Do some publishers have any idea?

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's nothing to explain. The publisher is free to set whatever price they wish, and you're free to choose to buy it or not as you wish. There's nothing immoral or unethical about the situation.

Sorry, but as smart as I know you to be, from our limited interactions, I know you to be totally and absolutely wrong in that view.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Sorry, but as smart as I know you to be, from our limited interactions, I know you to be totally and absolutely wrong in that view.

Seriously? You think that you have the right to dictate what a manufacturer should sell a product for?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seriously? You think that you have the right to dictate what a manufacturer should sell a product for?

Not only that, Harry, the way I read it Timboli also wants dictate what is moral, ethical and fair. It's really quite breathtaking.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Timboli

[...] It's not like J.K. Rowling and the publisher wouldn't have made a killing anyway from profit. How can any reasonable person view it as anything but greed? [...]

And yet when you read about the amounts that people like J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates donate to charity, you have to wonder: how many of those dollars would have made it to charity if they had not been accumulated in such excess in the first place? I think it is an interesting question. Certainly their work has generated incomes for thousands of other people.

There are some very rich people out there that spend their money on buying political position, those you might make an argument for greed. Big business often speaks of how they benefit the community via the trickle-down effect, but with Rowling and Gates it has been much more than a trickle; greed is not a word I'd use with either of them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

And yet when you read about the amounts that people like J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates donate to charity, you have to wonder: how many of those dollars would have made it to charity if they had not been accumulated in such excess in the first place? I think it is an interesting question. Certainly their work has generated incomes for thousands of other people.

There are some very rich people out there that spend their money on buying political position, those you might make an argument for greed. Big business often speaks of how they benefit the community via the trickle-down effect, but with Rowling and Gates it has been much more than a trickle; greed is not a word I'd use with either of them.

I'm just flabbergasted that anyone would use the Harry Potter phenom as an example of how things shouldn't have been done.

There are very few industries where someone can use a product for free. The book industry has libraries just so people who might not be able to afford books can read. In the US, pretty much every community and school has some sort of library.

These days on the internet, there are tons of free books. Going back to the Harry Potter phenom. JK Rowling turns a blind eye to the massive amounts of Harry Potter fanfic, even though it's technically a violation of her copyright. There are PD books and books that various authors have released for free.

I complain more than most about the super long copyright laws, but I have no issue with an author and publisher making what they can during the duration of the copyright. I just don't like not being able to legally get the work, I'm fine paying for it.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seriously? You think that you have the right to dictate what a manufacturer should sell a product for?

Or a retailer. I am a retailer. I will not let anyone else dictate what price I can set my merchandise. If it is priced to high I will have trouble selling it in a timely manner and that can cost me sales. Turn around time is very important in retail. If I price it to low I may sell it faster, but my ROI will not be high enough to pay my bills let alone make a profit. The Free Market Place means just that. I am free to set what ever price I want and you are free to buy or not buy it.
With the ability to access books for free via a library, I do not understand why Timboli feels that he is being defrauded.
Apache

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Apache

Or a retailer. I am a retailer. I will not let anyone else dictate what price I can set my merchandise. If it is priced to high I will have trouble selling it in a timely manner and that can cost me sales. Turn around time is very important in retail. If I price it to low I may sell it faster, but my ROI will not be high enough to pay my bills let alone make a profit. The Free Market Place means just that. I am free to set what ever price I want and you are free to buy or not buy it.
With the ability to access books for free via a library, I do not understand why Timboli feels that he is being defrauded.
Apache

I'm with you, Apache. Of course, as fellow biz owners and entrepreneurs, we usually tend to agree. I'd LOVE to see what Timboli thinks about how I should be setting my prices to be "fair." Fair to whom, exactly?

Fair to the would-be self-publisher, that wants to pay the least possible, to publish his/her books looking like a trade-pubbed book? Fair to my Crew, who count on me to keep their incomes coming, so that they can pay their rent, buy their food, feed their families?

Man, "fair" is really simple--apparently--if you don't have to think about any of that stuff. No doubt, the same is true for publishers--is it "fair" to price their books high enough so that they can subsidize the next risky book? Fair to price them enough so that they think they'll be in business for the next quarter, next fiscal period, long enough to pay their employees?

