Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Or it could mean that he's not particularly interested in doing duckie's research for him. If he want's to know how many authors who signed the letter are Hatchette authors, he has the list available to him. My guess is that since it's currently the Hatchette authors who are being harmed by Amazon's game of hardball, they are more likely to sign the letter, but that's just a guess and I don't think it matters enough to check. I will say this. I'm willing to wager you won't find very many Amazon authors on the list.  |
Except for the part where DuckieTigger responded by saying that was his whole point.
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
What difference does it make? If the author signed for 5% of net or 95% of net, the author knew what was being offered before signing. I don't think authors or their agents are either ignorant or dumb or were forced to sign such contracts, especially in the ebook age of self-publishing.
What would you do with such information? Will it be relevant to any future action you take?
And how would you compare it to Amazon's split without also valuing the services each provides to authors? And how would you assign a value to Hachette's giving the author both print and ebook publication versus what Amazon gives?
The percentage cannot be viewed in isolation if you want to determine its real value. If all you want is a raw number so you can say "see, Amazon likes authors better than Hachette likes authors" you don't need to know the true figure. It is already common knowledge that in certain instances the percentage Amazon pays self-publishers is higher than the royalty percentage Hachette pays its traditionally published authors, so you can scream from the mountaintop now.
|
Rhadin, you are missing the point. It wasn't meant what percentage the Hachette authors get per book , but how many of those signatures are from Hachette authors. Oh wait, let me guess, Hachette already told every author that they are going to get a cut per ebook sale since the shareholders come first.
It is a bunch of baloney too that ebooks have to subsidize the risks of pbooks. The 60% can change real quick if the publishers weren't so stuck up living in the past. The reason for not advocating ebooks is their fear of competition. If they convince people to switch to ebooks then they run the risk of becoming useless. And if they actually and truely are so wonderful, they would remain usefull and wonderful even with a split of 85% ebook to 15% pbook?
But wait, I don't count. I am a member of MobileRead, and not representative. Guess what, you are a member here, does that mean ... |
DuckieTigger is saying that that is his whole point. He knows the list is basically just a bunch of Hachette authors, and feels that that is proof that it means nothing.
Hachette authors complaining about Amazon when Amazon is in a business dispute are
proof of nothing whatsoever. Complaints only mean that an author is picking a side, not that that side is intrinsically right. And unsurprisingly, Hachette authors are picking the side of the people with the power to pay them their money.
It would mean a whole lot more if authors everywhere stood united. For that matter, if this letter was inherently right and just, and you feel that all those authors signing it is proof of that, then surely Amazon authors should be signing it as well.
Unless it is entirely reasonable that Hachette authors (who have an obvious bias in signing the letter) are simply pointing out an objective truth for the good of all, but Amazon authors (who have an obvious bias in NOT signing the letter) are biased for not signing the letter?
In light of a recent claim you made regarding regarding strawman arguments, I just want to point out this post of yours, and just ask you to... think about it.