Pressure Mounting for Judge Cote to Reject E-Book Settlement

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Even if one publisher never would have had the necessary leverage to get a retailer to agree to agency pricing all by their lonesome?

I agree with you that the method used to force it on retailers was illegal, and that should be punished. My unease lies in the idea of prohibiting future agency pricing, given that per se it's an entirely legal practice. I think it's right and proper that the existing agreements, arranged illegally, should be torn up.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you that the method used to force it on retailers was illegal, and that should be punished. My unease lies in the idea of prohibiting future agency pricing, given that per se it's an entirely legal practice. I think it's right and proper that the existing agreements, arranged illegally, should be torn up.

I don't favor prohibition; just a moratorium on agency pricing. Three years is a good time out, in addition to the fines levied for the collusion.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My unease lies in the idea of prohibiting future agency pricing, given that per se it's an entirely legal practice.

I'd agree, if agency pricing were being proscribed forever. But they're only being asked to abandon their illegally (allegedly) gained leverage for a period of two (or three?) years. Which seems to me like a perfectly valid compromise between outright denying their right to use agency pricing and allowing an end-run around collusion laws that only requires offenders to pay a monetary penalty for leverage gained illegally. I think most of the publishers would have agreed to just pay the fine up front and proceed to "collude away" if that were the case.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't care about the motives for price fixing; be they altruistic or simple greed. For non-essential goods and services, it should be allowed.

In relation to books, I don't care which stores succeed and which ones fail. Just keep the government out of it and let the market work its course.

The government is getting involved because price fixing is illegal. It is not regulating the price of ebooks but investigating the Trust activity.

You are arguing that the law should turn a blind eye to criminal activity. Should it turn a blind eye to piracy? I hope you answered no to both questions.

As far as letting the market decided, you saw what happened to the price fixing. All the small vendors that sold ebooks are now defunct. Only the largest distributors are making money.

My boycott has ended I now am starting to purchase books from those publishers but the truth is I did not dent the book sellers I hurt the small shops like fiction wise.



=X=

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by =X=

The government is getting involved because price fixing is illegal. It is not regulating the price of ebooks but investigating the Trust activity.

You are arguing that the law should turn a blind eye to criminal activity. Should it turn a blind eye to piracy? I hope you answered no to both questions.

As far as letting the market decided, you saw what happened to the price fixing. All the small vendors that sold ebooks are now defunct. Only the largest distributors are making money.

My boycott has ended I now am starting to purchase books from those publishers but the truth is I did not dent the book sellers I hurt the small shops like fiction wise.



=X=

I'm arguing that price fixing and any collusion to achieve it should be legal activities for non-essential goods and services. If this is unacceptable for consumers, all they have to do is boycott it and find something else to do.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by =X=

The government is getting involved because price fixing is illegal.

Sorry, X, but this is wrong. Price fixing is not illegal. Colluding to fix prices - ie, acting as a cartel - is illegal. For a company to act alone to fix prices is entirely legal, and indeed, widely done.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And yet, with the advent of Amazon, we have cheaper access to a much wider variety of books than ever before. So no, you don't have a small bookshop down the road, but you have the worlds largest bookshop ready to post you whatever you want. I'd say access to books is higher now than then.

This has always been my feeling, although I was slightly secretly ashamed of it. Do I understand that Amazon has huge purchasing power and can offer items cheaper than local B&Ms? Yes. But the bottom line is that I want specific items, not roughly comparable ones, at the best possible price. The local B&Ms had a smaller inventory at a larger price. It always seemed like I was being pressured to support a model that was, in this day and age, inefficient. And I have a problem with that.

One of the big arguements has always been, "Well, Amazon will drive all of the little bookstores out of business, and then they will have no competition, and can raise their prices as high as they want". I haven't seen this, and don't see it coming. If it does, I will apologize for my part in the destruction of local B&Ms.

With regard to "culture" at the local B&M, I guess that's something that always escaped me. I don't interact with people at bookstores (I realize some people do), don't attend signings or readings or workshops, and don't seek advice from booksellers. So none of these things cause me to be willing to pay more for the same product. I am happy browsing for what I want on Amazon, and usually finding it for the cheapest possible price.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

One of the big arguements has always been, "Well, Amazon will drive all of the little bookstores out of business, and then they will have no competition, and can raise their prices as high as they want". I haven't seen this, and don't see it coming. If it does, I will apologize for my part in the destruction of local B&Ms.

That is precisely what's happened in the UK since the abolition of the Net Book Agreement in 1997. Virtually all the independent bookshops have been driven out of business by the giant of the British book industry, Waterstones.

[stonetools]

And yet, with the advent of Amazon, we have cheaper access to a much wider variety of books than ever before. So no, you don't have a small bookshop down the road, but you have the worlds largest bookshop ready to post you whatever you want. I'd say access to books is higher now than then.

If you havea computer , an Internet connection, and maybe some kind of reading device. If you don't have those, then Amazon is somewhat irrelevant.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The problem lies with the fact that many believe there would have been no way any individual publishing house would have been able to get retailers to accept an agency pricing contract with them....

My guess is that's the DoJ's reason for requiring a renegotiation of the contracts.

However, it should be noted that not all the publishers switched at the same time; notably, Random House successfully negotiated agency pricing much later than the others.

Further, Amazon targeted Macmillan during the process, and pulled their books -- and only their books -- in a failed attempt to exert pressure during negotiations.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Surely a "legal" advantage can be voided if it was gained illegally?

The DoJ can request this as part of the settlement (tho' the judge does not need to sign off on it).

The problem is that the remedy will wind up harming competition, since it's essentially handing Amazon the ebook market on a silver platter. That's contrary to the purpose of the antitrust laws, which ought to be about fostering competition rather than "demanding the lowest prices for the consumer," by any means available.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is precisely what's happened in the UK since the abolition of the Net Book Agreement in 1997. Virtually all the independent bookshops have been driven out of business by the giant of the British book industry, Waterstones.

Really, that bolded bit has happened?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Really, that bolded bit has happened?

Certainly. If Waterstones are the only game in town, with no competition, there's no incentive for them to keep prices low, is there?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The problem is that the remedy will wind up harming competition, since it's essentially handing Amazon the ebook market on a silver platter. That's contrary to the purpose of the antitrust laws, which ought to be about fostering competition rather than "demanding the lowest prices for the consumer," by any means available.

That's too bad for the small stores, but I can't condone government interference that guarantees them a level playing field via pricing. If they can't compete on price, then it's time for them to fold.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly. If Waterstones are the only game in town, with no competition, there's no incentive for them to keep prices low, is there?

I understand that local bookstores have suffered/gone out of business. But is the subsequent rise in prices something that has actually been seen, or just a feared consequence that is believed to be coming?

I'd like to see some kind of empirical evidence: "In industry X, once WalMart/Amazon/Buy 'n' Large took over the industry, and the local B&Ms folded, prices rose by Y%".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I understand that local bookstores have suffered/gone out of business. But is the subsequent rise in prices something that has actually been seen, or just a feared consequence that is believed to be coming?

Paperbacks have got an awful lot more expensive in the UK in the last few years (the normal paperback price is now £7.99 - about US$12.50) and Waterstones sell almost all books at full list price. Books are often half the price at Amazon than at Waterstones.