Amazon's assult on Intellectual Freedom

[taustin]

Originally Posted by crossi

"pulled the plug" on their books? Idiots. No distributor can sell a product without a contract to do so. If the terms of the contract can't be agreed on no sales can possibly take place. Legally anyway. If Amazon had continued to sell their products it would have opened them to a major lawsuit about their illegal behavior.

Not only lawsuits. Selling without a contract is a criminal offense in the US.

(Interesting that they use Walmart as an example. Walmart does exactly the same thing to their vendors - you start off with a reasonable deal, become dependent on them for the majority of your business, and every year you are required to reduce your price to them. Once you've expanded your production to accomodate the increased business, you either reduce your costs - and the quality of the goods you're making - or you go under. Very similiar business practice.)

Amazon is pretty slimy, yeah. But these people are idiots. Especially predicting the end of intellectual freedom over 100 titles. Drama queens.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by taustin

Once you've expanded your production to accomodate the increased business, you either reduce your costs - and the quality of the goods you're making - or you go under. Very similiar business practice.)

That's the thing, it's a business choice whether you should continue to do business and if you've put all your eggs in one basket with a single sole retailer, you're likely the maker of your own demise.

I've no doubt supermarkets like walmart have put companies out of business by continuing to squeeze them and will continue to do so. However, that tends to work only for commodity products and I'm not sure books really fall into that category. If there's an author you like that leaves amazon due to price squeezing, you can't just change "brands" and why bother when you can go and buy direct from the author.

Now if you're into reading generic books, then yes amazon could squeeze those authors and replace them with plenty of new authors with customers not caring a jot as they'll churn out similar content. Not sure I'd miss any other those authors though

For quality authors, they shouldn't give in to amazon's demands and instead take their product elsewhere.

Amazon is pretty slimy, yeah. But these people are idiots. Especially predicting the end of intellectual freedom over 100 titles. Drama queens.

That's really the issue I had with the blog, making it into a freedom issue when it isn't.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by darryl

So I went in search of further information. I found many similar propaganda type pieces, but remarkably could not find the terms which Amazon attempted to impose. One account said that such terms had not in fact been disclosed. Another indicated that the dispute was over terms for ebooks and print books were not affected. Perhaps it's simply my poor searching skills. So I ask, is anyone able to enlighter me as to what the new terms are that Amazon sought to impose which are so objectionable?

I couldn't find what terms were offered and rejected either. Without them it's hard to determine what is really happening.

Amazon still sells their print editions. So were the terms for print or digital? They weren't agency priced so either way there was no risk or loss to Amazon. They were free to sell them at any price they chose.

[ProfCrash]

The terms were for the e-books. This happened several weeks back, it might be as much as a month. There was a topic titled something about Amazon trying to destroy the little guy. This is the follow on which tells me that the initial attempt to make Amazon look like an evil dictator trying to destroy David went no where. So now they are trying the intellectual freedom approach.

There is a great card game based on getting Tenure that my brother got me when I was in Graduate School. There were cards like "Got fries with that" and other silly nonesense that reasonably accuretly reflected the life of a Grad Student or a Assistant Professor. One of the cards was "Academic Freedom". All you had to do was play the card and chant "Academic Freedom" three times and whatever bad stuff someone was trying to play on you (Like the sex change card or the racist card or the caught sleeping with a student card) would go away.

This article sure sounds to me like a publishing company chanting "Academic Freedom." They could not come to terms with Amazon regarding selling their e-books so Amazon is not selling them. This is no different then Amazon chosing not to sell a multitude of products. No one's intellectual freedom is being hurt. You can buy the e-books from other places. Their bottom line is being hurt because they have been able to negotiate terms that are acceptable to both parties. Their public tempertantrum has gotten them no where and so now they trot out "Intellectual Freedom."

Silly

[Penforhire]

This is just one side of the story. If Amazon was indeed completely unwilling to negotiate then I'd view them poorly. But this could just be spin on a set of unreasonable demands. I'm not saying Amazon always acts properly but I won't get all 'up in arms' without the whole story.

[Kali Yuga]

JoeD: To be clear, I am not saying that Amazon does not have the right to pull the titles; it's just a pressure tactic, and in that respect is business as usual. Plenty of vendors object to Walmart's extreme price/margin pressure, but suck it up anyway to get access to such a huge retailer.

My point is more that the anti-publisher bias is very likely to end up as self-defeating. If the publishers get wiped out, there will be one less layer between author and reader -- but that one layer will be highly consolidated into a very small number of retailers (Amazon, Apple, maybe B&N if they survive).

