Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[Sydney's Mom]

It used to be that if you were OK with people in Podunk having inferior access to books than people in Brooklyn, you were just a realist about the difficulties of making and shipping physical stuff. Now if you’re OK with that, you’re kind of an asshole.

The essence of the debate, from my point of view. Books are just different than Birkin handbags--it is essential everyone have reasonable access to books, and digital presents the best mode for making that possible.

Who should be the beneficiary of the cheaper distribution costs? The publisher (there is a particular site that sells hardcovers and digital books at the exact same price) or the customer (Amazon sells that particular ebook for about 25% less than the hardcover version)?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And here we go again...
Looking to sidetrack the discussion from the subject to get the thread closed.

Who cares what European politicians or bureaucrats do? The subject is american literary elitism, yay or nay.so far all I see on the nays is hand waving and smokescreens.

The world is changing, whether you like it or not dudes...

I'm outta here...

What's your problem? People who don't share your opinion? When you post a polemical piece by some author who believes that he is sticking it to the elites by making a massively biased case in favour of a controversial multi-billion USD company, then you have to accept that this will not be met with universal acclaim.
You'll also have to accept that some irritating foreign voices may disturb your American navel gazing (the world is changing, after all...).

It's quite surprising that some of the bizarre claims of the author aren't challenged here. In 2007 it wasn't obvious that Amazon would basically push every competitor out of the ebook market. It wasn't obvious that Amazon would go to war with its suppliers, either. There are plenty of DRM controlled media in the market (DVDs, Blurays, console games) that see a viable co-existence between hardware and content producers.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

It's quite surprising that some of the bizarre claims of the author aren't challenged here. In 2007 it wasn't obvious that Amazon would basically push every competitor out of the ebook market. It wasn't obvious that Amazon would go to war with its suppliers, either.

There's nothing unusual here. Bigger retailers have always had more leverage against their suppliers than the small guys have had. Amazon is big enough to flex its muscles to its advantage. Walmart does the same thing. I'm neither shocked nor surprised that Amazon wants better terms. I'd be shocked if they didn't. It's business as usual.

There are plenty of DRM controlled media in the market (DVDs, Blurays, console games) that see a viable co-existence between hardware and content producers.

I'm happy for them. Still, it doesn't mean Amazon has to play the same game.

[Barty]

What's the class warfare? Millionaires versus mega billionaire? I'll sit this one out.

But if I had to choose side, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to those who give a tiny bit of cr@p about books as opposed to seeing them as another widget to sell.

[CommonReader]

A company that controls 65% of the market - as Amazon does on the US ebook market - isn't just any big retailer that can demand favourable terms from its supplier. It has market domination and it has to be scrutinized closely if it abuses this position.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

A company that controls 65% of the market - as Amazon does on the US ebook market - isn't just any big retailer that can demand favourable terms from its supplier. It has market domination and it has to be scrutinized closely if it abuses this position.

We have laws for that. In the mean time, Amazon's in the driver's seat.

BTW, publishers do have other options. They don't have to sell to Amazon. No one is forcing them to do so. They're quite free to take their wares elsewhere.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Implicit in your statement is the premise that "brand name imprints" should not have to compete with Indies and the like, simply because they are "brand name imprints". Please correct me if I am wrong . . .

It's not my place, especially on a friendly board like this, to say that someone wrongly read my post #9. I can say I did not convey to you the intended meaning. Not only do I think the "brand name imprints" should have to compete with the indies, I think Amazon should stop pressuring "brand name imprints" to economically damage its competition with low prices.

Originally Posted by darryl

Actions speak louder than words.

Agreed. Actions also speak louder than supposed intentions.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Note the publishing date: pre-Amazon, pre-internet bubble.

Also noted is the Godwinization attempt.

Ezra Pound is not keeping Casino Royale and Moonraker eBooks out of American libraries. The supposed friend of the common man, Amazon, is.

Go look at the web sites of the big five publishers, as well as Amazon. None of these are elitist outfits pushing modernist poetry on the reluctant masses. To frame this as a class warfare dispute is to wildly misunderstand what's happening.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Barty

But if I had to choose side, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to those who give a tiny bit of cr@p about books as opposed to seeing them as another widget to sell.

