, would you blame the restaurant, or the mall?

The fact that Amazon displays the product—including choosing which description from different sources to use when there are multiple sources of the same product—charges my credit card, handles returns, etc., makes it more like a shop than a mall or food court. It's a consignment shop that has to pay the person who made the product available for sale once it sells, when that person is not Amazon itself, but it's still a shop. It's not like a mall or food court that provides a venue through which I gain access to directly interact with individual vendors.

So what in your opinion should the company do (or not do)?

I blame federal law for not prosecuting Amazon for selling so many counterfeit products. Amazon is the one selling them. They are responsible for ensuring they deliver the product that the buyer is paying for, and not some cheap knock-off

I blame the numbskulls that keep ordering from Amazon after getting burned.

I am always perplexed and bemused on these threads by all the people who will openly admit, "Amazon sent me junk and didn't care, but I still buy things from them."

> For inventory tracked with the manufacturer barcode, each seller’s sourced inventory of the same ASIN is stored separately in our fulfillment centers. We can also track the original seller of each unit.

> To fulfill your orders exclusively with your inventory, you can switch to the Amazon barcode at any time (see Changing your barcode setting below).

Source: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200141480?...

It seems vendors can choose to have their items commingled or not. Commingling allows them to possibly offer faster deliveries, and they don't need to add extra barcodes to their products.

Even if comingling is enabled, it seems it's not exactly what HN had made me believe. Amazon still tracks and separately manage each seller's inventory, but might choose to ship you another's seller item if it is closer to you for faster delivery. Again, sellers can opt out of this if they don't want it.

It seems some products aren't allowed to be commingled:

> To qualify, products must: Be in new condition. Have only one scannable barcode that is matched to one ASIN in the Amazon catalog. Have no expiration date. Not be consumable or topical products such as skin creams, shampoos, or cosmetics. Not be dangerous goods.

I think beyond offering sellers the option to opt out of comingling, I'd like to see it offered to buyers as well. At checkout, it could let me know that I have the choice to get it from my chosen vendor's stock which would result in X days delivery time. Or to get it from alternate vendor Y for Z faster days delivery.

What stops a counterfeiter from buying a legit item and then duplicating that barcode on theirs? They could then return the original, too.

Duplicate/Counterfeit books are rampant here on Amazon India. Return/Replacement also results in a fake. Usually, publishers have special Indian edition prints but these fakes have $ prices & a sticker that hides this with an Rs price. This is quite easy to check but no-one is checking for counterfeit's on Amazon.

$ Label on a book purchased on Amazon.in

https://serving.photos.photobox.com/77575690eea121ebb5a6d939...

Print quality is so bad.

https://serving.photos.photobox.com/6469056496de32f9d3adef45...

I had the same problem with "The Hundred-Page Machine Learning Book" [1]; the default (cheaper by a few pennies) option via Amazon Prime was sold by a 3rd party selling counterfeit copies.

I purchased another copy from Amazon directly to compare, and you could clearly see the difference in the quality of the printing, colors, cover page. Also some pages were different, so it seems the counterfeit used an earlier draft of the 1st edition.

I spoke with the author, and eventually they got the 3rd party seller suspended (at least from selling new copies), but apparently it took a couple of weeks of back-and-forth.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Page-Machine-Learning-Book/dp...

This happened to me too for a $100 textbook. It took me weeks but I got my money back and emailed the details to the publisher.

I wanted to buy an authentic copy of the Ashley Book of Knots.

When I searched Amazon it became so obvious that most the matches were deliberately of ambiguous provenance and authenticity that I simply abandoned the whole idea and haven't bought a thing on Amazon since. This was over a year ago.

So I just did that search and the first hit is this; can you explain what I should be looking for?

https://www.amazon.com/Ashley-Book-Knots-Clifford-W/dp/03850...

While that isn't the one I recall looking at when I searched, which was over a year ago, there are multiple low-scoring comments stating that this is a low-quality reproduction of the original. Some speculate it's just being reprinted from the "bootleg" PDF based on what they've received.

> "Unfortunately, this printing is really poor quality. The cover color is off (has a pink hue to every color on the cover), the binding is lumpy, and the pages of the book are so thin the other side shows through. The publishers have obviously skimped on quality materials."

> "Although the book appeared to be new and the dust cover was new, the binding was loose and the paper it was printed on was substandard….my impression was this book was reprinted as in a bootleg copy or something similar. I rated it 2 stars because of the ease of returning the item."

Etc.

I actually ended up just finding the PDF online, I think it was on archive.org, and that's that.

The problem with Amazon is they just throw them all in the same coarse-grained bucket. If I click on "13 new from $53.88" under hardcover, there's just a list of prices with no photos of the actual book I'm buying from the various sources. They're NOT equal, only "new" and "hardcover", it's a total diceroll what you're going to get. If you were to buy every one of the new hardcovers sold there, they'd all be different. I'm sure they'd all be reproductions of the Ashley Book of Knots, but of varying quality.

The copyright is expired on this book, so the market is flooded with random repros of varying quality. And Amazon makes no effort to help the customer assess the provenance and quality of what they're actually getting.

Look at seller names. Names like "SummitPark Prints" and "TheProductsHub" are very sketchy.

They scream they have printers and binders running producing dubious quality books from PDFs found on internet.

There’s also the fake review problem, where you get a real product with a counterfeit review by some guy, or thousands of guys, that is paid on a Facebook group to give five stars.

Well, guess I won't be buying any more books from Amazon or Book Depository.

