Do some publishers have any idea?

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

@Timboli: Apology accepted. Even though you didn't specifically say so. For what it is worth, I did not skim read. I read everything until I posted my first post. I am still reading everything, but some posts before mine now sometimes have to wait until after I posted.

A couple of wrong assumptions right there.

I am not the one that started it. You have yourself to blame. The only time I had the impression anyone was talking to you as if you are an idiot is after you been rude first.

Prove it.

Incase you skimmed over it, I will say it again: up until at least my first post the impression I had and have of this thread is not that of a pleasant conversation. Others feel the same, Harry even quite literally said so himself.

How so? Where did I specifically make it not so?

Lots of nice claims.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Timboli

So that was respectful was it?
Not talking to me like I am an idiot?

Clearly I am a fool to have never thought of all that. Such a simple solution.

Exactly my point. The true purpose of the post was to draw attention to how you mistreated almost everyone that posted before.

How does it feel? That is what you did to the others. I did it on purpose, you may not have. The end result is still quite the same.

I apologize for not being the typical over polite American.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Timboli

A couple of assumptions right there.


Prove it.


How so? Where did I specifically make it not so?

Lots of nice claims.

Thanks, but no thanks. Reread the thread from the beginning. If you cannot detect it yourself, then I have to doubt your ability of reading comprehension.

P.S. I don't have to prove it, you do so yourself.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Commercial enterprises such as publishers do not exist to make the world a better place, but to generate profit for their shareholders. Fairness doesn't enter into it. They are bound by the law. That applies to any business, not just publishing.

Previously you said we had different ideas about what constitutes fair. Now you are saying fairness doesn't apply.

Publishing is very far from being a monopoly. Anyone can do it.

Mmmmm so I can buy a Terry Brooks ebook I want, from more than one publisher can I?

If there is only one of something, and the provider has total control, it seems like a monopoly to me.

I seem to recall discussions by you and Barry and others in other topics about such a monopoly. But maybe I am remembering it wrong? I've made mistakes before. I am only human after all.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Exactly my point. The true purpose of the post was to draw attention to how you mistreated almost everyone that posted before.

How does it feel? That is what you did to the others. I did it on purpose, you may not have. The end result is still quite the same.

I apologize for not being the typical over polite American.

Yeah right.

A big claim and not even one example.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Thanks, but no thanks. Reread the thread from the beginning. If you cannot detect it yourself, then I have to doubt your ability of reading comprehension.

P.S. I don't have to prove it, you do so yourself.

Funny guy.
You are the one who made the claim, not me.
You have a funny notion about correct procedure in these matters.

I suppose this topic will get locked now, which is what you and several are after .... we need to shut this bugger up.

I've had my say. If I have behaved badly, it's there for all to see. It will speak for itself.

P.S. Like I said earlier, there are those who agree with my views in this topic, and one of those is a mate, who has been reading along, but doesn't want to enter the fray ... no doubt wisely so. Funny how he has described the behavior of some here as being very Bully like toward me ... his words not mine.

EDIT
And just in case you have been misreading my tone (pretty easy in this one dimensional method of communication), Aussies are generally quite forthright. If we see a shovel, we call it a shovel, not a spade. We don't beat around the bush. I know many Americans tend to be overly polite, at least according to caricatures. The only ones I have come across, are also often condescending. Depends what you call polite I guess. I think the Japanese are better suited to that label, not that I like or believe in labels. On the whole I like Americans a lot and find them not too dissimilar to Aussies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Because purely and simply they can't defend their pricing model for ebooks, which is what they try to do.

In other words, they pretend to be moral and ethical.

I suppose I am just one of the deluded many who thinks everyone, including companies and governments, should play fair. To us, that makes for a better world.

They can make us downtrodden, but they cannot shut us up .... but they will try.

I'm afraid that's where we fundamentally disagree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a company's legal obligation is to obey the law and act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking, that means maximising its profits. There's no pretence involved: that is the company's legal duty and its sole reason for existing. A publisher is not in the business of selling books at the lowest possible price, but at the price that will generate maximum profit. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that - it's the reason for the publisher's existence.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Mmmmm so I can buy a Terry Brooks ebook I want, from more than one publisher can I?

If there is only one of something, and the provider has total control, it seems like a monopoly to me.

That's not generally what people mean when they use the word "monopoly".

Just as with any other commercial product, you can choose to buy the book at the price it's sold at, or spend your money elsewhere. I really don't think it's reasonable to claim that the publisher is behaving immorally or unfairly if they don't offer the book at a price that's as low as you personally believe it should be.

If you think it's too expensive, you could buy a different book, or borrow it from the library instead.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that's where we fundamentally disagree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a company's legal obligation is to obey the law and act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking, that means maximising its profits. There's no pretence involved: that is the company's legal duty and its sole reason for existing. A publisher is not in the business of selling books at the lowest possible price, but at the price that will generate maximum profit. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that - it's the reason for the publisher's existence.

I guess we do.
And just for the record, I have never expected or desired lowest possible price, only a fair price, and I certainly believe in moral obligation to society.

By all means, feather your nest, but have consideration for others too. You can actually successfully do both ... if you really want to.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that's where we fundamentally disagree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a company's legal obligation is to obey the law and act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking, that means maximising its profits. There's no pretence involved: that is the company's legal duty and its sole reason for existing. A publisher is not in the business of selling books at the lowest possible price, but at the price that will generate maximum profit. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that - it's the reason for the publisher's existence.

