Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Ironically, an article in WSJ last week mentioned the Amazon actively went to the US government and got them to file the lawsuit against Apple and the published (link - http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazo...ent-1410217281). If you google "Amazon Loves Government" you might be able to get past the paywall. I'm not sure, I have a subscription, but I've been told that method works.

The relevant quote is
" ...
Amazon could have continued with its wholesale model—but the publishers were protesting the company's tactics by withholding popular hardback or e-book titles for several months. Thus for the first time Amazon had in Apple an e-book competitor with a potentially superior selection of books.

So in February 2010 Amazon posed as the victim, and associate general counsel David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division on "the collective nature of the publishers' action to take control of digital book pricing."

DoJ then picked up Amazon's legal argument and used it to sue Apple. DoJ claims that the iPad and the publishers' acceptance of Apple's new arrangement "forced" Amazon to flip to the agency model and thus higher (albeit temporary) consumer prices.

..."

Hopefully that isn't too much of a quote.

I'm afraid that I can't share your faith in the US government as a fair and unbiased arbitrator. The term "crony capitalism" came about for a reason. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to maintain a monopoly without government support and intervention.

Once again, the parallels between the Apple anti-trust suit and the Microsoft anti-trust suit are quite striking.

Making a complaint to government isn't, without more, crony capitalism. What evidence do you have that there was malfeasance on the part of Amazon or the Department of Justice? In Canada, groups make filings all the time to the Competition Bureau to make them aware of anticompetitive behaviour; of course they do it selfishly, but it's for the Bureau and the courts to determine if there's merit. That's a well-functioning system, not the subplot of a Tom Clancy book.

Reimagining the publishers' price fixing conspiracy as the result of a nefarious scheme by Amazon, aided by the federal government, seems a little silly unless you have more compelling evidence to offer than the fact that your "team" got its wrist slapped and you don't like Amazon.

Just so I'm clear: An opinion piece in the WSJ isn't great evidence of anything. Particularly given the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corp., which also happens to own Harper Collins.

Bonus

I love this part of the WSJ article:

"The larger point is that the executive and judicial branches intervened to aid Amazon, a quasi-monopolist incumbent at a crucial competitive juncture amid the shift to digital from print, preventing a market resolution."

I'm not sure that I can feel bad that the publishers' illegal collusion was found out about at an inconvenient time for them. Whether or not Amazon is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly is irrelevant to the fact that the publishers were engaged in illegal activity.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by ApK

Pay? Where do you live that you have to pay for a library card?

Outside the city limits. City runs the library.

[mr_nihilism]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Neither side is a paragon of virtue or doing anything but trying to benefit their own profits (which I don't have a problem with) but Amazon's interests, in this, aligns with my own for the moment

Anything that takes a burden off my wallet is absolutely in my best interest to support thankyaverymuch.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by mr_nihilism

Anything that takes a burden off my wallet is absolutely in my best interest to support thankyaverymuch.

Do you mean right this second or over the long run?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Do you mean right this second or over the long run?

Both.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by darryl

Your comment dismissing so lightly a conspiracy to rip-off consumers which has been before the courts and for which the perpetrators have or will be paying compensation is breathtaking. I take it you do not in fact condone such breaches of the law? Or do you feel the law is unjust in this respect?

I do not believe the law itself is unjust. I do believe that as applied by Cote it was unjustly applied. I believe that had Cote's rulings on what evidence was admissible been different, the outcome might well have been different. Having practiced law myself, I have not forgotten how judges support their biases by making inclusionary or exclusionary evidentiary rulings.

I am not convinced from the evidence admitted and not admitted that there was a conspiracy and I am certainly not convinced that Amazon's role was irrelevant.

Yet none of that changes the ultimate fact that the publishers settled (without admitting wrongdoing) and Apple lost at the trial level. It remains to be seen whether Cote's decision is ultimately upheld. Apple's pockets are deep enough for it to pursue the appeal; the publisher's pockets were not.

As for your wish to not move from the wholesale model, in a free market, moving from one model to another is standard operating procedure. Because you like Amazon's prices doesn't mean that Amazon's prices are the correct prices. Amazon's price setting is no different than the BPH's price setting -- each is looking out for itself. Other than that you think pricing is better for you under the wholesale model, you provide no justification for that model.