I don't understand, why wouldn't you sue Amazon for an exorbitant amount? Seems to me they'd be vulnerable and want to settle.

I used to write software for a shop that sold DVDs and CDs on Amazon. They stopped selling FBA (sold by Amazon with your inventory or the inverse) because of counterfeit claims. It was really frustrating to get a photo of what the customer got and know there was no way it passed out QC. Not to mention the one or two legal issues that came up.

Just recently tried buying Addison Wesley, O'Reilly etc IT books in English (these are not cheap) on Amazon and gave up. First getting through the maze whether it's from a merchant or directly from Amazon, then tracing the comments and some people complaining it's a low quality print of a PDF from the internet. Not worth it.

I hate to see the trajectory of scammers incorporating into our global economies and blur the lines so much that online shopping becomes dubious. As far as I can tell eBay used to be under assault by bad characters, they probably still are to some greatly lesser extent but it seems to have at least exited the wild west phase they were being dragged into. Amazon should not allow their platform to be abused even with their A-Z policy because the unsuspecting would still be cheated.

Makes this recent ad hold more appeal about "offline shopping" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_Br-mO7Po

I have also noticed a decline of book quality since a few years ago. I'm not a frequent buyer but I noticed that two books that I purchased were either not clearly cut or have ALL characters badly printed. Both were purchased directly from Amazon.

I'm really reluctant to purchase any $50+ technical books from Amazon nowadays. I mean it does have some decent discount but the probability to get a low quality book is too high.

Ironically, third party second-hand book sellers (listed on Amazon), especially the ones with many sales, seem to be quite decent and I have yet to encounter one bad case.

I don't know if I'll buy any more technical books anymore, even in electronic form.

O'Reilly doesn't sell e-books directly, which made me mad. You can get their subscription service, or buy the paper version. I ended up buying the book I wanted from Google.

> O'Reilly doesn't sell e-books directly, which made me mad. You can get their subscription service, or buy the paper version.

On the plus side, all my technical book purchases are work expenses, and even though I only read the e-book versions, I can stock the shelf in my office with books that make it look like I'm reading Impressive Technical Things.

Lucky~~

Actually I'm going to ask around if I put book purchase under some of my expenses. Might be a bit hard as I work as a BA but am interested in more technical stuffs.

I prefer books in paper though, better for my battered eyes...

BTW really hate those everything-as-subscription business models. Good thing they still have those. I'm afraid that they will disappear in 10-15 years.

For a great many people with legitimate vision impairments, ebooks are more accessible because they can be read with screen readers, not to mention have their colors inverted, font size changed, etc.

What's wrong with just complaining as normal if this happens?

I've ordered literally hundreds of books and with the two that had issues, they immediately dispatched another and in one case told me I needn't return the original.

It's not hard to put in this type of complaint (unlike some where they do put barriers in the way) and it avoids any exaggerated need to "police" Amazon, you can just get on with life with a minor blip in the overall delivery time of the proper (non-fake) product.

I don't care what particular business strategy or operational process makes this happens. This is Piracy. This is what Copyright was originally conceived to fight against.

Amazon should be slapped with the same RIAA/MPAA-style grotesquely theatrical / existential threat fines that random individuals were treated with. Otherwise is the same old canis canem non est

No, piracy is if Amazon raids mercantile ships for their goods. If we can just start willy nilly assigning offenses with worse connotations then what is to stop absursity like referring to bouncing checks as treason or delinquent parking tickets as child molestation?

Hell many of the "counterfeits" are really unauthorized production because they were made by the same factories they outsourced to. Counterfeiting implies reproduction and presenting it as the original. When they gave the specs themselves to the manufacturer that isn't a reproduction. The brand holders themselves have undermined the meaning of counterfeiting by not being the manufacturer. Granted the ethical thing to do is to launch their own "knock off" brand.

Besides those rates only work against those massively legally outgunned - they are bullying rates. It isn't a solution but a sign that the system is massively messed up. The whole point of it is consistent enforcement based upon facts and rules and to not be might makes right.

Uhm, oh sorry! I apologize profusely if I might have hurt anyone's feelings concerning the meticulous use of unambiguously well defined terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#"Piracy...

Dude, get over it (and yourself.)

Seriously. Remember when the RIAA sued a 12-year-old girl for using Kazaa?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settl...

QUOTE:

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.

She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.

Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.

"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.

The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."

I already received a counterfeit book. The printing quality and alignment looked like it was copied.

Amazon doesn't even have the option to say it wasn't delivered but instead a fake was delivered.

Yes.

My wife's former employer spent a certain amount of effort tracking down counterfeits and having them removed from Amazon, or anyway trying to have them removed.

Buying books from established offline book stores through Amazon works good for me. Not the cheapest option but the results are worth it.

Seems like they could greatly reduce fraud by using RFID stickers to authenticate manufacturer-authorized products.

They have an opt-in program that does this (maybe without RFID) called Project Zero.

RFID is the same as a barcode, just that you don't need an optical reader (or line of sight, even). Did you mean NFC with some signature scheme, or did you mean a unique code like a barcode or RFID to track an item individually?

Why do you assume that counterfeiters won’t also have RFID stickers? This is like RFC 3514 all over again.

I received a counterfeit copy of a college textbook.

Amazon support didn't care at all.

I do not trust Amazon for any purchase where I value authenticity.

Rate limited. What does it say?

We can fix this with blockchain and Rust, right?

To someone who is not well versed with these technologies, how do these solve this issue ? I would like to understand these technologies better

This would be one really good use case for blockchain. Fighting counterfeit and forcing Amazon to take action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com