Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluribus
As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly.
|
On the dubious smoke=fire hypothesis, I guess that, by the bare preponderance of the evidence, a non-disclosure agreement exists. But who does it apply to, and what are its terms? Without knowing this, I hardly could say that someone is violating it.
It may be that the publishers have responsibility to explain sales trends to some of their more popular authors and agents who insisted on non-standard contracts. If so, and they are the leakers, these are people who never signed an NDA.
As for honor, both the publishers, and Amazon (as a publisher), should in the business of disseminating information, not hiding it.
There are some secrets that I think should be kept secret, like, say, the name of an spy who would be killed if exposed, or a how-to on chemical weapons, or a list of employees seeing a psychiatrist. But the details of a commercial financial negotiation hardly rise to that level. I can't imagine what public benefit occurs when, say, News Corp. (owns HarperCollins) knows legitimate business news and keeps it secret. Maybe such openness would means fewer mergers and acquisitions, but since they often cost jobs, so what?
Rather than media bias or one party being more honorable than the other one, here is the most plausible reason why the press seems to be publishing more of the Hachette story than the Amazon story:
http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/18/i...s-easiest-job/
Being secretive should not be seen as a plus.