Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
It seems to me that this issue involves a question that FJTorres and I discussed on another thread at some point, which is whether it is always permissible for a powerful negotiator to pressure a party without leverage (which might not even be true in this case) to sign a contract that turns out to be unfair. Studying the history of recording rights in the North American music industry amounts to a course on that subject. One lesson it teaches is that certain things which producers and labels asked for from the '60s to the '80s were deemed to be a priori unfair. I think we'd have to know more about the publishers that are complaining today to know whether or not that lesson applies.
|
You can compare the largest Hachette author's income to the income of Hachette and ask the same question. Is it possible for them to sign a fair contract with any of author's? One thing I believe is certain is that those author's have more power today then they had 5 years ago and a lot of that is Amazon giving them other options, even if they don't choose it.
Companies make unreasonable demands in contract negotiations. It's being portrayed as only Amazon making unreasonable demands and I don't believe that. It could just as easily have played out that Hachette will not accept anything except an agency model so Amazon is saying "ok if that's what you want then you'll have to pay us for the value add that we're providing above and beyond your other 'agents'". I'm not going to make a decision on who is more evil in this case without knowing all the facts, and all the facts aren't available.