Interestingly, as pointed out earlier, the Wall street Journal notes that Amazon wanted to go to agency pricing long before the issue arose and only backed off from that model when Apple intruded. Thus even your idol seems to think agency pricing is better -- for it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rhadin

As for your wish to not move from the wholesale model, in a free market, moving from one model to another is standard operating procedure. Because you like Amazon's prices doesn't mean that Amazon's prices are the correct prices. Amazon's price setting is no different than the BPH's price setting -- each is looking out for itself. Other than that you think pricing is better for you under the wholesale model, you provide no justification for that model.

I favor a system where the retailer sets consumer prices, not the publishers. If the publishers don't like the way a particular retailer discounts, then they're free to pull their books from that retailer and have them sold elsewhere. It's little wonder that Apple favors Agency, because they use that very model for the goods they produce.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Set prices too high... well, there are plenty of torrent sites around that have better pricing

Truth!

[Lemurion]

My problem with the whole "keep prices high to protect the value" argument is that from where I sit it appears to be based on a premise of objective value, which is not something I agree with.

For me, value is subjective. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them, and when the price isn't congruent with the perceived value things can get ugly.

Should the BPHs want a higher price that's still inside my personal value estimation, I'll pay it. Should they want a price that's outside that range, I won't. I'll buy something else instead.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

My problem with the whole "keep prices high to protect the value" argument is that from where I sit it appears to be based on a premise of objective value, which is not something I agree with.

For me, value is subjective. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them, and when the price isn't congruent with the perceived value things can get ugly.

Should the BPHs want a higher price that's still inside my personal value estimation, I'll pay it. Should they want a price that's outside that range, I won't. I'll buy something else instead.

The argument works with subjective value, as well.
The purpose of marketing and brand imaging is to affect the subjective way people assign that value.
A large, influential retailer selling at a very low price has an effect on people's subjective value perception as well.
As a business, publishers and authors would be remiss if they did not address that reality.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

The argument works with subjective value, as well.
The purpose of marketing and brand imaging is to affect the subjective way people assign that value.
A large, influential retailer selling at a very low price has an effect on people's subjective value perception as well.
As a business, publishers and authors would be remiss if they did not address that reality.

Then blame the publishers for setting the wholesale prices too low.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then blame the publishers for setting the wholesale prices too low.

They tried to correct that 'error' by switching to agency.....

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

They tried to correct that 'error' by switching to agency.....

That's where they made their mistake. Resetting wholesale prices would've been easier and saved them from the legal nightmare they got themselves into.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's where they made their mistake. Resetting wholesale prices would've been easier and saved them from the legal nightmare they got themselves into.

No, because if their goal was, as we are discussing, to protect the perceived value of their brand, then they would also have had to get a minimum price guarantee from all their retailers, and in some countries, that's not legal.

And, again (and again, and again...), agency is not the root of their legal problems. They could have just as easily gotten in trouble for colluding to fix wholesale prices.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

As for your wish to not move from the wholesale model, in a free market, moving from one model to another is standard operating procedure. Because you like Amazon's prices doesn't mean that Amazon's prices are the correct prices. Amazon's price setting is no different than the BPH's price setting -- each is looking out for itself. Other than that you think pricing is better for you under the wholesale model, you provide no justification for that model.

Interestingly, as pointed out earlier, the Wall street Journal notes that Amazon wanted to go to agency pricing long before the issue arose and only backed off from that model when Apple intruded. Thus even your idol seems to think agency pricing is better -- for it.

Please throw that red herring back where you got it from, they have cheated you.

No one here has said that Agency should be illegal.

Many people have stated that price-fixing in collusion is illegal (no "should" about it), and that that is what Apple and the BWMs did.

Many people have also stated that they prefer the wholesale pricing model to the Agency model, due to personal preference in regards to prices. That should not be taken to be a legal stance regarding Agency's validity. Thus, "pricing is better for you under the wholesale model" is the only justification needed for "I would like it if Amazon stuck with a wholesale model".