Quote:
Originally Posted by afa
Pardon me for butting my nose where it doesn't belong, but does Kindle exclusive equate to monopoly? If Amazon has signed a contract with an author that gives them exclusive rights, it doesn't mean they are a monopoly. It just means they have the exclusive rights to that particular book.
If Amazon somehow managed to get exclusive rights on all ebooks, then they would be a monopoly, as they are now single-handedly controlling a market.
Or am I misunderstanding the debate in question?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
No, you definitely have the gist of it.
|
Ooo..., I learned how to do a multiquote. Now we are all gathered here together.
I would beg to quibble just a little.
First ebooks are just a part of a market of books. Then there are other type publications as well.
Then one asks whether even if the ebooks are all signed over to Amazon. Does that count the past, the present, and the future. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DO THE AUTHORS HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEAVE AMAZON. Is this really a monopoly or is it a pleasant mutual arrangement to the benefit of all involved parties and other people should mind their own business.
Let me give you an example. At one time Howard Hughes had a kind of monopoly on his biography. No one seemed to publish a book about Howard Hughes even though he had been quite a character, and then had almost disapeared. How did this come about? This is what I remember reading more of less.
One journalist gave the answer. He was an accomplished newspaper and magazine writer, and had published some books about people, and he had been writing about Howard Hughes for 6 or 7 months intensively and things were looking good. He was staying in Las Vegas near where Howard Hughes supposedly was holed up in a secret private hospital room. (This was later in Hughes's life, after the movie studios and starlets.) Sometime in the 50's.
One day there was a knock on his commercial (long stay) hotel room. Two large gentlemen wearing suits and hats were at the door. They were very polite and one showed him a card indicating a law firm. The second also very polite and quiet spoken had a badly scarred face, was carrying a large brief case. He only smiled politely.
The large man said that some agents and publishers (book) had said that the journalist was writing about the life of Howard Hughes, and they wondered if that was so. The journalist was somewhat nervous but he had copies of everything with his agent (carbon back then) and said yes. They asked if they might look at it right there and promised that no harm would come to it.
The men spend about a 3/4 of an hour looking at the manuscript, leafing through each page and making comments, and then the one said, "You have done good work here, we have an offer for you." Now the journalist was even more nervous. He asked "what kind of offer."
The man smiled and said, "We wish to buy the manuscript, all your reference material, and all rights to your work on Howard Hughes for now and the future." The other man opened the brief case and pulled out a contract which they quickly filled out and put on the table.
The journalist said, but I don't know if I want to do that, also I have to pay my typist and my agent, and ...
"Would $50,000 be sufficient?" There might have been a brief price discussion, but they quickly reached agreement.
The two men left the hotel room with the manuscript and other items in the brief case.
The journalist lay on the bed, took a drink and looked at the certified check that had been delivered by bank courier. It was the largest check he had ever seen.
The story went like that. I read it a long time ago.
Anyway, there is no law in this fair and great land that prohibits an author from signing up exclusively with a publisher or any other entity for as long as he or she wishes.