DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What does everyone else have to do with it?
Your suggestion was that we should wait and see what happens with the litigation process. I think that's a great idea and I'm willing to put my "money where my mouth is," if you are.

Surely you could go for a few months without discussing the details about the DOJ case and collusion—or lack thereof, right? I know I can.

Yeah but if he did he wouldn't get his paycheck.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by stonetools

FTFY.Fictionwise sold out to a bigger, richer bookstore a year before agency pricing.That is not a sign that it was doing great.
One of the side effects of this lawsuit is that we will be getting some solid info on bookstore revenues and profits . We'll learn how well FW and other bookstores were doing .

You can have a good business plan and still fail as a business. However they did have a compellng sales model that made some people choose them over Amazon. What they may have lacked was enough people knowing about it.

Also, the fact someone wanted to/did buy them can equally show that they were doing well enough for someone to see it as a good investment. It could also be the original owners couldn't resist a quick buck, not every company owner is in it for the long haul, some will setup a company and run it with the sole goal of finding a buyer. I know a few people who have done just that and in one case several times.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The DOJ lawsuit is the DOJ's version of what happened. Penguin, for one, disputes this.

Eddy Cue of Apple was under oath when he provided this information. Since most people don't want to risk jail time for perjury, he answered carefully. When officials from Penguin are placed under oath, we'll see what they say at that time.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TimW

Since most people don't want to risk jail time for perjury, he answered carefully.

Not a comment on the case, but I would be surprised if there was a trial with multiple witnesses and everyone told the truth. As for perjury, the risk of jail time is minimal unless there is something else you did wrong. As it should be. Otherwise, people would be afraid to testify for fear that, even if innocent and likely to be acquitted, they were opening themselves up to the high monetary and emotional cost of mounting a defense.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Not a comment on the case, but I would be surprised if there was a trial with multiple witnesses and everyone told the truth. As for perjury, the risk of jail time is minimal unless there is something else you did wrong. As it should be. Otherwise, people would be afraid to testify for fear that, even if innocent and likely to be acquitted, they were opening themselves up to the high monetary and emotional cost of mounting a defense.

Not sure I follow you, there's several examples of people who have lied whilst giving evidence in court and ended up serving prison time.

I'm not sure what the laws are in various countries of having to answer questions that might implicate yourself in a crime (whether you're the defendant, accusor or a witnes) but if you do provide an answer and lie and it's discovered there's a good chance of jail time. Perjury has to be a serious offense otherwise the entire justice system would break down.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JoeD

there's several examples of people who have lied whilst giving evidence in court and ended up serving prison time.

Against millions the other way, I suggest, admittedly without much evidence. Except this: Surely large numbers of people were convicted in court today even though there was alibi testimony. And I can't find any evidence at news.google.com of even one person who who gave testimony inconsistent with those convictions being arrested today. Googling news.google.com with search term perjury, the only group of people who seems to have much of a chance of being charged with that crime are, strangely enough to me, sporting professionals.

if you do lie about something and it's discovered there's a good chance of jail time

How good?

Perjury has to be a serious offense otherwise the entire justice system would break down.

In the area of respect for copyright, there isn't much question that it is broken down. Whatever you think of copyright enforcement being privatized to become the responsibility of ISP's, this does indicate the justice system has broken down.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In the area of respect for copyright, there isn't much question that it is broken down. Whatever you think of copyright enforcement being privatized to become the responsibility of ISP's, this does indicate the justice system has broken down.

The MPAA tried that on via their front AFACT here in Australia and lost dismally.

The High Court determined that the current system of letters sent to ISP's notifying them of copyright breach were not acceptable in the Australian legal system

While an industry- or government-led solution might be some time away, the film studios face a more pressing problem.

The High Court has effectively disabled the practice of copyright owners sending reams of notices to ISPs that detail alleged cases of infringement.

"I think they've really shot these types of notices between the eyes," Griffith Hack's Wayne Condon says.

"In a practical sense I think [the High Court] might have sounded the death knell of this approach of providing notices to ISPs of allegedly infringing conduct with a view to giving rise to a responsibility or obligation for the ISP to take action based upon [those notices]."

The full bench of the Federal Court provided a prescriptive set of conditions under which the studios might improve the notices to the point where ISPs were obliged to action them.

The High Court, however has reset that bar almost impossibly high.

It noted that the information in AFACT's notices "did not approximate the evidence which would be expected to be filed in civil proceedings in which interlocutory relief was sought by a copyright owner in respect of an allegation of copyright infringement".

The inference is clear - the studios must produce notices to a court's evidentiary standards for the notices to even be considered legitimate enough to be acted upon.

"That's a pretty significant amount of evidence, proof, documentation," Baker & McKenzie's Adrian Lawrence says.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/298090...verdict.aspx/3

The legal system has determined that MPAA has no authorisation making ISP's act as their policemen.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I have a sneaking suspision that Amazon will match all offers by other bookstores. We know that they have an alogrithm that searches the web for prices and lowers books from Independent Authors to match the lowest price that was available. Do you really think Amazon is going to let Kobo sell a book for less than Amazon?

I don't think so.

I agree if Kobo sets a universal price, that is, doesn't require a coupon code to get the sale price. If a coupon code is required, (a) Amazon's algorithm is unlikely to catch the lower price and (b) Amazon, which I don't think uses couponing, is unlikely to universally match the price.

