1. My previous post: "there is no contradictory license statement on that page".
First thing I did was dl it to check the license given in the book after I noticed there was none given on the web page other than "completely free".
He muddies the water further in your quote, "free to copy, distribute and display the book. However, I ask that you always attribute the book to me, Karl Seguin, do not use it for commercial purposes". So I can't use it at work but I can sell it. Of course that wasn't what he meant to say but that's what he did say. So which license applies "completely free", "NC use, but otherwise free" or NC-BY-SA?
2. As I understand it a DMCA take down notice is only effective if it is unchallenged, if there are some grounds to challenge it then there is no need by the receiver to take down the material. Lawyers then earn money arguing the legal niceties and a judge decides and if necessary injuncts the service provider to remove the material.
Amazon may of course choose independently to take the material down but I don't think they are obliged too. If they were then any challenge, even one that was clearly bogus would require material to be taken down.
Do you think these reasons are reasons for me not to have posted? Downvotes should be used to show that a comment isn't furthering the conversation or adding to it any way.
Did I not, by pointing out potential problems with licensing, further the conversation.
It's kinda orthogonal to the discussion but I think Amazon and "Amazon Digital Services" have acted very poorly, just in case you felt my comments endorsed them in some way.