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

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

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

Thanks, that was easy. Sent in my thoughts.

[JonathanH]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

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.

Sure, it's near the bottom, in Section G:

Even if an individual consumer was unhappy with the agency pricing of bestsellers, the existence of other options, including new competitive ones that have thrived since agency, means that harm cannot be ascribed to the decision to buy a $12.99 ebook. Were there no other options beside agency model ebooks priced above previous bestselling ebook prices, there might be a case for consumer harm, but the market dynamics have instead delivered clear price benefits to consumers.

i.e. "it doesn't matter that we raised the price of the bestsellers, because we cut the price of some back list books, and lots of indie publishers started selling for 2.99, and you had the option to buy those instead".

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by JonathanH

Sure, it's near the bottom, in Section G:

i.e. "it doesn't matter that we raised the price of the bestsellers, because we cut the price of some back list books, and lots of indie publishers started selling for 2.99, and you had the option to buy those instead".

Fungible: being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind. --dictionary.com

While the original argument may be a bit of a , it isn't saying books are fungible. I read it more as saying, 'if you don't like our higher prices for the newer bestsellers, you have the option of buying our older stuff.' Which is certainly true. Not saying it is the same, just an option.

[JonathanH]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

While the original argument may be a bit of a , it isn't saying books are fungible. I read it more as saying, 'if you don't like our higher prices for the newer bestsellers, you have the option of buying our older stuff.' Which is certainly true. Not saying it is the same, just an option.

Meh. At this point it's a matter of degree. I read it as a clear assumption that books are fungible, you don't, but I think we both agree the original argument doesn't stand up

[jgaiser]

It's all astroturfing anyway. Books are not fungible, no matter how you spin it. If I *want* to buy a New York Times Bestseller, but I don't want to pay the ridiculous price, buying a backlist copy of an Ed McBain police procedural is not the same thing.

Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution, such as crude oil, shares in a company, bonds, precious metals or currencies. For example, if someone lends another person a $10 bill, it does not matter if they are given back the same $10 bill or a different one, since currency is fungible; if someone lends another person their car, however, they would not expect to be given back a different car, even of the same make and model, as cars are not fungible.

[petrucci]

If books were not fungible, then there would be no reason to collude on prices as publishers do not sell the same title, and the books would not be in competition because they would not be interchangeable. For example, there would be no point in Nike and Ford colluding on prices. Their products are not interchangeable with one another.

If books are fungible, then there is reason to collude on prices, as it could increase profits. Now, the article argues that the collusion did not hurt consumers, as there were lower priced books available. However, it does not address the issue that some books can be fungible with others, while other books may not be. This leads me to believe that the big publishing houses believe that some of their books are fungible with one another, while other books are not. This would explain the necessity of collusion, rather than one company simply raising prices. It also explains why the lower priced books would not undermine their higher prices.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

If books were not fungible, then there would be no reason to collude on prices as publishers do not sell the same title, and the books would not be in competition because they would not be interchangeable. For example, there would be no point in Nike and Ford colluding on prices. Their products are not interchangeable with one another.

If books are fungible, then there is reason to collude on prices, as it could increase profits. Now, the article argues that the collusion did not hurt consumers, as there were lower priced books available. However, it does not address the issue that some books can be fungible with others, while other books may not be. This leads me to believe that the big publishing houses believe that some of their books are fungible with one another, while other books are not. This would explain the necessity of collusion, rather than one company simply raising prices. It also explains why the lower priced books would not undermine their higher prices.

You have it backwards. Collusion only makes sense with products that are non-fungible. Consider the example of a highly fungible commodity like corn. No one really cares what bushel of corn they have, just so long as they have their bushel of corn. If someone colluded to keep the price of their corn artificially high, this collusion would fail, as people would simply be able to buy identical bushels of corn at a cheaper price from some other supplier.

Books are clearly not fungible. Any bushel of corn is interchangeable with any other bushel of corn, but books are not interchangeable with just any random book. People don't pay more than they have to for a fungible product. Despite the availability of free or 99 cent books, the book market is dominated by books that cost more. People won't just read any old book, a fine wine is not interchangeable with a bottle of Ripple, a Van Gogh is not interchangeable with just any painting.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You have it backwards. Collusion only makes sense with products that are non-fungible. Consider the example of a highly fungible commodity like corn. No one really cares what bushel of corn they have, just so long as they have their bushel of corn. If someone colluded to keep the price of their corn artificially high, this collusion would fail, as people would simply be able to buy identical bushels of corn at a cheaper price from some other supplier.

Books are clearly not fungible. Any bushel of corn is interchangeable with any other bushel of corn, but books are not interchangeable with just any random book. People don't pay more than they have to for a fungible product. Despite the availability of free or 99 cent books, the book market is dominated by books that cost more. People won't just read any old book, a fine wine is not interchangeable with a bottle of Ripple, a Van Gogh is not interchangeable with just any painting.

Let us consider the Twlight novels. Their price is largely determined by their publisher, Little Brown. If Brown wants to raise prices, and the books are not fungible, then they can do so with impunity, as the product is not interchangeable with any other. No collusion with other publishers is necessary. You must pay what Brown asks to obtain a Twilight book.

However, one cannot just raise the price of something like gasoline, which is fungible. Consumers will just buy a cheaper brand, as you pointed out. Thus companies collude to raise prices as a group, giving consumers no alternative but to pay more, regardless of which brand they buy.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Let us consider the Twlight novels. Their price is largely determined by their publisher, Little Brown. If Brown wants to raise prices, and the books are not fungible, then they can do so with impunity, as the product is not interchangeable with any other. No collusion with other publishers is necessary. You must pay what Brown asks to obtain a Twilight book.

