Amazon makes a direct offer to Hachette authors: 100% ebook royalties

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

0.00001 is above and beyond 0

I don't know of any 0.00001 of a contract.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

0.00001 is above and beyond 0

Ok. So, Amazon should honor an expired contract? Why? You're going to have to provide something better than soundbites. The contract between Amazon and Hachette has expired. They cannot come to terms. There is no longer a legal relationship between the two. And you believe that Amazon should continue to provide income to the publisher. Is that your stance?

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok. So, Amazon should honor an expired contract? Why? You're going to have to provide something better than soundbites. The contract between Amazon and Hachette has expired. They cannot come to terms. There is no longer a legal relationship between the two. And you believe that Amazon should continue to provide income to the publisher. Is that your stance?

I didn't get that last from what jps said. Seems that he's saying instead of people crying foul over Amazon withholding services etc that Amazon is no longer obligated to provide these services and thus have been doing Hachette a favor, if you will, by still stocking and selling their books in any form. Amazon could easily say bugger off until you decide you wish to negotiate, but they haven't. I don't think doing so would benefit them either, so they have been providing some semblance of service, which is more than Hachette deserves considering that there is no contract. When I worked for Verizon and there was no contract, eventually we walked off the job. Think Verizon paid us for not coming to terms?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Financially, the 100 percent would hurt Hachette more than Amazon. Authors who want to get advances in the future will see this and be unlikely to fall for the Amazon stunt.

The 100% wouldn't significantly hurt either of them. The authors signed away their part in the negotiations when they signed away their rights to Hachette. Now they're being used as pawns in the negotiations and taking collateral damage. Amazon offered a 50/50 fund to compensate them and Hachette turned them down. I can understand that would be difficult to fairly distribute. Amazon now offered an alternative where the compensation would be based on the number of ebooks sold.

The proposal would put both Amazon and Hachette under the clock to come to an agreement and the penalty fund would go as some compensation to the authors.

It's actually a very fair proposal but Amazon knows that Hachette won't take it. Hachette appears to be stalling the negotiations (damn the impact to the authors).

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by TCSimpson

I didn't get that last from what jps said. Seems that he's saying instead of people crying foul over Amazon withholding services etc that Amazon is no longer obligated to provide these services and thus have been doing Hachette a favor, if you will, by still stocking and selling their books in any form. Amazon could easily say bugger off until you decide you wish to negotiate, but they haven't. I don't think doing so would benefit them either, so they have been providing some semblance of service, which is more than Hachette deserves considering that there is no contract. When I worked for Verizon and there was no contract, eventually we walked off the job. Think Verizon paid us for not coming to terms?

Shrug... I think Amazon has gone above and beyond with Hachette. I *personally* think they should flip them the bird and move on. But then, I'm not a shareholder. This is all business and pretty high stakes business. And if the facts that Amazon provided in the email to authors is true, the authors should be very concerned about Hachette and whether they really care about the authors.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Shrug... I think Amazon has gone above and beyond with Hachette. I *personally* think they should flip them the bird and move on.

As far as paper books are concerned, Amazon can obtain them from the same wholesalers that neighborhood bookstores use, and at the same discounts from the cover price. That's the worse case scenario for Amazon, and I don't see how accepting it would be going above and beyond anything.

As for eBooks, it seems, given that Amazon continues to sell Hachette eBooks without a contract, that no contract is needed. I don't know exactly how this works. Do wholesalers also sell eBook rights, without need for a publisher contract?

If Amazon wants to discard its roots as a reseller of book publisher products, I don't see this as a long-term loss to literature. It would, however, reduce Amazon access to a high-income demographic, so I doubt they'll do it.

I am currently reading a page-turning book which provides historical perspective to the thread:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zph...venson&f=false

The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America

A&P, in its heyday as the world's largest retailer, was analogous to Amazon in terms of squeezing smaller suppliers and neighborhood stores. Some of what is described in the book appears comparable to the current impass between Amazon and Hachette.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok. So, Amazon should honor an expired contract? Why? You're going to have to provide something better than soundbites. The contract between Amazon and Hachette has expired. They cannot come to terms. There is no longer a legal relationship between the two. And you believe that Amazon should continue to provide income to the publisher. Is that your stance?

I am very sorry that all my clarifications failed to clarify. I am extremely exasperated that Hachette has been going on and on about how Amazon is mistreating it, when the contract has expired and Hachette failed to respond to Amazon's offer to begin negotiation months before the expiration.

Of course, it is only Amazon's assertion that it has been reaching out, but it is credible.

And most of Hachette's complaints have been, by proxy, but I think enough of them have direct.

For the record, it is a fact that when there is no contract, doing nothing, or anything, fulfills all the requirements of that contract, since there are no requirements because a contract that does not exist has no requirements.

