Write-in campaign claims that no readers were harmed by the agency model

[plib]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

You have to laugh when you read the publisher comments. Who do they think they are fooling?

stonetools?

[stonetools]

The first reference was to a letter by the head of a literary agency . I've seen letters or articles by authors, publishing consultants , the head of Smashwords, and independent booksellers. Opposition to the DOJ action is widespread throughout the book industry

[Elfwreck]

Yes, opposition is widespread among people who aren't consumers, who insist they have the best interests of the industry at heart. Their claim is that by helping the industry, consumers will be better off... that the alternative to "high prices" is "end of the industry," not "lower prices."

Where are the consumer advocates claiming this is a better deal for ebook buyers?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Yes, opposition is widespread among people who aren't consumers, who insist they have the best interests of the industry at heart. Their claim is that by helping the industry, consumers will be better off... that the alternative to "high prices" is "end of the industry," not "lower prices."

Where are the consumer advocates claiming this is a better deal for ebook buyers?

So? They can write their own letters. As it is, is pretty clear that the DOJ has taken the viewpoint that lower prices for the consumers in the short term trump all, so the 'consumer advocates ' likely see no reason to write.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

So? They can write their own letters. As it is, is pretty clear that the DOJ has taken the viewpoint that lower prices for the consumers in the short term trump all, so the 'consumer advocates ' likely see no reason to write.

Lower prices for consumers don't "trump all," but they do trump unsupported claims that higher prices are good for everyone. It's obvious that higher prices means more income to publishers and often to authors (not always, that); it's not clear that lowering those prices would cause any problems other than "somewhat less profit for publishers."

[HansTWN]

It is wrong and illegal for sellers to get together and decide that "higher prices are good for everybody in the long run". That is for competition and the market to decide. However it will play out.

[SeaKing]

There is an age old problem with big shots. They are so used to "yes men/women" they gather around them saying "yes sir, yes sir, you are so brilliant" that they don't know to keep their traps shut when they aren't around those people.

They really just don't know.

[Kumabjorn]

Here is what I wrote to teh DOJ.

Dear Mr. Read!

I am not a US citizen, yet I would like to voice my opinion on the above matter.
Since the explosion of the Internet, English is to the common man as Latin was to the educated classes prior to the Renaissance. Spreading English around the globe is paramount to maintaining democracy, hence English speaking countries have a special responsibility in furthering the knowledge of English. Remember, communism had a strong ideological appeal, but outside the Soviet Union and China few people understood Russian or Chinese, imagine what the world might look like today if those languages were better understood.
The best way to spread English is through literature, people capable of reading English are also recipients of the messages of enlightenment, democracy, liberty, responsibility and brotherhood that it so often contains. Imagine if English was as commonly understood in the Arabic world as it is en Europe. The lure of terrorism would not be as appealing.
I happen to be an early adapter of the Kindle and Amazon.com's eco-system for electronic books. After embracing the technology I discovered that I read more then twice as many English language books as I used to. The price for these devices seem to be ever dwindling, as they go down so does the opportunity to spread the good word. I am sure others have told you about all the valid reasons for eBooks to be cheaper than their paper based equivalent. I just wanted to add the future possibilities of expanding English language skills.

Sincerely,

Kumabjorn

[petrucci]

Sadly, I don't have much time to write now. If books were not fungible in any way, then a publisher could charge a lot of money for a particular book, as the only way to get that book is to pay its price. No collusion would be needed, they just need to sell the book for a lot of money. I suspect that the publishing industry has found that there is competition in the book market which is caused by fungibility. Moreover, I believe that they think that their main competition are books published by other big publishers. Thus, publishers colluded to keep prices high.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by stonetools

So? They can write their own letters. As it is, is pretty clear that the DOJ has taken the viewpoint that lower prices for the consumers in the short term trump all, so the 'consumer advocates ' likely see no reason to write.

I'm guessing most folks outside certain interest groups (we being one) don't have a clue about this.

I first heard about the agency model here. I was really miffed. I couldn't imagine how they could get away with it. It seemed like a clear cut case of price fixing.

Reading more about it, and learning of the subtle distinctions between what they're doing and true price fixing, I really do get why the publishers felt they had to go this direction; and I agree that it might just be necessary to get them even a slim profit margin.

I wasn't convinced of that by supporters on this set of forums, that's for sure; most of what I read here is rants against it.

One thing is for sure, if they can't figure out a way to compete--to at least reap that slim margin of profit-- they'll go under. We'll see it happening when they start merging (picture Harper Collins Penguin for a sad laugh), or worse, being bought out by Amazon.

Also interesting, to me at least, I used to have a pretty low opinion of publisher's in general (from old 'gatekeeper' arguments). It wasn't until I started reading rants against publishers posted here that I began to see their real value.

Ergo: most rants here seem to have the opposite effect than that intended.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

So? They can write their own letters. As it is, is pretty clear that the DOJ has taken the viewpoint that lower prices for the consumers in the short term trump all, so the 'consumer advocates ' likely see no reason to write.

I suspect the DOJ position is more that collusion among competitors is illegal, and are less concerned about the price. But hey, if it makes it easier for you to support the publishing industry's illegal activity by saying, "The DOJ is just concerned with saving customers a few bucks in the short term!", then more power to you I guess; we all have to reduce our cognitive dissonance somehow.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by JonathanH

Segments of the publishing industry are urging their constituents (employees?) to write to the Department of Justice and protest the lawsuit over the agency model. The latest to join in is the head of one of the New York literary agencies, who claims that even if collusion occurred, the public wasn't harmed because books are fungible.

Jonathan, can you show me where, in the letter being discussed, that the claim of books being fungible is made? Your link claims that Lipskar makes that argument, but reading Lipskar's argument, I can't find it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

I wonder if fungi are fungible.

well....fungi are people too....and it's all Solyent Green.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by plib

stonetools?

They are not fooling him, he's part of the machine.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Readers who are for the DOJ settlement can write in here...
http://support4settlement.wordpress.com/

Thank you, letter sent:

Dear Mr. Read, As both an author and reader I want to thank you and the DOJ for addressing this travesty of collusion and protecting the citizens rights to a free and fair market.