However, one cannot just raise the price of something like gasoline, which is fungible. Consumers will just buy a cheaper brand, as you pointed out. Thus companies collude to raise prices as a group, giving consumers no alternative but to pay more, regardless of which brand they buy.

The word fungible doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean that there exists no other substitutes. It is about the degree interchangeability. It's not an either/or situation. A bushel of corn is highly fungible, because it is interchangeable with any other bushel of corn. If someone can't get a copy of Twilight, there are other books that they might reasonably select, but that doesn't make it non-fungible. It isn't generally interchangeable - not just any book will do.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The word fungible doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean that there exists no other substitutes. It is about the degree interchangeability. It's not an either/or situation. A bushel of corn is highly fungible, because it is interchangeable with any other bushel of corn. If someone can't get a copy of Twilight, there are other books that they might reasonably select, but that doesn't make it non-fungible. It isn't generally interchangeable - not just any book will do.

We had a rather lengthy exchange on the matter in the copyright thread. My understanding is that a set of items are fungible if they can be freely exchanged for one another. The basis of such an exchange is a common function that the items serve, or a value that is placed on all of the items. For example, if I wanted to start a fire, most books would be fungible. Thus fungibility considers not only a set of items, but also the function that they are serving.

I think that it fairly clear that there are circumstances in which books are fungible. Moreover, I think that there are many circumstances in which a particular set of books are fungible with one another.

Getting back to the Twilight example, if the book could be exchanged with another book in a given circumstance, then those books in that circumstance are fungible.

I think we are just getting caught up in applying the term in a more general sense.

[carpetmojo]

Fungible ?

For God's sake, doesn't anyone speak "English/American/Canadian..oh you know what I mean.... anymore in certain arcane circles ?
Obviously not - send 'em over to the Levison Enquiry, Murdoch and Cameron could probably use their services.......

Why not say interchangeable ?
I got so annoyed about having to look it up I nearly took up macrame for something constructive to do with my life.....

And yes, lawyers/professors/word geeks fully appreciate the vital nuances and legal niceties this word has as against any other understandable equivalent, but it was like having Bush in the White House again ...........

I'm sorry if that offends, but if you need to look it up, "fungible" probably don't worry you...

[QuantumIguana]

Something is fungible if it is freely interchangeable with any other. Money is the ultimate in fungibility, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. A bushel of corn is pretty much like any other bushel of corn. Other things are less interchangeable. If someone is in the market for a porterhouse steak, they might find a New York strip interchangeable. They probably wouldn't find ground chuck interchangeable. If someone is in the market for a fine wine, there are other fine wines that would be a good choice, but not just any wine will do.

The fungibility level of books is far more similar to that of steak and wine than it is to money and corn. I realize the absurdity of comparing Twilight to a good steak or a fine wine, but what I think of the quality of the book isn't important. The important thing is that readers have decided that it is worth paying $8.99 for. To not be fungible does not mean it is incomparable. If a reader can't get Twilight, they aren't likely just going to grab some 99 cent book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by petrucci

We had a rather lengthy exchange on the matter in the copyright thread. My understanding is that a set of items are fungible if they can be freely exchanged for one another. The basis of such an exchange is a common function that the items serve, or a value that is placed on all of the items. For example, if I wanted to start a fire, most books would be fungible. Thus fungibility considers not only a set of items, but also the function that they are serving.

I think that it fairly clear that there are circumstances in which books are fungible. Moreover, I think that there are many circumstances in which a particular set of books are fungible with one another.

Getting back to the Twilight example, if the book could be exchanged with another book in a given circumstance, then those books in that circumstance are fungible.

I think we are just getting caught up in applying the term in a more general sense.

No, you are simply wrong in your understanding.

A book is is unique, it is not generic. If you think you can substitute a gallon of gasoline for a gallon of water just because they are both gallons, I've got some trading I want to do with you.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Something is fungible if it is freely interchangeable with any other.

It is interchangeable with any other item in the set being considered, and under the circumstances being considered.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Money is the ultimate in fungibility, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

Except to the currency collector, who places a value on the condition of the bill. You always need to take into account the circumstances.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The fungibility level of books is far more similar to that of steak and wine than it is to money and corn.

I still am not sure that I accept this idea of fungibility level. I prefer to say that a set of things are fungible in a certain circumstance.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I realize the absurdity of comparing Twilight to a good steak or a fine wine, but what I think of the quality of the book isn't important. The important thing is that readers have decided that it is worth paying $8.99 for. To not be fungible does not mean it is incomparable. If a reader can't get Twilight, they aren't likely just going to grab some 99 cent book.

I did not say that readers would grab any book if they could not get Twilight. However, there are circumstances in which other books are substitutes for Twilight. I believe that the publishing companies are well aware of such circumstances and books. Thus, they felt the need to collude when they decided to raise the prices on some of their books, or else customers could have purchased the interchangeable books for less.

Originally Posted by kennyc

No, you are simply wrong in your understanding.

A book is is unique, it is not generic. If you think you can substitute a gallon of gasoline for a gallon of water just because they are both gallons, I've got some trading I want to do with you.

An item may be unique in certain respects, but that does not mean it is not interchangeable. For example, in most circumstances I would trade a twenty dollar bill for two ten dollar bills. The ten dollar bills are different from the twenty, but are still interchangeable.

[kennyc]

you are wrong.