View Single Post
Old 12-16-2011, 05:34 PM   #58
sufue
lost in my e-reader...
sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sufue ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 8,068
Karma: 61341458
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: sunny southern California, USA
Device: Android phone, Sony T1, Nook ST Glowlight, Galaxy Tab 7 Plus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK View Post
That's not positive reinforcement, that's letting them know you can be bought off. You're telling them "it's ok for you to fix prices, stifle competition, limit buying freedom, etc...as long as you keep your price point at level x."

Choosing your price point is not a boycott, it's simple market forces at work.
Boycotting is a matter of principle, hurting them in the pocketbook to get them to change a business practice. A sanction.
"We want your product, We would pay your price for your product, but a large bunch of us will do without your product and make you and you shareholders feel it, until you change practice x."
I guess that depends. I'm not too sure that my objection is a theoretical one to the agency model itself (heresy!!!).

I don't know if they can really be said to have "fixed prices" amongst the six, which is my (non-legal-professional) understanding of price fixing. I guess that's some of what the various investigations are trying to establish - whether there was collusion. For an individual publisher, though, to fix, or try to fix, via agreement with their own retailers (or agents), the prices at which their retailers (or agents) sell their goods is the publisher's privilege. It happens in other industries too - ScubaPro scuba equipment jumps to my mind. And, we're always free to just not buy if we think that price is too high. But, it's a price issue, and it's their privilege to try to keep the prices for their goods high if they wish.

I'm also not sure they have "stifled competition" - I actually rather think they may have short-sightedly encouraged it by pushing authors and readers to other, often more direct, channels. It is a market, and in the long-run the market will find other paths.

And nor do I think that "limiting my buying freedom" is attributable to the agency model, if by that you mean DRM. DRM was (sadly) alive and well long before the agency mess. It's a whole 'nother issue to me.

My objection (just MHO) to the agency model is primarily its impact on prices and that's what my actions are designed to address.
sufue is offline   Reply With Quote