Sheesh.

Sorry, Timboli, I see that you think that everyone here is "ganging up" on you, and that's certainly not my intent, but you seem to be looking at this a bit one-dimensionally, if I may say so.

Hitch

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by Timboli

If ever there was a time, when the usual Hardcover shenanigans should have been done away with, it was with her Harry Potter books. But no, they milked it for all it was worth, not giving a stuff about the poor people effected. Sure, they gave away a few as promotion etc.

Many many people around the world love and read her books, and many many of those poor people. Because they are so popular, they are talked about at school and everywhere, so just imagine what it must be like for a poor kid especially, in that circumstance.

I was a teenager living in the Philippines back then. We might have been considered middle class but certainly no money for books (unless they're used). I think minimum wage back then was something like $100-150/mo. Even the $10 for a paperback was a lot of money (a week's worth of meals). For comparison, movie tickets were $1 back then and pirated VCDs were like $0.50-0.75.

Thankfully, my affluent friend buys the HP books upon release. There were 6 of us queued up to borrow from her. We had a rule in place that no spoiler discussions were allowed around those of us who haven't read it yet. In the classroom, other students were considerate enough not to continue spoiler discussions or to lower their voices if you tell them you haven't read the books yet.

Mind, I was in something like a charter school where majority of students came from affluent private schools. The really poor kids going to public school? They didn't know Harry Potter existed until the movies came out and really, they were more concerned about getting food to eat.

[ZodWallop]

Man, even if I don't agree, I've been empathetic to your overall point. But this entire post is absolutely ludicrous. I'd swear you're pulling all our legs here, having a private joke.

Originally Posted by Timboli

Here is another example of publisher predatory behavior.

Most people know J.K. Rowling. She's a great author and I love her work.

Many would also know she is reputedly the richest woman in the world ... but don't quote me on that. She is very very rich by any measuring stick, and so are her publishers.

If ever there was a time, when the usual Hardcover shenanigans should have been done away with, it was with her Harry Potter books. But no, they milked it for all it was worth, not giving a stuff about the poor people effected. Sure, they gave away a few as promotion etc.

Many many people around the world love and read her books, and many many of those poor people. Because they are so popular, they are talked about at school and everywhere, so just imagine what it must be like for a poor kid especially, in that circumstance.

The next novel in the series comes out in hardcover first, and of course the affluent snap it up immediately and reading commences straight away, and then discussions and spoilers abound.

Any kid not wanting the story to be spoiled for them, would want to get the novel right away too. That put a lot of pressures on a lot of families and kids, and many of them suffered unnecessarily.

It could have been avoided to huge degree, by bringing out a fair priced paperback from the word go.

It's not like J.K. Rowling and the publisher wouldn't have made a killing anyway from profit. How can any reasonable person view it as anything but greed?

Just imagine how many parents refused to budge? How many gave in and made some kind of sacrifice, because they love their kids?

It's unconscionable really, that situation they were put it.

I wonder how many of you have ever thought about that?

P.S. I thought about that every time I bought the hardcover for my kids. Luckily I could afford it, even though the extra money spent could have gone to other areas that needed it. I always spared a thought for those less fortunate, and the greed made me angry ... and very very sad.

I grew up a poor kid in section 8 housing (I believe you guys call it public housing). I borrowed books from the library and I remember having to wait weeks for Judy Blume's Superfudge when it was the hot book. Yet it never occurred to me that Judy Blume was obligated to swing by my house and sell me a copy at a fair price (which for me at that age would have been pennies) because I just couldn't wait to read the book. Reading the latest Harry Potter book isn't a right and really isn't even important in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't get a Members only jacket when they were the fad. Because not everything in life is affordable by everyone.

[Sirtel]

Well, capitalism isn't fair. Socialism is fair. I grew up in a socialist country. All the prices were fixed. Books cost mere cents and were very affordable, for which I'm truly grateful. I never lacked books in my childhood. But... there was also censure (for example, The Lord of the Rings was forbidden and I didn't get to read it until I was an adult, after the collapse of the Soviet Union). And we all know where socialism as a regime ended up. It bankrupted itself.