To me, books are just another widget. Nothing special about them.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

We have laws for that. In the mean time, Amazon's in the driver's seat.

BTW, publishers do have other options. They don't have to sell to Amazon. No one is forcing them to do so. They're quite free to take their wares elsewhere.

The law is quite a flexible thing, particularly so when government agencies which are in charge of upholding the law have a huge amount of discretion.

Saying that publishers can just go elsewhere is rather pat. The publishers cannot ignore Amazon. That's as silly as saying that Amazon could just have ignored the publishers that were part of the agency pricing agreement. Yet the government has decided to punish the cartel while it ignores the market dominance of Amazon.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Yet the government has decided to punish the cartel while it ignores the market dominance of Amazon.

The Big 5 plus Apple broke the law; Amazon didn't. There's nothing illegal about market dominance.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

The law is quite a flexible thing, particularly so when government agencies which are in charge of upholding the law have a huge amount of discretion.

Saying that publishers can just go elsewhere is rather pat. The publishers cannot ignore Amazon. That's as silly as saying that Amazon could just have ignored the publishers that were part of the agency pricing agreement. Yet the government has decided to punish the cartel while it ignores the market dominance of Amazon.

When Amazon decides to break the law, govt agencies will start scrutinizing and punishing them as well.

As for Amazons dominance in the market it is dominant because WE THE PEOPLE gave it to them because of their excellent prices and service! When those two facts change, we the people will stop giving them our money.

This is not rocket science or any great conspiracy, so either remove your tin foil hat and stick to the point of this thread or retreat to your bunker and wait out the apocalypse!

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

When Amazon decides to break the law, govt agencies will start scrutinizing and punishing them as well.

As for Amazons dominance in the market it is dominant because WE THE PEOPLE gave it to them because of their excellent prices and service! When those two facts change, we the people will stop giving them our money.

This is not rocket science or any great conspiracy, so either remove your tin foil hat and stick to the point of this thread or retreat to your bunker and wait out the apocalypse!

BS. Whether or not a company that has a dominant market position is considered to have abused this position depends on a decision within the relevant authorities. These authorities have huge discretion in how they judge the situation. If you believe that this is a simple and objective result of an evaluation of "has broken the law"/"has not broken the law", then you are the one who is wearing the tinfoil hat.

As to the "point of this thread", it's difficult to see that point, not least because the piece that forms the basis of this thread is such a twisted mess.
What exactly is the supposed problem of these "elites"?

That people in Podunk can obtain the same books as those in Brooklyn now?
That anyone may publish any junk without quality control?

Those aren't serious arguments, are they?

No, the cause of his and other Amazon apologists' ire seems to be that the publishers aren't willing to bow to Amazon's demands and flog their books at bargain prices at Amazon.
I wonder why that should be a problem. If self-published books are just as good as those published by publishers, then why doesn't Amazon simply wait until the publishers have culled themselves?
The simple truth is that people are willing to spend more money on books that have been published by publishers because they have some trust as regards their quality control. If that's "elitism", then the author of that piece is happy with very low quality standards indeed.

What's never being mentioned is that publishers in the past also had the role to publish controversial books. Books that might result in litigation and that required a more robust defense than what can usually be mustered by an author on his own. With profits being squeezed and publishers being incorporated into ever bigger media companies, we can hardly expect this role to be fulfilled by the publishers any more, but can you expect Amazon ever taking over that role?

[CommonReader]

removed double post

[Barcey]

I fail to see them as "elites" so the whole diatribe was kind of lost on me. I think that he could have just pointed to this picture which demonstrates the level of objectivity.


(It also made me laugh. I'm surprised nobody has picked it up as an avatar.)

I've always believed that ereaders have democratised access to books for rural communities and this is much more important to me that saving independent brick and mortar stores.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I've always believed that ereaders have democratised access to books for rural communities and this is much more important to me that saving independent brick and mortar stores.

Access is the great equalizer!