I don't view iOS and Kindle as being all that different, because they both have vendor lock-ins that result in significant barriers to 3rd party sales. iOS devs can ditch the App Store, but can only sell to Jailbroken iOS devices. Authors and small pubs can sell MOBI files directly to consumers, but can't apply DRM, sell OTA, or order directly from the device. iOS is more formally restricted, but 3rd party retailers are at a significant structural disadvantage on both platforms.

For example, IPG can't make its own ebook store without incurring significant costs, ditching DRM, losing all the convenience of OTA delivery, not getting any titles listed on Amazon's "top seller" lists, not getting listed in any Amazon referral engines. This is not to say "it can't be done" or that Amazon has a responsibility to make "everything" available. But it does mean that if you lose 40% of your sales by getting booted from Amazon's site, a good chunk of those sales are permanently lost, even if you make your own MOBI files available elsewhere.

I would agree that "zomg Amazon is killing books" is hyperbolic. However, it might be rational to conclude that Amazon is competing more aggressively against brick & mortar and small pubs -- as indicated by the price check app, pressure on IPG, forming its own imprints and pushing its self-publishing options. (And it's not that much more hyperbolic than saying "ebooks will kill all the publishers and the ebook world will be perfectly flat, yay!")

Amazon is acting legally when it competes very aggressively like this. Just keep in mind that when you side with Amazon over a small publisher, caveat emptor.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

No one's intellectual freedom is being hurt. You can buy the e-books from other places.

You can, but there are significant barriers for 3rd parties who want to sell to Kindle readers (see above post).

And I gotta say, if your employer cut your wages by 40% and tells you "it's a free market, go get a job somewhere else," you might utter a few inaccurate hyperbolic descriptions of your employer's motives.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I don't view iOS and Kindle as being all that different, because they both have vendor lock-ins that result in significant barriers to 3rd party sales. iOS devs can ditch the App Store, but can only sell to Jailbroken iOS devices. Authors and small pubs can sell MOBI files directly to consumers, but can't apply DRM, sell OTA, or order directly from the device. iOS is more formally restricted, but 3rd party retailers are at a significant structural disadvantage on both platforms.

I (partly) disagree on that.

There's no way to sell to Apple customers that haven't jailbroken but with the kindle there is. It may not be an identical nor seamless experience that buying from Amazon is but it's not far off.

Lack of DRM well, imo that shouldn't be an issue but I concede amazon not supporting any other than their own DRM is poor. However there is at least still a way to sell ebooks to kindle owners without the requirement that kindle owners jailbreak.

In addition the lack of allowing epub/Adobe DRM on the kindle may backfire if Amazon starts to squeeze too many mainstream authors. If they pull their books, kindle owners will be stuck and question why they can't buy them from Amazon. Amazon has to be pretty careful how far they push.

Kindle is imo more like Andriod than Apple's iOS. You can install ebooks from elsewhere although the experience may not be quite as seamless as from the "official" store, but it's at least possible.

I would agree that "zomg Amazon is killing books" is hyperbolic. However, it might be rational to conclude that Amazon is competing more aggressively against brick & mortar and small pubs

I've no doubt they are and will continue to excerpt more pressure as and when they can. That's why I think authors would be silly to accept amazon's exclusive publishing options, they may appear attractive now, but eventually they'll be squeezed and have no alternatives other than starting up on their own direct and taking a large bottom line hit until they're back up and running.

Amazon is acting legally when it competes very aggressively like this. Just keep in mind that when you side with Amazon over a small publisher, caveat emptor.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not siding with Amazon, although I'm not siding with IPG either at the moment as there's no way to know if they're being offered a "fair" deal or not without being privy to the terms on offer.

I just think the way they're trying to "sell" the story is that amazon are going to bring an end to freedom which is just so far off base from the real issue I couldn't believe what I'd read

Had the original blogger simply expressed their annoyance over amazon wanting to pay them less than before and said they're not willing to do so and encouraged others to take a stand, then I'd be more likely to have supported their position.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

Not sure of how things are operated in the US, but certainly here in Australia that practice happens. Woolworths and Coles (major supermarket chains) are renowned for talking to suppliers and setting the price at which they will buy it at, usually at or just below cost to produce...................................

Absolutely the same in UK. I know from experience of friends in farming - think milk, butter, veg, meat, eggs etc... things you can't actually live without, not non-essentials - they are screwed badly by the big supermarket chains in this manner fairly mercilessly.
Except for the few niche, so-called "premium" lines which they use to trumpet how much they care for quality, the environment, blah blah....

