MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Authors United, allies, demand government intervention

fjtorres · 07-14-2015, 06:22 AM

Suddenly, its 2014 all over at the NYT, huh?

As Nate pointed out, during the conspiracy investigation, the DOJ investigated Amazon top to bottom and found nothing actionable.

Also, during the trial, attempts were made to drag Amazon in; the DOJ refused.

Third, as a condition to their settlements in the conspiracy case, the BPHs agreed to have the DOJ monitor their negotiations with Amazon and vet their contracts. Negotiations were monitored, contracts approved; the DOJ found no need to intervene.

Fourth, at the height of the "sound and fury" of the Hachette contract stall last summer, the DOJ *did* act... to seek documents from the BPHs to determine if they were coordinating contract negotiations the way they did in 2010.

Since then, S&S renegotiated their contract without drama, Hachette stopped stalling and negotiated, and the rest of the Manhattan Syndicate reached deals allowing them to raise *their* ebook prices... and saw sales plunge.

Over at the source, Nate wonders why the gold-plated AU gang and allies are whining this week instead of earlier and two possibilities were brought up: Amazon's highly visible 20th Anniversary sale, PRIME DAY, and the delayed release of AAP sales numbers. The former explanation implying a spiteful attempt to inject some whine into Amazon's cheese-fest, the latter suggesting kneejerk panic at further BPH sales declines.

Given that the complaints are the usual LeGuinian hash of emotional inaccuracies and misinformation and the composition of the signatories (pbook sellers, agents, and authors... but not publishers) the latter rationale seems a bit likelier.

(Of course, the publishers could be manipulating everything remotely and steering clear to avoid DOJ attention, but really, when have the big guys ever done such a thing as conspire to attack their biggest distribution channel?)

Lost somehow in all the whining is that nothing they complain about actually harms consumers, that antitrust is about consumer harm and not about protecting entitled authors seeing declining sales or B&M retailers unable to adapt to the internet.

07-14-2015, 06:22 AM	#2
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	Suddenly, its 2014 all over at the NYT, huh? As Nate pointed out, during the conspiracy investigation, the DOJ investigated Amazon top to bottom and found nothing actionable. Also, during the trial, attempts were made to drag Amazon in; the DOJ refused. Third, as a condition to their settlements in the conspiracy case, the BPHs agreed to have the DOJ monitor their negotiations with Amazon and vet their contracts. Negotiations were monitored, contracts approved; the DOJ found no need to intervene. Fourth, at the height of the "sound and fury" of the Hachette contract stall last summer, the DOJ did act... to seek documents from the BPHs to determine if they were coordinating contract negotiations the way they did in 2010. Since then, S&S renegotiated their contract without drama, Hachette stopped stalling and negotiated, and the rest of the Manhattan Syndicate reached deals allowing them to raise their ebook prices... and saw sales plunge. Over at the source, Nate wonders why the gold-plated AU gang and allies are whining this week instead of earlier and two possibilities were brought up: Amazon's highly visible 20th Anniversary sale, PRIME DAY, and the delayed release of AAP sales numbers. The former explanation implying a spiteful attempt to inject some whine into Amazon's cheese-fest, the latter suggesting kneejerk panic at further BPH sales declines. Given that the complaints are the usual LeGuinian hash of emotional inaccuracies and misinformation and the composition of the signatories (pbook sellers, agents, and authors... but not publishers) the latter rationale seems a bit likelier. (Of course, the publishers could be manipulating everything remotely and steering clear to avoid DOJ attention, but really, when have the big guys ever done such a thing as conspire to attack their biggest distribution channel?) Lost somehow in all the whining is that nothing they complain about actually harms consumers, that antitrust is about consumer harm and not about protecting entitled authors seeing declining sales or B&M retailers unable to adapt to the internet. Last edited by fjtorres; 07-14-2015 at 06:29 AM.