Amazon faces class-action lawsuit over eBook pricing

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rkomar

If the VAT was reduced by the government to reduce the prices and that isn't happening, they should just put the VAT back to what it was. I doubt they reduced the VAT solely to put more money into the publishers' pockets. Well, maybe I'm wrong about that last part.

The idea was that because of the virus, VAT was removed from electronic publications in order to save money for the customers. The greedy publishers have basically taken the VAT savings and put it in their pockets. The raised prices to be the same as there were with VAT. That to me is very sleazy.

The idea is to make eBook more affordable and the publishers in this time when money can be tight for a lot of people, screw them out of the saving the government put in place to help them.

[Dr. Drib]

Jon:



This is an off-topic comment. (You can ask an Active Moderator to delete my post if this thread moves too far away from the subject.)

I love the photo of your PUG. We have one, too, and he snores louder than my wife! He's a great dog, but doesn't know that he's a dog. PUGs are great social animals, as you well know, and ours loves to follow his 'pets' around the house.

ZodWallop (OP) and other posters: Please ask this post to be deleted if desired.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Amazon UK and the publishers should also get sued. In the UK, the government did away with VAT for eBooks and the prices didn't change. They should have gone down. But the greedy Amazon/publishers kept the prices the same.

The Retail Price Fixing by Publishers and Manufactures was done away with in the UK and Ireland some years ago. The last two.

The Publishers should be able to set a price to Apple, Google, Amazon, Smashwords for books (same also for games). Then the retailer charges whatever they want. Why is this actually illegal in UK and Ireland of the Publisher setting a retail price and getting a percentage decided by Amazon allowed at all?
It's not allowed in real shops for anything, in Ireland and the UK.

The mysterious way VAT works is a whole separate issue and irrelevant to this.

Are publishers allowed to set the RETAIL price in USA physical shops, or only set the price they sell to retail or wholesale? Which varies elsewhere, like supermarkets only stock already successful books and get a discount, in UK and Ireland, because basically of volume, probably cuts out wholesalers.

[Fbone]

It seems it is Amazon's most favored nation (MFN) clause that brought about the lawsuit.

[pwalker8]

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that a group of ambulance chasers is going after companies with deep pocket trying to make a bundle!

Agency pricing is completely legal and most favored nation clauses is a normal part of agency pricing. In theory, to be successful, they would have to prove some form of collusion. The Kindle prices for best selling books actually various quite a bit. Obama's book is priced at $18, yet Gupta's Keep Sharp is priced at $14, Unmasked is priced at $16. Of course, they might find some sympathetic judge and jury who will rule in their favor, that's why companies settle out of court, but it seems unlikely.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

ZodWallop (OP) and other posters: Please ask this post to be deleted if desired.

I don't care. A thread without drift is dead.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The ebook pricing debate here often devolves to Amazon vs. the collusion of the Big Six(now Five). Here's something interesting: Reuters

The lawsuit will go nowhere. Amazon has engaged in anti-competitive pricing practice...the original $9.99 price for the entire NYT Best Seller's list.

Agency pricing isn't anti-competitive. It's used in many industries.

There is no "fair price" for ebooks. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. If a book is too expensive, buy a different book. There are an endless supply of free and $1 books, and there is the library.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

Agency pricing isn't anti-competitive.

It is anti-competitive, it directly prevents price competition.

It is not illegal.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Jon:



This is an off-topic comment. (You can ask an Active Moderator to delete my post if this thread moves too far away from the subject.)

I love the photo of your PUG. We have one, too, and he snores louder than my wife! He's a great dog, but doesn't know that he's a dog. PUGs are great social animals, as you well know, and ours loves to follow his 'pets' around the house.

Our pug is laying on the sofa snuggled right up against me. He likes doing that. At night, he sleeps on the bed on my wife's pillow. sometimes he'll shift and end up on my pillow. I don't mind his snoring at all. I'm used to it. Yes, he does follow us around. He love going to the park and out for a walk. He's a walking tummy. He loves to eat. He's our boy and he loves us. He's the perfect size for where we live. He'll be a year old near the end of February.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is anti-competitive, it directly prevents price competition.

It is not illegal.

Depends on how you define the competition. A book maker need not have to compete against himself. He still has to compete against all the other publishers, including the independents who sell their books for $1 or so.

Amazon putting all the best sellers on sale for $9.99 was harming the business the publishers had built. And it worked for Amazon. Sell the every expensive Kindle by losing money on those ebooks...and by the time the price was able to come down on the ebook readers, Amazon owned the market.

And thus going to agency didn't bother Amazon at all.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

Depends on how you define the competition. A book maker need not have to compete against himself. He still has to compete against all the other publishers, including the independents who sell their books for $1 or so.

It is anti-competitive on the retail side, rather than the publishing side.

It is why the same setup for paper books was eventually found to be illegal in the UK.

And thus going to agency didn't bother Amazon at all.

Agreed. No real reason to shop anywhere else if you have access to all formats, or are going to remove DRM.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by leebase

Amazon putting all the best sellers on sale for $9.99 was harming the business the publishers had built.

Competition does tend to do that.

Originally Posted by leebase

Sell the every expensive Kindle by losing money on those ebooks...and by the time the price was able to come down on the ebook readers, Amazon owned the market.

I highly recommend you actually read both the original court decision and the appeal. Here is the relevant quote from the Appeal decision:

Where Amazon departed from the publishers' traditional business model was in the sale of new releases and New York Times bestsellers. Rather than selling more expensive versions of these books upon initial release (as publishers encouraged by producing hardcover books before paperback copies), Amazon set the Kindle price at one, stable figure — $9.99. At this price, Amazon was selling "certain" new releases and bestsellers at a price that "roughly matched," or was slightly lower than, the wholesale price it paid to the publishers. Apple, 952 F.Supp.2d at 649. David Naggar, a Vice President in charge of Amazon's Kindle content, described this as a "classic loss-leading strategy" designed to encourage consumers to adopt the Kindle by discounting new releases and New York Times bestsellers and selling other ebooks without the discount. J.A. 1485. The district court also referred to this as a "loss leader[]" strategy, Apple, 952 F.Supp.2d at 650, 657, 708, and explained that Amazon "believed [the $9.99] pricing would have long-term benefits for its consumers," id. at 649. Contrary to the dissent's portrayal of the opinion, the district court did not find that Amazon used the $9.99 price point to "assure[] its domination" in the ebook market, or that its pricing strategy acted as a "barrier to entry" for other retailers. Dissenting Op. at 6-7. Indeed, in November 2009 — just a few months before Apple's launch of the iBookstore — Barnes & Noble entered the ebook retail market by launching the Nook, Apple, 952 F.Supp.2d at 649 n. 6, and as early as 2007 Google Inc. ("Google") had been planning to enter the market using a wholesale model, id. at 686.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The idea was that because of the virus, VAT was removed from electronic publications in order to save money for the customers. The greedy publishers have basically taken the VAT savings and put it in their pockets. The raised prices to be the same as there were with VAT. That to me is very sleazy.

I looked but I couldn't find a link detailing this. Does anyone have a link?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I looked but I couldn't find a link detailing this. Does anyone have a link?

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=329488

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=329488

Thx. I recall reading the thread at the time. However, I was hoping to find some mainstream report on the news. Does anyone have anything?