The basic problem is not that they are using "our" pages, but that they are rubbish, with badly selected versions of selected articles, no editorial oversight, as I understand it with external links still highlighted, but no urls provided, etc etc...
I had the good fortune to work in the low-run print industry for a while, so I am aware that physically good quality books can be produced automatically, however if the customer attitude that is reflected by the other aspects we have seen of these books is reflected in the binding and printing I wouldn't expect them to survive a second reading - assuming any one wanted to read them.
On 28/01/2011 13:27, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 28 January 2011 12:44, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
Has anyone been in touch with Amazon on this issue?
WMF hasn't been, I believe - though I wouldn't be sorry if we were! - but there have been a number of individual complaints to Amazon made about it, by purchasers, mostly getting brush-offs in response. It's one of those annoying situations where the offending party is compliant with the strict letter of the rules but is nevertheless, and entirely without a doubt, reliant on misleading its customers.
(On the other hand, at least their decision to obfuscate their source means we don't end up getting the backlash from this sort of business practice. Swings and roundabouts...)