Amazon says 'will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms'

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, from a practical perspective, what do you think should be done about it? You've said that you're unhappy that a small number of publishers monopolise the publishing industry. Do you think that it's feasible, in the existing legal framework, to tear up all the publishing contracts and give anyone a right to publish any book that they choose?

For one thing, I don't think corporations should be allowed to hold copyrights and the length of the term should perhaps be shorter than it currently is, but I'm not sure I have a good idea of what that length should be.

[Blue Tyson]

Whatever you want to call it, it is still protectionism. Not sure what they call it in Sweden, but those are often called 'copyright territories' here. My apologies if small differences in English words aren't clear to you.

They trade in rights. Licensing is different.

For example, if : an US retailer is not allowed to import UK books (or Indian, or Chinese, or Swedish) that is restraint of trade. Not free. The local publishers are protected.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly and don't expect it to get better if the big bully MacMillan gets their way. They don't even seem to want to sell ebooks. This move by them is flat out protectionism of their print business.

What floors me is that in the current model it is only Amazon that is losing money, not the publishers, not the authors.

While Amazon is definitely losing money on bestsellers, I don't think that's the whole story. Amazon has a corporate history of following through on long term strategies and I think that's the case here. What I think they are doing by selling best sellers at less than wholesale is spending money to support a business strategy.

They want total or near-total dominance of the ebook and reader industry at least in the US and are willing to spend money to get it. Their eventual business goal has to be to move the ebook division into profit; whether that be through lowering wholesale costs, raising prices, increasing sales overall to cover loss leaders, or any other tactic they choose to employ.

Macmillan fought back because they don't want to end up in the same boat as a Wal-mart supplier.

As for bullying, the only bullying tactic involved here was the removal of buy buttons: and that was Amazon's doing. The rest was all negotiations.

Macmillan is by no means perfect, but just as wanting to raise prices isn't intrinsically evil (I don't like it but that doesn't make it evil), that doesn't mean that Amazon's action should get a free pass.

Amazon tried to bully Macmillan, authors, and consumers when they removed the buy buttons.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Whatever you want to call it, it is still protectionism. Not sure what they call it in Sweden, but those are often called 'copyright territories' here. My apologies if small differences in English words aren't clear to you.

Protectionism is implemented by government regulations. Voluntary contracts signed by companies is not protectionism. Publishers splitting the world in copyright territories is not protectionism.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

...
As for bullying, the only bullying tactic involved here was the removal of buy buttons: and that was Amazon's doing. The rest was all negotiations.
...

Words. Some people call thievery file sharing.

I clearly see it as the elephant (MacMillan) throwing it's weight around to get what it wants and it is not in order to benefit either consumers or authors. We need a completely new publication model for that to happen.

Amazon's reaction was a result of that assault, not something they would have done otherwise. Call it negotiation if you like.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, from a practical perspective, what do you think should be done about it? You've said that you're unhappy that a small number of publishers monopolise the publishing industry. Do you think that it's feasible, in the existing legal framework, to tear up all the publishing contracts and give anyone a right to publish any book that they choose?

I see. So now we've gone from nit-picking to telling me that I should immediately offer a fully workable alternative system that everyone will agree with.
Personally, I was hoping we could all just bask in the awareness that there was something wrong first, but I guess I'm only allowed to suggest that if I already have a plan.
Still, considering how unimportant the lives of individuals are deemed to be by governments, (See the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died since the US/UK decided to do a little social experiment in the Middle East to see if they could create a democracy there) I propose we limit copyright to 10 years, and for books that have made <200.000$ by then, an extension of another 10 years. Everything else -> PD.
Should be fun to see if literary output increases because writers suddenly have an incentive to keep churning out new works.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by tompe

Protectionism is implemented by government regulations. Voluntary contracts signed by companies is not protectionism. Publishers splitting the world in copyright territories is not protectionism.

You are making no sense again. Copyright Acts are government regulations! If there was no legal basis for it, it would have no effect.

They are NOT voluntary. If I open a US bookshop tomorrow and want to import Indian books, I cannot. That is INVOLUNTARY. I want to, and am prevented from doing so. That is a restraint of trade and reduces competition.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Words. Some people call thievery file sharing.

I clearly see it as the elephant (MacMillan) throwing it's weight around to get what it wants and it is not in order to benefit either consumers or authors. We need a completely new publication model for that to happen.

Amazon's reaction was a result of that assault, not something they would have done otherwise. Call it negotiation if you like.

First, I agree with you on file sharing not being theft. It's a very complex issue that's been compounded by what's going on in other industries, but equating file sharing to theft is just not accurate.

I would be much more comfortable with your characterization of Amazon's response if it was the first time they had done such a thing. It's not. There was the Hachette delisting in 2008, and the whole GLBT thing last year. Not to mention their lawsuit against the pre-existing "Amazon Bookstore," where a large part of their legal strategy seemed based on pointing out that the owners of a women's bookstore were lesbian.

