Barnes & Noble Stores Will Not Stock Books Published By Amazon

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by calibrated

However, I think there's also an interesting point that hasn't yet been mentioned. If Amazon won't make e-books available to B&N, how long do you think it will be before someone converts an Amazon-only e-book to epub, and it shows up on the darknet? Not long, I think. We've seen that piracy is virtually impossible to stop, and that the only thing that seems to make a dent in it is easy availability of the product at a reasonable price in the format demanded by the consumer. If Amazon won't provide Nook-compatible books (i.e., epubs), someone else will.

So in this case, Amazon is repeating the mistakes of the publishers it seeks to replace. Apparently, they haven't learned as much as one would think.

Excellent point. History, it would seem, is about to repeat itself.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by calibrated

I think Tubemonkey's earlier post was correct--there's enough blame to go around, for authors as well as for Amazon. Nobody *has* to publish through Amazon.

However, I think there's also an interesting point that hasn't yet been mentioned. If Amazon won't make e-books available to B&N, how long do you think it will be before someone converts an Amazon-only e-book to epub, and it shows up on the darknet? Not long, I think. We've seen that piracy is virtually impossible to stop, and that the only thing that seems to make a dent in it is easy availability of the product at a reasonable price in the format demanded by the consumer. If Amazon won't provide Nook-compatible books (i.e., epubs), someone else will.

So in this case, Amazon is repeating the mistakes of the publishers it seeks to replace. Apparently, they haven't learned as much as one would think.

Or perhaps Amazon perfectly understands that there will always be piracy and they aren't afraid to swim in the same waters as them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Excellent point. History, it would seem, is about to repeat itself.

Probably.
But Amazon doesn't spend their time fighting ebook piracy any more than they spend it fighting tablet hackers. (That is B&N).

And, we all know that even Kindle books that *are* available at other ebookstores get "pirated". So "piracy" of Amazon Publishing books was going to happen anyway. (Its OT: but "piracy" of commercial ebooks is a wee bit different than the pbook ocr-ing "piracy".)

Betcha their spreadsheets have a section for "estimated piracy rate".

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Nothing wrong with that. It's the nature of business.

And how are consumers hurt? Paper versions still exist. Besides, not everyone can afford an ereader; Kindle or otherwise. What of them?

Anti-trust laws are not built around the assumption that "good business practice" equals good for society.

Monopoly laws are not built around the case that one can always go buy from the monopoly company.

Again, though, IANAL. However, if you really don't see the concern of booksellers making their own throw-a-few-dollars-at-cover-and-editing "publishing" arms to then grant their selling arm exclusive sale rights, then I can't convince you otherwise.

[calibrated]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Probably.
But Amazon doesn't spend their time fighting ebook piracy any more than they spend it fighting tablet hackers. (That is B&N).

Well, in terms of tablet hackers, not exactly. Every Kindle Fire update that they've pushed out so far has broken root for those who rooted their devices.

And, we all know that even Kindle books that *are* available at other ebookstores get "pirated". So "piracy" of Amazon Publishing books was going to happen anyway. (Its OT: but "piracy" of commercial ebooks is a wee bit different than the pbook ocr-ing "piracy".)

Like I said, you can't stop piracy, just make a bit of a dent in it. And I'm not sure that the publishers, Amazon, or anyone else in the business would make much distinction between the two types you mention, with or without quotation marks.

Betcha their spreadsheets have a section for "estimated piracy rate".

Very possibly.

But all of the foregoing is missing the point I was trying to make, which is that both parties are being rather pigheaded. Failure of B&N to stock Amazon-published books isn't going to draw me into their stores any more than the failure of Amazon to permit legal sales through the Nook store (or Feedbooks, Google Books, etc.) will get me to buy a format I don't prefer from the Kindle store. It's really just a p*ssing contest between the two, and neither of them is doing the book world, or readers, any favors thereby.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Libraries???

Are not publishers....

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Are not publishers....