I know that sarcasm risks misunderstanding, but there was absolutely no irony and the statement was strictly true, so I expected the meaning to come through even if the joke did not.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't know of any 0.00001 of a contract.

0.00001 of a requirement.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As for eBooks, it seems, given that Amazon continues to sell Hachette eBooks without a contract, that no contract is needed. I don't know exactly how this works. Do wholesalers also sell eBook rights, without need for a publisher contract?

The old contract may have some kind of provision in it to have them able to keep selling them on the same terms for a period of time unless on side or the other terminates the option. I know the contract supposedly terminated in March, but if that were true in the traditional sense I don't know how Amazon could still be selling their books. Something must be in place to allow the continued selling after the term of contract expires. Distributors like OverDrive and Ingram/Lighting Source definitely have contracts with the publishers similar to "self distributors" like Amazon, B&N and Kobo.

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As for eBooks, it seems, given that Amazon continues to sell Hachette eBooks without a contract, that no contract is needed. I don't know exactly how this works. Do wholesalers also sell eBook rights, without need for a publisher contract?

This is where stuff like the preorder buttons etc comes into play. Example, only certain self-pubs that have shown a certain amount of sales and reliability are allowed access to preorder functionality. All Big 5 pubs and most other publishers have this functionality. I can only guess that it is a part of the contract, the same contract that is no longer binding, and yet Hachette screamed bloody murder that Amazon removed preorder buttons and the like.

There are other perks also, I'm sure, like certain types of listings etc on Amazon's *storefront* for visibility purposes that are used as a form of promotion. An example of one for selfpubs is the Kindle Countdown Deal. ONLY selfpubs signed to KDP SELECT can place their books as a Kindle Countdown Deal discount that Amazon then ADVERTISES here.
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=7078878011
Done correctly in conjunction with other forms of advertising like Bookbub, this can drive a selfpubs traffic to the top or near it, which means more traffic, more eyes, more sales, and from that the author garners more of an audience.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

0.00001 of a requirement.

What requirement?

And how do you have only a partial requirement? Surely that requirement, to whatever extent it exists or is required, is by definition the whole thing?

[darryl]

Bear in mind the competition legislation. The traditional publishers appear to want to return to agency pricing as their belief is that they can't compete with Amazon otherwise and are therefore doomed without it. They must control the retail price to preserve most of the rest of their outdated business model. But considering they have operated on a wholesale model for so long this is very hard to justify. I am no expert on competition law in the United States, but would imagine that if one publisher manages to negotiate an agency pricing contract alone, without the provable involvement of the rest of the pack, this would eliminate many of the risks involved in having a second try. My impression is that they are simply trying it on with Amazon and do not realistically expect to succeed. But this time around it is vital for the Publishers to avoid collusion or even the appearance of it. Because one thing agency pricing does do is take an essentially free market with a range of prices and substitute if for a market with much higher pricing and little discounting. Agency pricing can only be competitive if there are a number of aggressively competitive participants. This did not happen last time.

It will be very difficult for other large publishers to support Hachette openly or, if agreements are delayed, for a number or all of them come to the table with Amazon with similar agency pricing positions.

And of course, who benefits from agency pricing other than the large publishers? The only arguments I have seen that others benefit are based on the Amazon is an evil monopoly theory, which I regard as not only ironic given its source, but also untrue. Amazon may in the future become an evil monopoly, or they may not. So far their influence has been, whilst not perfect, a breath of fresh air. An extension of ths first argument is that all benefit from the strong market that will exist when the large publishers are again in control. And then there is that last bastion of the self-interested. We make more money we can continue running our public benevolent institution, using it for promoting new talent, marketing, innovation etc. I think these three arguments all lack validity.

I expect a bitter battle. The traditional publishers want to retain control of the market and run it in the comfortable fashion in which it operated for them pre-Amazon. Because like most surprised by technology, they want their old business model and control to continue. For them, it is indeed a danger to their companies which are either unable or unwilling to adapt to this brave new world.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What requirement?

And how do you have only a partial requirement? Surely that requirement, to whatever extent it exists or is required, is by definition the whole thing?

Ok. I give up.

Amazon is meeting a singularity percent of its obigations to Hachette.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Ok. I give up.

Amazon is meeting a singularity percent of its obigations to Hachette.

What obligations?

(It doesn't matter whether you call it an obligation or a contract or a requirement -- anything that implies any sort of agreement/arrangement between them -- there still isn't one.)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What obligations?

(It doesn't matter whether you call it an obligation or a contract or a requirement -- anything that implies any sort of agreement/arrangement between them -- there still isn't one.)

Yes, that has been the point of just about every post that I have made in this thread. Please re-read tham carefully and literally. I stand behind every one.