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

[stonetools]

Actually, IMO, the better argument is that books are NOT fungible and that certain books would not get written or published in an Amazon-dominated book world. Mike Shatzkin makes this argument HERE:

Sharing media attention with the accounts of Amazon and DoJ recently have been stories about Robert Caro, who wrote The Power Broker about master builder Robert Moses 40 years ago and leveraged that success into a life’s work series of books about Lyndon Johnson. Caro was working on negative cash flow — selling his house and with his family being fed on his wife’s paycheck — until Knopf took over supporting him. If they’re printing 300,000 copies of his next book (which they say they are), that’s probably five million in billing on the first printing, plus ebook revenue, in the immediate offing. They’ll get their money back.

But they had to decide to risk it. Publishers do that every day. Sometimes they don’t get that money back.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The DOJ is well aware that their action is controversial, with most players corporations and their agents in the book industry opposed.

FTFY.

Authors, a rather crucial set of "players in the book industry," don't seem to be rising en masse to speak out in opposition to the lawsuit & settlement agreements.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, IMO, the better argument is that books are NOT fungible and that certain books would not get written or published in an Amazon-dominated book world. Mike Shatzkin makes this argument HERE:

This has nothing to do with Amazon. This is the DOJ defending the rights of the people against price fixing.

[wodin]

It occurs to me to wonder what Simon Lipskar uses books for, if it's to prop up wobbly furniture, or kindle fires in the fireplace, or keep doors open then they are indeed somewhat fungible; but even then Atlas Shrugged would be more valuable than a Harlequin novel.

[kennyc]

Apple's direct involvement:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25561...t_alleges.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

It occurs to me to wonder what Simon Lipskar uses books for, if it's to prop up wobbly furniture, or kindle fires in the fireplace, or keep doors open then they are indeed somewhat fungible; but even then Atlas Shrugged would be more valuable than a Harlequin novel.

kindle, he said kindle

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by kennyc

kindle, he said kindle

No.. No.. He said Kindle Fire...

[BeccaPrice]

from what I've read of Atlas Shrugged, just about any Harelquin novel - even 50 Shades - would be more valuable. At least they'd have some entertainment value.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

from what I've read of Atlas Shrugged, just about any Harelquin novel - even 50 Shades - would be more valuable. At least they'd have some entertainment value.

No, if you're using it for a doorstop or as insulation over a hole in a window, Atlas Shrugged is definitely the better book.

I liked Atlas Shrugged. Apparently, I got different things from it from what most people get. I and I have to agree with the XKCD take on it: "I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone.'"

And, huh, I wonder which other book Penguin thinks people should be buying at a lower price if they're unhappy with the $12.99 for Atlas Shrugged.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

No.. No.. He said Kindle Fire...

No, I said kindle fires

[wodin]

I said Atlas Shrugged because it was the thickest book I could think of off the top of my head, perhaps I should have said "War and Peace" instead. It'd take half a dozen Harlequins to kindle as many fires as that!

[plib]

Originally Posted by wodin

I said Atlas Shrugged because it was the thickest book I could think of off the top of my head, perhaps I should have said "War and Peace" instead. It'd take half a dozen Harlequins to kindle as many fires as that!

That might depend on how "hot" the Harlequins are.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

FTFY.

Authors, a rather crucial set of "players in the book industry," don't seem to be rising en masse to speak out in opposition to the lawsuit & settlement agreements.

Lester Thurow has spoken out strongly against the the DOJ action. Since he is president of the Author's Guild, he can be taken to to be speaking for his members.

Charles Stross has spoken out strongly on his blog.
Anne Patchett is also against it.
Mike Shatzkin has argued ( rightly, IMO) that in an Amazon-dominated world, authors will get less since Amazon will squeeze everyone in its supply chain and authors are just as much suppliers to Amazon as BPHs. So far, I 've seen no rational oppsition to that argument (Stross concurs with Shatzkin on that point.)

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Lester Thurow has spoken out strongly against the the DOJ action. Since he is president of the Author's Guild, he can be taken to to be speaking for his members.

Konrath and Eisler deal blow by blow with Turow's ramblings.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com.au/201...ott-turow.html

Authors that have milked the current system for all it is worth would certainly be loyal to the publishing companies they are affiliated with. Does not take rocket science to determine that one. Importantly, it does not make them any less right than those wishing to look at a more beneficial modern publishing route either.

[kennyc]

Excellent. Thanks Sabredog.....you know what, I'm just really getting sick of this, I just want it to be over...unfortunately it just goes on and on and on. Was it Heinlein that said one story type was "If this goes on" .... hmmm...