I think he's using libraries of an example of a place that publishers do not sell to. However, that is very new and has yet to be tested in the courts.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by calibrated

But all of the foregoing is missing the point I was trying to make, which is that both parties are being rather pigheaded. Failure of B&N to stock Amazon-published books isn't going to draw me into their stores any more than the failure of Amazon to permit legal sales through the Nook store (or Feedbooks, Google Books, etc.) will get me to buy a format I don't prefer from the Kindle store. It's really just a p*ssing contest between the two, and neither of them is doing the book world, or readers, any favors thereby.

This isn't about B&N trying to draw you into their stores. You weren't going to buy the book from B&N anyway, because you buy e-Books and B&N has been blocked from that by the Kindle exclusivity deal. People like you are not affected by this announcement. People like you were affected by the preceding "Amazon will not let B&N sell e-Book versions" announcement.

This is a move to signal to the AUTHORS that Amazon Publishing is not in their best interests. B&N is saying, "OK, so you're fine with being exclusive to the Kindle? Then you also get to be okay with not going into a bookstore and seeing your book on the shelf. How is that better for you than going through CreateSpace* and NOT signing the exclusivity agreement, again?"

* Amazon Encore and CreateSpace are not the same thing. Just in case there are people here who don't realize that.

If being the next Twilight or Hunger Games is dependent on b&m displays, then authors signing up for Amazon publishing are now effectively going to have to abandon that dream when they sign up. Many will choose to, and that's their right, but B&N should not be compelled to help Amazon put them out of business.

As an indie author, this affects me. (And others. But my point is that B&N is talking to authors here, not consumers.) And I am tentatively in favor of the decision.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I think he's using libraries of an example of a place that publishers do not sell to. However, that is very new and has yet to be tested in the courts.

Ahhh.

[calibrated]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

This isn't about B&N trying to draw you into their stores. You weren't going to buy the book from B&N anyway, because you buy e-Books and B&N has been blocked from that by the Kindle exclusivity deal. People like you are not affected by this announcement. People like you were affected by the preceding "Amazon will not let B&N sell e-Book versions" announcement.

This is a move to signal to the AUTHORS that Amazon Publishing is not in their best interests. B&N is saying, "OK, so you're fine with being exclusive to the Kindle? Then you also get to be okay with not going into a bookstore and seeing your book on the shelf. How is that better for you than going through CreateSpace* and NOT signing the exclusivity agreement, again?"

* Amazon Encore and CreateSpace are not the same thing. Just in case there are people here who don't realize that.

If being the next Twilight or Hunger Games is dependent on b&m displays, then authors signing up for Amazon publishing are now effectively going to have to abandon that dream when they sign up. Many will choose to, and that's they're right, but B&N should not be compelled to help Amazon put them out of business.

As an indie author, this affects me. And I am tentatively in favor of the decision.

And since you're in favor of it, apparently you're not going to publish through Amazon Encore anyway (otherwise you wouldn't be in favor of it), so it doesn't affect you either. You have a clear choice, and you've made it.

I'm not in favor of either Amazon or B&N. I'm in favor of choice. Anything that restricts that choice is bad, IMO, whether it be a store not stocking what I want or a publisher not making its books available in my preferred bookstore.

Right now, it doesn't affect me--my favorite authors don't publish through Amazon--but someday, it might. And that's why I'm calling a pox on both their houses. Amazon is holding authors hostage ("you can't sell your books there"), and B&N is blackmailing them ("that's a nice book ya got there, it'd be a terrible shame if nobody had a chance to buy it"). Both are reprehensible.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by calibrated

And since you're in favor of it, apparently you're not going to publish through Amazon Encore anyway (otherwise you wouldn't be in favor of it), so it doesn't affect you either. You have a clear choice, and you've made it.

I made my choice because of the preceding Amazon announcement that this is in relation to. You're treating the B&N decision like it's occurring in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by calibrated

I'm not in favor of either Amazon or B&N. I'm in favor of choice. Anything that restricts that choice is bad, IMO, whether it be a store not stocking what I want or a publisher not making its books available in my preferred bookstore.

