Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLoon
Well, if you need a reason for this parallel conduct, I would start by pointing a finger at Steve Jobs. IF (and this is speculation) he went around to all of the publishers at around the same time, giving them the same pitch--"agency pricing is good for you and good for me"--it is entirely plausible that each of them independently decided, "you know what? That does sound like a good idea, and in fact we'll try to get Amazon to agree to the same thing, because they are cutting prices and we hate that." And that's legal.
I will add that "conspiracy" laws regarding these types of circumstances are one of the more complex areas of antitrust law. The line between what you can do and what you can't is sometimes extremely fuzzy. The publishers are certainly legally allowed to observe, in a hands-off way, what the other publishers are doing, and make their own decisions about whether or not to do the same thing. They are also legally allowed to hope that all the other publishers make the same decision.
That said, if you had proof that the publishers got together in some smoke-filled room and said "let's all agree to force Amazon to accept agency pricing," you may be talking about a crime, for which people can (and do) go to jail. You might reach the same result if you could prove that Steve Jobs acted as a "gofer" to implement such a conspiracy, although I strongly doubt Jobs is that stupid. The man is smart, rich, and his company is going gangbusters; I cannot imagine why he would risk jail time for something like this.
But, I have to be careful here, because the world of copyright is, simply put, different. Court cases have recognized that ASCAP and BMI can coordinate "blanket licenses" for music performances. This is really a form of price-fixing--the copyright owners are getting together and jointly agreeing on a price--but it's legal because special circumstances engender special rules.
Fun fact: it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to tell, simply by viewing the outcome, whether parallel pricing decisions by competitors is the result of independent decisions or a conspiracy--even if the price changes are exactly the same and happen almost simultaneously. The Supreme Court has recognized this again and again.
|
yup, I mentioned a few pages back that I just had the feeling it was Jobs being the puppet master in orchestrating this whole overnight sea change. And the complete intent was to force Amazon, as well as B&N, even Sony, into the same price structure for the major portion of the content sold.
I could see something as simple as Jobs telling each publisher he already had other publishers on board, even if he did not, and dangling that price control in front of them in exchange for that one part of the agreement about nobody being able to sell or pay a lower price than Apple, I forget which were the exact terms that leaked out and need to look them up. That is the weird part of the agreement that makes zero sense as it seems very risky to alienate Amazon, probably their biggest source of income these days. But with that simple part of the agreement, it all changed and Amazon could not do a thing without risking losing their lead in sales. Apple would not seem to have any real interest in selling ebooks, today. Just look up the iBookstore content info around the web, it's nothing. For Apple at this point in time there is just not enough money to be had in ebook sales....in five years, who knows since this agreement has really changed the landscape.
And yeah, based on the way wireless telco's all the made same pricing changes to SMS pricing, and a few other prices, in a suspiciously serendipitous fashion for many people, but it would be near to impossible to prove without that smoking gun...
As to why Jobs would risk something like this, ego and hubris...it's really that simple. Look at what Martha Stewart did for a few grand. It's not a far stretch that Jobs has a plan off in the future around how iPad content will go. This current situation could be be a way to impede Amazon, and to a lesser degree B&N, from owning the ebook market while iBookstore flounders due to the inability to sell enough content. Jobs has already indicated he wants to bring a more multi-media type of book to the people. The iPad can do this, standard ereaders can't. I don't believe it's about ebooks as they exist today but about new multi-media/interactive content from these same publishers in five years or so.
Aren't conspiracy theories fun? I find it even more fun with Jobs in his real life role as El Diablo...or perhpas as El Chupacabra? Loki?