Doing a Google of "penguin books mission statement", I get this:

Penguin Random House is committed to expanding our role as a cultural institution that serves society not only with the books we publish and investments we make in new ideas, creativity, and diverse voices, but also through our charitable donations and leadership of numerous campaigns and initiatives worldwide that ...

And the website:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/about-us/our-story/

Doing a find on the page, no hit for profit or maximize.

[HarryT]

I’m referring to the legal obligations that apply to any company, John. If you own shares in a company and you feel that the board of directors of that company isn’t acting in your best interests, you can take them to court.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's not generally what people mean when they use the word "monopoly".

Clearly that is your view not mine. It fits the criteria from where I am sitting.

Just as with any other commercial product, you can choose to buy the book at the price it's sold at, or spend your money elsewhere. I really don't think it's reasonable to claim that the publisher is behaving immorally or unfairly if they don't offer the book at a price that's as low as you personally believe it should be.

Well just imagine some company buying up all Orange distributors so they can control the price. Are you saying I should buy an Apple instead? They are both fruit.

If you think it's too expensive, you could buy a different book, or borrow it from the library instead.

And indeed I do, but a bit hard once you have bought into a series.

This topic as I keep saying, is about ebook price fairness and behavior of publishers and why ... not necessarily what I may or may not do when it comes to buying.

While I've got the chance, let me thank you and others for the information and views you have provided, especially the more detailed ones. I've taken a lot of it on board, even though I did know a lot of it, you have still filled in some gaps and refreshed my mind on a few things.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by crossi

You haven't mentioned the life plus 70 years of copyright. The publishers don't need get their investment back the first year it's published. They've got another 100 or more years with no further expenses to offset profit on ebooks. And don't tell me about the cost of the servers and people to run it. They can use the same one they use for payroll and other admin uses. The additional cost per each ebook is nothing. They can easily store all the ebooks they've ever published on a desktop, or more probably on Amazons server business.

I wanted to speak to this--you're misconstruing how copyright and publishing rights work. Yes, sure, copyright exists for the life+70 years--but publishing contracts don't. The typical longest length for a Big 5 publishing contract is 7 years--not, life, not 70 and not life+70. When publishing houses bought books outright, sure--that would work for them, but publishing hasn't worked that way in the last 100 years.

The author and the author's heirs/estate may well benefit from copyright lasting that long--but the publisher that runs all the risks certainly will not, not without renegotiating its contract with the copyright holder--the author.

The publisher, whether Bantam, Random House, etc., is taking a lot of risk. They put in the time and the money, and the advance--however much it is--the marketing, the editing, cover design, yadda--and then they release it into the wild and pray for the best. If it doesn't earn out in that 7 years, they're out that money, and you can betcha that the author isn't going to extend the duration of the contract out of the goodness of his/her heart. For the publisher to keep the contract, and any rights to those eBooks that you feel will just keep on earning, ad infinitum, they'll have to pay the author yet more dough. Otherwise, they're simply out--and the benefit of whatever work that publisher did, the creation of the eBooks, any marketing, etc., at that point inures solely to the author who now has no obligation to that publisher any longer.

@Timboli: for the record, I'm not a publisher. I do provide publishing services--print book design/layout, ebook production, cover design and production, etc. That's no secret here, obviously; it's in my sig. We subcontract services through my shop as well--editing and indexing, amongst others, to name a few. I know what book production costs. I know what publishers go through, now, having spent the last decade in this business now directly (rather than my looser affiliations, as a commercial book reviewer, in my last life). I have sympathies now for publishers that I certainly never had a decade ago, because I know all too well what it takes, in blood sweat tears and money, to get a book from concept or even manuscript to printed, ready-for-reading book. I know what it's like to work with authors. Believe me, when I say, there are easier ways to make money in the world than book publishing.

I'll also say, as a businessperson--the publisher's obligation isn't, really, to you. Sure, they need to bring good products to the market, so that you'll buy them. But their obligation is to their shareholders, to make a profit. That's their LEGAL and fiduciary obligation. It's no different than if you buy shares in Exxon or an airline or a bank--they owe you a duty of care, and a fiduciary duty to try to make money for you, for the value of your shares.

Now, maybe you don't own any stocks or bonds, and no investments, so that's not something to which you relate, but most people have them in their retirement or pension plan accounts. So, if you have the parent company's shares in your retirement account, what matters most to you? A "fairer" (from your perspective) price on your book? More value on your stock? If you can only have one, which would you choose?

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How exactly is that relevant to the threat of who owns who and who controls who? Don't get me wrong, it is interesting. It is also interesting that all of Amazon's book department (all book sales, reading devices, imprints) is just a small drop in the bucket of all of Amazon. Nothing different there than with the owners of the Big5. At least from a business standpoint, moral issues completely ignored.

It's relevant from the stand point that some seem to think there is one guy setting policy for Penguin, for example, while the reality is that each little imprint and purchasing editor within Penguin is doing their own thing within broad guidelines. Heck, even if you look at the same imprint within Penguin, say G.P. Putnam's Sons, you see that all the kindle prices aren't the same for all new books put out in the same month, just a quick cursory glance shows prices varying several dollars from book to book. The big 5 publishers are hardly the monolith that people seem to assume.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I’m referring to the legal obligations that apply to any company, John. If you own shares in a company and you feel that the board of directors of that company isn’t acting in your best interests, you can take them to court.

Exactly. They have to act according to shareholders, it isn't that companies "have" to "maximize profits"; unless you mean that they have to maximize profits given the guidelines set out by the shareholders.