Right now, it doesn't affect me--my favorite authors don't publish through Amazon--but someday, it might. And that's why I'm calling a pox on both their houses. Amazon is holding authors hostage ("you can't sell your books there"), and B&N is blackmailing them ("that's a nice book ya got there, it'd be a terrible shame if nobody had a chance to buy it"). Both are reprehensible.

B&N is not reprehensible for refusing to help Amazon muscle their Nook store out of business. You think you'd end up with MORE choice if B&N helped Amazon Encore look like a super-fabulous-fun thing and all indie authors joined Amazon Encore? (Hope you like buying Kindles in your reprehensible-free future, then!)

Also, as a Nook owner, I would be highly disappointed if B&N helped to make Amazon Encore seem like the best thing ever for indie authors. I mean, way to thumb your nose at your customer base.

[markbot]

Too bad Amazon couldn't just take out B&N via hostile takeover and then just liquidate them. Amazon's stock is overpriced right now, so they could pay like $20 per share in equity...but in reality that would only be like paying B&N shareholders $10 per share, lol. B&N is 1% of Amazon's market cap...it would be barely a dent...and the value added for Amazon would be way over 1% if they managed this coup. Of course, the justice department would never allow this to happen.

[calibrated]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I made my choice because of the preceding Amazon announcement that this is in relation to. You're treating the B&N decision like it's occurring in a vacuum.

I was not aware of the timing of your decision. What method did you use to publish before the recent announcement?

B&N is not reprehensible for refusing to help Amazon muscle their Nook store out of business. You think you'd end up with MORE choice if B&N helped Amazon Encore look like a super-fabulous-fun thing and all indie authors joined Amazon Encore? (Hope you like buying Kindles in your reprehensible-free future, then!)

Also, as a Nook owner, I would be highly disappointed if B&N helped to make Amazon Encore seem like the best thing ever for indie authors. I mean, way to thumb your nose at your customer base.

What I think is that B&N, instead of coming up with its own publishing solution for indie authors, is acting like a spoiled child, taking its ball and going home. It looks to me like they're missing an opportunity here.

I also think that most Nook owners (of which I am sort of one, having the Nook app on my iPhone and Kindle Fire [!]) wouldn't give a tinker's d*mn who published something as long as they could get it on their Nook.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by calibrated

What I think is that B&N, instead of coming up with its own publishing solution for indie authors, is acting like a spoiled child, taking its ball and going home. It looks to me like they're missing an opportunity here.

I also think that most Nook owners (of which I am sort of one, having the Nook app on my iPhone and Kindle Fire [!]) wouldn't give a tinker's d*mn who published something as long as they could get it on their Nook.

The fact that you even bring up "but I have a Nook app on the Kindle Fire!" makes me think that you do not understand that Amazon Encore is refusing to sell their e-book versions anywhere except the Kindle store. If B&N helps Amazon Encore, they hurt Nook store purchasers.

If B&N expends resources to buy up Amazon Encore paper books to place in their b&m stores, thereby making Amazon Encore look like a good prospect for e-publishing indie authors, then B&N is directly helping to keep e-books off the Nook Store for their readers.

I'm confused as to why this is confusing to you. I will answer the bolded part of your comment in bold letters:

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY AMAZON ENCORE CANNOT BE GOT ON THE NOOK. BECAUSE OF AMAZON.
Hence the Tinkers Dam being given.

As for your suggestion that B&N should make its OWN publishing arm and do the same thing... *shudder* That would be reprehensible to me. The last thing we need is author exclusivity wars.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Anti-trust laws are not built around the assumption that "good business practice" equals good for society.

Monopoly laws are not built around the case that one can always go buy from the monopoly company.

Again, though, IANAL. However, if you really don't see the concern of booksellers making their own throw-a-few-dollars-at-cover-and-editing "publishing" arms to then grant their selling arm exclusive sale rights, then I can't convince you otherwise.

I look at it this way. eBooks are not an essential item needed for daily living. Therefore, IMO, monopoly laws are irrelevant. Publishers are free to do as they please.