DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[carpetmojo]

[QUOTE=DiapDealer; ............illegal collusion and price fixing...........[/QUOTE]


Well....there's a thing....you wouldn't credit it, would you. Tchh.....

And publishing used to be such a gentlemanly profession before all this nasty e-stuff, too.......


[ P.S. is there such a thing as legal colluding I wonder ? ]

[carpetmojo]

[QUOTE=DiapDealer;.............Plus they're going to drown kittens.[/QUOTE]


Sounds like a plan to me.......

Make growing my vegetables so much nicer a pastime.....

[plib]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, there *was* that Spanish "author" who publicly stated she was getting out of the business because her "masterpiece" was getting pirated and not generating enough money.

Applause followed.
(She had a shady reputation to start with.)

I wonder how much she got from the usual suspects for that little essay. Maybe she's found a more lucrative genre?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

[ P.S. is there such a thing as legal colluding I wonder ? ]

Yup.
Consortia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium

(And MLB. But then Baseball really operates on an entirely different level. They have a SCOTUS-approved Antitrust exemption.)

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That is the single most ridiculous, unknowable, unprovable bit of philosophical, paradoxical claptrap I think I've ever read on this subject. Shatzkin clearly favors the traditional publishing model. We get that. So why is it news that he condemns anything that may hurt that model?

I got news for Shatzkin: some of the best books don't get written now! And some of the best authors chose a completely different career. See how silly that sounds?

Actually, its annoyingly apropo. The question is not whether books will be written at all: the question is whether better books-especially better non-fiction books- will be written in an era where publishers will have less capital for financing authors. Your snark was irrelevant to that.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Several people here have said that lower prices will allow people to read more. Really?

Do people suddenly have more free time?

Are there people sitting home alone in their overstuffed recliners sad that they can not afford a book to read?

Have you heard of anyone unable to read books because of the cost?

Frankly, there is no evidence that people will read more if books are cheaper. I suspect its a story people who argue for cheaper ebooks tell themselves.
When people cite studies that show this, then I'll believe it.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Quote:


this is the stupidest argument! no one says to themselves "well, my Great Novel won't sell for $35 a copy if I write it, so I'm not going to bother."

You misunderstand the argument. Mr. Shatzkin is talking about the Great Nonfiction Book, Not the Great American Novel. Some books can't be written without considerable expenditure of resources-resources that are paid for by the publisher's advance. It's the one thing to sit in your basement and pound out stuff like " She clutched her vampire lover to her heaving bosom", etc. It's another to do a book on the rise of China as an industrial power, the influence of corporate money in the US political system, or the impact of eBooks on the book industry worldwide. For this, you need investigation in the field, interviews, and travel expenses.
The way you do it is that you pitch your book to the publisher, the publisher assumes the risk by advancing you the money to do the research and keep you alive while writing the book, then you write the book. That's how many nonfiction books are written. Indeed, many FICTION books are written this way. Mario Puzo didn't write "the Godfather" only out of his head: He did research and interviewed people who were in the Mafia.
Bottom-line, whether some books are written or not will depend on whether publishers will be able to fund the writing of the books through advances. And the less money publishers have , the more reluctant they will be to risk it on long shots like "Seabiscuit "

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Frankly, there is no evidence that people will read more if books are cheaper. I suspect its a story people who argue for cheaper ebooks tell themselves.
When people cite studies that show this, then I'll believe it.

I will not read more if books are cheaper. I would *buy* more if books were cheaper, and I would buy from a more diverse range of authors--some authors who aren't getting any money from me now, would get some if their books were lower priced.

It's possible some authors that are currently getting money from me, would get less if books were cheaper. But it's also possible I'd skip the occasional restaurant dinner if my other option was "four new books to read."

There are no studies to quote because the entire ebook marketing industry is baby-new. Ten years of tiny fringe activity mostly dominated by strict hardware-and-software combination packs, followed by two years of explosion in a hundred directions, doesn't give us much useful data to work with. Instead, we have to extrapolate from other industries.

When VCR tapes were $20-$80 each, a few sold, and a lot were bootlegged. When they dropped to $10 each, a lot more sold. A lot more were bootlegged... but the sales didn't slow down a bit because of that. The only thing that slowed VCR tape sales was the gradual dominance of DVDs... at less than $20 each.

Music, for all the complaints about rampant piracy, is selling millions of songs, and more are being licensed through services like Rhapsody.

There is every indication, looking at other entertainment media, that when the price drops from "price of a meal in a decent restaurant" to "price of a double cappuccino," that sales skyrocket.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yup.
Consortia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium
(And MLB. But then Baseball really operates on an entirely different level. They have a SCOTUS-approved Antitrust exemption.)

Mmmm.... so the oil co's/banks/credit co's et al couldn't claim they were legally working together for their common good...?

As it screwed everyone else?

Or am I being naive here ....

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Mmmm.... so the oil co's/banks/credit co's et al couldn't claim they were legally working together for their common good...?

As it screwed everyone else?

Or am I being naive here ....

A consortium (1) has to have a common goal other than "make everyone pay more for our services" and (2) has to be created in advance of any group activities.

Book publishers could presumably make a consortium to coordinate editorial resources, allow hardcovers to be published by one imprint and paperbacks by another, arrange translated books without each publisher having to hire translators for the same languages, and so on. They can't make a consortium for the sole purpose of "let's set all our standard prices 25% higher than the market wants to deal with."

And even if they could... they'd need to announce the existence of a consortium before they could make group contract agreements.

