Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Who said either of them was adhering to any terms of any contract? The issue up for discussion is Hachette's lack of interest in making one -- and sticking authors into the crossfire.
|
Some authors.
Most Hachette authors aren't affected because they weren't going to make any more money than their advance anyway.
Indie authors are benefiting from reduced competition, as are some of the authors (those who have earned out their advances) of other publishers.
A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to sell a book. A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to let people reserve a book before the release date.
Such contracts are vehicles for high-volume retailers to demand lower-than-normal quantity wholesale prices. Putting aside the considerations unique to literature, there is no moral benefit in giving in to the sweetheart deal demands of an Amazon or WalMart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
And of course, who benefits from agency pricing other than the large publishers?
|
I benefit as a reader if the publishers are, in the long run, better able to resist pressure from big retailers to lower the price of their product. This would enhance publisher ability to buy book proposals with advances high enough so authors can do a good job on the books I read. Now, if book prices rose so high public libraries couldn't afford to buy the titles I want to read, that would be bad for me as a reader. But I judge the dangers of the future books I want to read not being a well researched and edited as those of today as being greater than the risk I won't be able to get them through libraries, or afford a used copy several years after release.
Indie writers benefit because books they are competing against cost more. The bigger the gap between indie and major publisher prices, the more indie books will sell. That is just basic economics.
Now, the benefit to Hachette, of not agreeing to new contract, doesn't have to come from agency. It could come from any means that keeps book prices, and publisher revenue, from being pushed down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
The only arguments I have seen that others benefit are based on the Amazon is an evil monopoly theory, which I regard as not only ironic given its source, but also untrue.
|
What source are you referring to?
The idea that Amazon has a sufficiently high enough share of book sales as to have leverage over producers is so obvious that I doubt there is any identifiable source.