Of course capitalism isn't perfect. But it has still been better than alternatives, at least so far.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Man, even if I don't agree, I've been empathetic to your overall point. But this entire post is absolutely ludicrous. I'd swear you're pulling all our legs here, having a private joke.



I grew up a poor kid in section 8 housing (I believe you guys call it public housing). I borrowed books from the library and I remember having to wait weeks for Judy Blume's Superfudge when it was the hot book. Yet it never occurred to me that Judy Blume was obligated to swing by my house and sell me a copy at a fair price (which for me at that age would have been pennies) because I just couldn't wait to read the book. Reading the latest Harry Potter book isn't a right and really isn't even important in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't get a Members only jacket when they were the fad. Because not everything in life is affordable by everyone.

And, if memory serves, JKRowling was hardly some upper-class housewife when she wrote them, either.

Someday I will understand the mindset of people who truly believe that their wish for free entertainment is a damn right. You have rights--a right to live, a right to breathe, pay taxes and die. Entertainment? You have NO "right" to entertainment. Don't have money? Go fishing. Take a walk in the woods. Go hang out with friends, and laugh--costs nothing. Make up your OWN stories--costs nothing.

Want to read the work that someone ELSE did? Want to see the latest Avengers movie, that someone paid $100M to film? That costs money, and it costs whatever those selling it choose to charge, greed or otherwise. It took Rowling what, 10 years and thousands and thousands of notepages, manuscript pages, etc., to write the HP saga? And you think you should have been entitled to her ebook versions, for free?

So, what's more important--your FREE entertainment, or her massive and I mean, MASSIVE donations to Charity, for people who need things like food, clean water, clothes and a roof over their heads? You'll forgive me if I think that Bill Gates having single-handedlwipedty much wiping out polio in India is more important than you getting a free XBox game, yeah? Or is some imaginary "right" to free or el-cheapo entertainment more important than her donations to the actual POOR? (and Yes, I'm fully aware that she could have, like Jobs, kept every bloody penny that she earned, and not given away a thin cent, but she did, as has Gates.)

This is absolutely leg-pulling time. Because this can't be a real post.

Hitch

[barryem]

Sirtel is right that Capitalism isn't fair. It's an attempt to balance greed. You make what I need and you sell it to me and I'll try to give you as little as possible for it. Of course you'll try to get as much for it as you can. It's a terrible system but, as is commonly said, better than all the others.

Of course publishers have a right to demand big prices for books. And I have the right to buy cheaper books. And Timboii has to right to be disgruntled and say so. And the rest of you guys have the right to think he's wrong.

It's really all okay. And it's entertaining, so please keep it up.

Barry

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, capitalism isn't fair. Socialism is fair. I grew up in a socialist country. All the prices were fixed. Books cost mere cents and were very affordable, for which I'm truly grateful. I never lacked books in my childhood. But... there was also censure (for example, The Lord of the Rings was forbidden and I didn't get to read it until I was an adult, after the collapse of the Soviet Union). And we all know where socialism as a regime ended up. It bankrupted itself.

Of course capitalism isn't perfect. But it has still been better than alternatives, at least so far.

When you were getting books for mere cents, were they written by authors who were living under the same regime, or were they written by foreign authors who weren't getting any royalties for them?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by GlennD

When you were getting books for mere cents, were they written by authors who were living under the same regime, or were they written by foreign authors who weren't getting any royalties for them?

Both. The books by foreign authors were translations. I have no idea if they were paid anything at all or not.

You could not order directly from foreign countries yourself, just as you could not travel to foreign countries whenever you wanted (except within the borders of the USSR). You could read only what was locally available.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Both. The books by foreign authors were translations. I have no idea if they were paid anything at all or not.

You could not order directly from foreign countries yourself, just as you could not travel to foreign countries whenever you wanted (except within the borders of the USSR). You could read only what was locally available.

I read from Wikipedia that the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention, which became effective on May 27, 1973, and that meant you couldn't translate foreign books without the author's permission. As to compensation to the author, I still have no idea.