My two cents for what it's worth.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The pricing part that always drives me nuts is when the dead tree version is in mass market for about $8 and the ebook is still hovering near $15-20. I can't stand it and won't pay those prices.

I ended up in a whole gray area with one book I wanted. While searching via the nook, I found a medical thriller I was interested in -- To the Bone by Neil Mcmahon, published by HarperCollins. The e-book has a list price of 11.99 and sells for $9.59. But it turns out it originally came in 2004. Suspicous about the price, I checked some more and realized there was a mass market paperback edition. But I looked more into it and realized the mass market edition is out of print. I could buy the used paperback for a penny (plus shipping & handling), but the only edition "in print" is the electronic one.

Or I could just give up and buy a Robin Cook or Michael Palmer e-book for around $6.79.

[Deneb]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Macmillan fought back because they don't want to end up in the same boat as a Wal-mart supplier.

As for bullying, the only bullying tactic involved here was the removal of buy buttons: and that was Amazon's doing. The rest was all negotiations.

Macmillan is by no means perfect, but just as wanting to raise prices isn't intrinsically evil (I don't like it but that doesn't make it evil), that doesn't mean that Amazon's action should get a free pass.

Amazon tried to bully Macmillan, authors, and consumers when they removed the buy buttons.

The confessed goal of MacMillan for this "negociation" as you call it, is to "educate" us consumers on the "correct" price an ebook should cost and stop us from believing that silly notion an ebook should be cheaper.

Why else anyway? They were not loosing money, why should they care if amazon did?
They're bullying us a lot more than amazon is. We always have the option to go elsewere to buy the removed books, what choice do we have if they get away with the fixing of prices for all of their books?

Amazon is not the good guy, I know and your right, but from the point of view of the consumer that I am...MacMillan is definitly the bad guy...

And I stop believing their "for the good of the author" when they don't even try to hide the fact that they do everything in their power to screw them as much as they can.

[Scott Nicholson]

I am not sure we should all assume Amazon is losing money on ebooks--the hardcover bestsellers is where this battle is currently focused, hyped, and fought but there's tremendous activity in the backlist and indie author areas. If you don't believe me, go browse the bestseller lists in your favorite category (top 100). Many of those are $1.99 or lower. I think this battle was already over it before it began.

The only thing remaining is for authors to realize they are the content deliverers, and the publishers used to be...

Scott Nicholson
http://tiny.cc/21tn9

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Deneb

Why else anyway? They were not loosing money, why should they care if amazon did?

That was explained in the original statement I think. Because when amazon totally dominates the market they will force the publishers to lower the price. And they did not believe that would lead to a sustainable market.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Deneb

The confessed goal of MacMillan for this "negociation" as you call it, is to "educate" us consumers on the "correct" price an ebook should cost and stop us from believing that silly notion an ebook should be cheaper.

Why else anyway? They were not loosing money, why should they care if amazon did?
They're bullying us a lot more than amazon is. We always have the option to go elsewere to buy the removed books, what choice do we have if they get away with the fixing of prices for all of their books?

Amazon is not the good guy, I know and your right, but from the point of view of the consumer that I am...MacMillan is definitly the bad guy...

And I stop believing their "for the good of the author" when they don't even try to hide the fact that they do everything in their power to screw them as much as they can.

My own take is that Macmillan is the "less evil guy" in this dispute.

As for buying elsewhere, I'm not a Kindle owner and I can't buy Kindle books for my Reader. That means I get no benefit from Amazon's $9.99 price policy because it doesn't apply to me. Amazon's not saying "we want low prices because they are good for consumers," they're trying to use low prices to get people to buy in to their own particular form of ebook vendor lock-in.

That's not what I call the behavior of the good guy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As for buying elsewhere, I'm not a Kindle owner and I can't buy Kindle books for my Reader. That means I get no benefit from Amazon's $9.99 price policy because it doesn't apply to me.

Actually you do. Compare prices in other eBook stores now with what they were before Amazon introduced a $9.99 price-point for best-sellers. Many of the other stores have matched that price. Everybody's gained, Kindle or no Kindle.

[Deneb]

Originally Posted by tompe

That was explained in the original statement I think. Because when amazon totally dominates the market they will force the publishers to lower the price. And they did not believe that would lead to a sustainable market.

I read that then too, did you really believe it? trully?
The chances of Amazon dominating the market are not so great anyway, not with so many little independant publishers.
Months to come are going to be quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Scott Nicholson

I am not sure we should all assume Amazon is losing money on ebooks--the hardcover bestsellers is where this battle is currently focused, hyped, and fought but there's tremendous activity in the backlist and indie author areas. If you don't believe me, go browse the bestseller lists in your favorite category (top 100). Many of those are $1.99 or lower. I think this battle was already over it before it began.

The only thing remaining is for authors to realize they are the content deliverers, and the publishers used to be...

Scott Nicholson
http://tiny.cc/21tn9

I agree with you on that and I so hope you're right