[stonetools]

Shatzkin is implying that without agency pricing, publishers or retailers will be experimenting with $3-5 ebooks, which would directly compete with the $1-3 self-pub market, and this would knock indie authors out of the marketplace, because we all know that they couldn't possibly compete on the basis of quality writing. Everyone knows $3 ebooks by "unknown" authors only sell because they're not offered on equivalent terms with "popular" (read: BPH) authors.

(Shrug) If you read the comments, you'll find that indie authors , who are in the field and whose business it is to know these things, agree with Mr. Shatzkin that ebooks by name brand authors will push out indies if the prices are sharply reduced. I have to think that they know their business better than an interested bystander.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A consortium (1) has to have a common goal other than "make everyone pay more for our services" and (2) has to be created in advance of any group activities.

Book publishers could presumably make a consortium to coordinate editorial resources, allow hardcovers to be published by one imprint and paperbacks by another, arrange translated books without each publisher having to hire translators for the same languages, and so on. They can't make a consortium for the sole purpose of "let's set all our standard prices 25% higher than the market wants to deal with."

And even if they could... they'd need to announce the existence of a consortium before they could make group contract agreements.

Right on all counts.
They could also create a joint venture to facilitate global online sales, distribution the appropriate revenue to the proper rights holders.
Or, they could create a joint venture to distribute their content for them.
The music studios tried that last decade. Didn't work because the terms of use and prices were ridiculous.
Several TV studios (FOX, ABC, NBC/Universal) currently own chunks of Hulu and it seems to be working nicely.
You don't need to break the law to team up; you just need to folllow well-established rules.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You misunderstand the argument. Mr. Shatzkin is talking about the Great Nonfiction Book, Not the Great American Novel. Some books can't be written without considerable expenditure of resources-resources that are paid for by the publisher's advance.

Good premise. Name some examples: great nonfic books that only got written because of advances large enough for the author to live off them to do the necessary research.

Who are the amazing nonfic authors with the six-figure advances? Which nonfic books get TV commercials? (Besides Dianetics. Which kinda doesn't count.)

I'm not saying there aren't any, but nothing comes to mind right off.

It's another to do a book on the rise of China as an industrial power, the influence of corporate money in the US political system, or the impact of eBooks on the book industry worldwide. For this, you need investigation in the field, interviews, and travel expenses.

If that's true, why don't nonfic books cost substantially more than fiction books? Why does 40-year-old science fiction cost as much as nonfic released today?

Bottom-line, whether some books are written or not will depend on whether publishers will be able to fund the writing of the books through advances. And the less money publishers have , the more reluctant they will be to risk it on long shots like "Seabiscuit "

If they think "Seabiscuit" was a long shot, they weren't doing their market research properly. Knowing what will & won't sell is a big part of being a competent production company.

BPH assumptions that any new author is mid-list at best, and that future contracts should be based entirely on how well the last book sold, is part of the problem. We don't need more economic support for that system. It results in promising series being shut down because they didn't catch on fast enough (sometimes, because of publisher & distributor error) and would-be bestsellers languishing because publishers didn't print enough copies.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Bottom-line, whether some books are written or not will depend on whether publishers will be able to fund the writing of the books through advances. And the less money publishers have , the more reluctant they will be to risk it on long shots like "Seabiscuit "

Then maybe they should throw less money at their CEOs, Manhattan offices and private dining rooms, and a little more at the people with the actual talent that provides their profits.

They might consider employing better lawyers too. $151 million will fund a lot of book research.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

(Shrug) If you read the comments, you'll find that indie authors , who are in the fioeld an d whose business it is to know these things, agree with Mr. Shatzkin that ebooks by name brand authors will push out indies if the prices are sharply reduced. I have to think that they know their business better than an interested bystander.

I am not an "interested bystander;" I am a customer, a person who buys their products. (I am also an industry professional, but at such a fledgling level I can't bring any industry experience to the discussion. I can, however, say that I am bringing my opinions as a customer and reader to the industry, and investing my own money with the intent of making more of it.)

If the $1-$5 indie authors can only make money if BPH books are priced at $10-15, they're not going to be missed if BPH books drop in price. Why should any of us care if low-quality works vanish when high-quality works are available at the same price? If they are not low-quality works, the only reason they wouldn't be able to compete is if the public is a mindless mass that's incapable of recognizing quality and just buys the books with the best logo. In which case, why would those of us who love books & literature, care about the future of the industry? If it doesn't support quality art, why should we care if it collapses?

But that's all fairly irrelevant points, because the result of the DOJ lawsuit is *not* going to be, "Macmillan and Penguin are required to sell their backlist ebooks at less than $5 per sale."

Some of us believe that BPHs are not going to lower ebooks below $6 unless absolutely bizarre legal pressure forces them to, which we don't expect. Some of us also believe that BPHs wouldn't be able to compete with a lot of indies even at the $3-6 price range, because they don't know how to sell to that market at all. (They seem to be confused that digital shelf-space doesn't give the premium slots to BPH books, that random indie authors who are well-liked can get just as good placements.)

If BPHs want to compete with indie authors and tiny publishers, the solution is for them to use their extensive resources to produce better books. Fix the OCR errors in the backlist releases. Polish the formatting of the new releases. Make sure the maps and other artwork are included. Find the *good* authors and make them *better.* Don't stop editing three books into a popular series. Do better fact-checking on the nonfic. And so on.

They certainly *could* drive a lot of the small publishers & authors out of business... if they worked on releasing better books, rather than developing more invasive ad campaigns.