You don't like the terms ? There's always some other poor sod ready to step in. Milk is the prime example - it has to be sold to someone, or tipped away.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JoeD

That's the thing, it's a business choice whether you should continue to do business and if you've put all your eggs in one basket with a single sole retailer, you're likely the maker of your own demise.

I don't disagree. But when you're doing x amount of business, and barely squeaking by, and Walmart calls and says "We want to do 10x in business with you," and it means you can afford to send your kids to college, it's pretty tempting. Walmart seems to have a fondness for doing business with small companies that feel that temptations.

But mostly, I just found it amusing that they used Walmart as a comparison when Walmart pretty much pioneered the same business practices.

Originally Posted by JoeD

I've no doubt supermarkets like walmart have put companies out of business by continuing to squeeze them and will continue to do so. However, that tends to work only for commodity products and I'm not sure books really fall into that category. If there's an author you like that leaves amazon due to price squeezing, you can't just change "brands" and why bother when you can go and buy direct from the author.

Now if you're into reading generic books, then yes amazon could squeeze those authors and replace them with plenty of new authors with customers not caring a jot as they'll churn out similar content. Not sure I'd miss any other those authors though

For quality authors, they shouldn't give in to amazon's demands and instead take their product elsewhere.

The trick is, other than the very top selles - the ones you hear about on the news, how likely is the average fan to know that their favorite mid-list author's books have been pulled from Amazon's catalog? Stuff already in print, they've already got, and probably won't notice if it disappears. New stuff, they won't ever see at all, unless they happen to catch the news somewhere other than Amazon.

In the end, yeah, it's quite possible to sell books, especially ebooks, without Amazon, but it's a lot more work than with Amazon, and that's time spent not writing.

But I agree with you, in the end. You want to play in Amazon's sand box, you have to play by their rules.

(Though you should note that in this particular case, from what I could tell, the authors have nothing to say in the matter. Their publisher is the one in a dispute with Amazon, not the authors, so you cannot actually buy direct from the authors, who (probably) sold exclusive rights to the publishers. A bit more complicated than it might seem, but in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Buy direct from the publisher, and if they don't sell direct, the authors need a smarter publishers, and will likely get one soon.)



That's really the issue I had with the blog, making it into a freedom issue when it isn't.[/QUOTE]

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by taustin

The trick is, other than the very top selles - the ones you hear about on the news, how likely is the average fan to know that their favorite mid-list author's books have been pulled from Amazon's catalog? Stuff already in print, they've already got, and probably won't notice if it disappears. New stuff, they won't ever see at all, unless they happen to catch the news somewhere other than Amazon.

I agree. Although even when you are on Amazon I imagine if you're outside the top 10-100 charts it's pretty difficult to get eyes on your book rather than the 1000's of similar titles. I know that's the case with Apple's App store

Though you should note that in this particular case, from what I could tell, the authors have nothing to say in the matter. Their publisher is the one in a dispute with Amazon, not the authors, so you cannot actually buy direct from the authors, who (probably) sold exclusive rights to the publishers. A bit more complicated than it might seem, but in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Buy direct from the publisher, and if they don't sell direct, the authors need a smarter publishers, and will likely get one soon.

Yeah, authors do tend to get the short end of the stick in situations like this. I really hope more authors self-publish or at the very least retain rights to sell their ebooks direct when they sign a publishing contract (which I accept is easier said than done when they're possibly waving cash in front of you and you're not selling other books already)

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

This article sure sounds to me like a publishing company chanting "Academic Freedom." They could not come to terms with Amazon regarding selling their e-books so Amazon is not selling them. This is no different then Amazon chosing not to sell a multitude of products. No one's intellectual freedom is being hurt. You can buy the e-books from other places. Their bottom line is being hurt because they have been able to negotiate terms that are acceptable to both parties. Their public tempertantrum has gotten them no where and so now they trot out "Intellectual Freedom."

If you're correct and the unresolved terms were for non-Agency ebooks, then what is everyone's problem? Amazon didn't like IPG's wholesale prices? That doesn't make sense. Amazon is taking no risks and little cost. Why not list their ebooks? So what if they don't sell.

Does Amazon only want cheap ebooks now? No wholesale cost over $4.25?

Or would they rather each small press list their titles separately away from IPG? This way they earn 30%. But they had the freedom to earn that before with the previous terms.

Without knowing the specifics I am speculating and probably wasting my time.