Companies use coupons because they know that fewer sales at the discounted price will be made than if the price is simply lowered for all sales. Couponing also means that the lower price doesn't need to be advertised, thus thwarting the price search engines/algorithms.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by JoeD

You can have a good business plan and still fail as a business. However they did have a compellng sales model that made some people choose them over Amazon. What they may have lacked was enough people knowing about it.

I used to buy a lot of ebooks at Fictionwise but stopped long before agency pricing. Fictionwise never grew iwth either its customers or its quantity of books. It had a very poor filtering scheme and did nothing to make searching easier as the number of titles it carried grew. I found that to find new books to buy, I'd have to spend hours going through the subject-matter list. After about 15 minutes of searching, I simply gave up.

(FWIW, this is also a problem at Smashwords although the filtering has gotten better. With all the titles Smashwords carries, it really needs a much better filtering system to encourage buyers to look for titles.)

From my perspective, FW was rapidly becoming a has been long before agency pricing. Its club discounts and other discounts weren't worth anything if I couldn't find a book to buy. Even now when FW offers large weekend discounts I don't bother going to the site. It is simply too difficult to find a book to buy.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Against millions the other way, I suggest, admittedly without much evidence. Except this: Surely large numbers of people were convicted in court today even though there was alibi testimony. And I can't find any evidence at news.google.com of even one person who who gave testimony inconsistent with those convictions being arrested today. Googling news.google.com with search term perjury, the only group of people who seems to have much of a chance of being charged with that crime are, strangely enough to me, sporting professionals.

How good?

In the area of respect for copyright, there isn't much question that it is broken down. Whatever you think of copyright enforcement being privatized to become the responsibility of ISP's, this does indicate the justice system has broken down.

Just as a sidebar:

Perjury can be difficult to show because people have far worse memories than you think. Witnesses frequently give inconsistent testimony because they misremember, subconsciously edit the past to make themselves look better or create memories based on things they heard or saw after the event. So someone could have an alibi, but still be convicted because the trier of fact in the case (the judge) found someone else's testimony more credible.

Perjury has to be an intentional lie, rather than the unintentional ones that witnesses provide all the time.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Perjury has to be an intentional lie, rather than the unintentional ones that witnesses provide all the time.

Yes this is what I was referring to with perjury.

For a few examples, see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17264344
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-14412354
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/sa...eless-1.878377

There's a number of other cases that go un-reported and likely a huge number of cases where people have lied but got away with it. Don't forget when googling though, celeb cases are more likely to be deemed news worthy, it doesn't mean there's not avg Joes being jailed as well.

The trouble with perjury, if you have to be able to prove the person lied, but if they can, fines or jail are likely because it has to be taken as a serious offence.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Perjury has to be an intentional lie, rather than the unintentional ones that witnesses provide all the time.

Not just that, but the lie must be relevant to the case. That's the main reason Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I agree if Kobo sets a universal price, that is, doesn't require a coupon code to get the sale price. If a coupon code is required, (a) Amazon's algorithm is unlikely to catch the lower price and (b) Amazon, which I don't think uses couponing, is unlikely to universally match the price.

Companies use coupons because they know that fewer sales at the discounted price will be made than if the price is simply lowered for all sales. Couponing also means that the lower price doesn't need to be advertised, thus thwarting the price search engines/algorithms.

I am sure that someone in Amazon's e-book department will keep an eye on their competitions pages and note what they are doing. If Kobo is using coupons, I would guess that Amazon will come up with some way of countering. This is pure speculation but I would suspect that if Kobo were to find a way of under pricing Amazon, Amazon will figure it out and respond.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I used to buy a lot of ebooks at Fictionwise but stopped long before agency pricing. Fictionwise never grew iwth either its customers or its quantity of books. It had a very poor filtering scheme and did nothing to make searching easier as the number of titles it carried grew. I found that to find new books to buy, I'd have to spend hours going through the subject-matter list. After about 15 minutes of searching, I simply gave up.

(FWIW, this is also a problem at Smashwords although the filtering has gotten better. With all the titles Smashwords carries, it really needs a much better filtering system to encourage buyers to look for titles.)

From my perspective, FW was rapidly becoming a has been long before agency pricing. Its club discounts and other discounts weren't worth anything if I couldn't find a book to buy. Even now when FW offers large weekend discounts I don't bother going to the site. It is simply too difficult to find a book to buy.

It also didn't help that B&N yanked all of the Agency 6 books even before they anounced the pricing collusion scheme.

But I was happy to shop the drm free multifomat books until they proceeded to get rid of the great deals & micropay system. After that it just wasn't worth it anymore. But until that happened I dropped quite a bit of money at FW.

I have no problems with Amazon, but I absolutely HATE B&N for what they did to FW. So if they go under, I will throw a party.

[Top100EbooksRank]

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/s...ch-120423.html
Department of Justice antitrust chief, Sharis A. Pozen

As outlined in our complaint, these companies conspired to end e-book retailers’ freedom to compete on price.

At the same time we filed our complaint, we reached a settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve our challenge against Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, and would require those companies to grant retailers—such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble—the freedom to reduce prices on their e-book titles. At its heart, this case is about protecting competition, not competitors.

with every retailers forcing to keep 30% mark up, there is no competition on prices.


The Witness by Nora Roberts
Penguin Publishing

Kindle: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
ibookstore: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
Nook: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
GooglePlay: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)

The Innocent by David Baldacci
Hachette Book Group

Kindle: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
ibookstore: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
Nook: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)
GooglePlay: $14.99 (forced to keep 30%)


If Amazon only want to take 10% (and pass the 20% mark up to the consumers in the form of lower prices), why did the publishers force Amazon to take the whole 30%?