Why Macmillan was banned from Amazon

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

If I were Amazon, I'd stop selling Macmillan books forever.

The only thing that that would do is lose Amazon sales. It would not impact Macmillan very much, if at all, since there will always be another place they can be purchased from.

People don't buy books because of Amazon, people buy books because they want to read them. Amazon just happened to have really good pricing so a great many people wanted to buy from them. If price is the same across the board then Amazon has to compete on a more even field - that is why they were upset.

[Seli]

Originally Posted by DD1509

Is the link still available in the OP? Says it cannot connect to the database????

Buckell had some problems due to high traffic as a results of his posts on the Amazon-Macmillan conflict. His original one has been mirrored here, but he has some more interesting posts on his own blog.

Originally Posted by Argel

...
Publishers can sell to retailers (and the public if they so desire) at whatever price they choose but they should have no power to dictate the price at which goods are resold.

As an alternate viewpoint: it is possible that the publisher decided that the ebook stores are not retailers but service providers. And in the latter case it might be completely fine to dictate price.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Are you sure? I remember working in the housewares department of a "discount' store in the early 70's. Rubbermaid (a plastics manufacturer) and Corning were both 'fair trade' items We were not allowed, by law to charge anything other than what they decided for any item from their line. This was nationwide. No matter which store you went into, the price was the same. Thats no longer true, of course.

Yes, I am sure. There was a time when the Court threw out the price fixing but in the 1990s they approved maximum pricing restrictions and in 2008 approved minimum restrictions. A lot has changed since the 1970s -- like the tide, price fixing has ebbed and flowed. Fair trade laws were originally enacted by states to protect local businesses from the rise of large multistate competitors. At first the Court upheld fair trade laws but then had second thoughts and has again reversed course.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

Seriously?

Seriously.

The difference between a liberal leaning Supreme Court and a conservative leaning one is that the liberal court makes no bones about changing law to fit its view of the times whereas a conservative court pretends to give credence to past laws while changing law to fits its view of what life was like in the 1790s.

I would have less complaint about the Supreme Court if Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts would simply be honest about their judicial activism. Both liberals and conservative jurists are judicial activists; just one group wears the label proudly and the other is in denial.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Ummm....the liberal revolution was the same way.... with things like longer and longer copyright extensions...

Ralph, the liberals were and are no angels either but copyright extensions were legislative not judicial acts. What bothers me most about the conservative 4 of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas is their refusal to recognize that they, too, are judicial activists. Plus I wonder what would happen if this court had to decide a society-changing case like Brown vs. Board of Education. Would they come to the same conclusion?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Ralph, the liberals were and are no angels either but copyright extensions were legislative not judicial acts. What bothers me most about the conservative 4 of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas is their refusal to recognize that they, too, are judicial activists. Plus I wonder what would happen if this court had to decide a society-changing case like Brown vs. Board of Education. Would they come to the same conclusion?

rhadlin. I try to avoid politics like the plague. But since you directly asked...

Maybe no change is good... You mention Brown vs. Topeka. Roe v Wade is still tearing apart society... Maybe the court should have said nothing, leaving it state jurisdictions, or to the legislature?

How about Kelo 2005? Or the vast infringments of privacy and property of our drug laws? I didn't see the liberal storming the barricades over these issues...

We have too many politicians making too many laws to feed too many special interest groups. I think Texas has the right idea. One session, every two years, for 140 days. Otherwise, no legislation in session, passing no new laws...

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Why? Amazon cut off access to the author's paper books, and was thus impacted by the way Amazon chose to handle the situation.

Besides, I know not many MR posters realize this, but not all authors despise their publishers, nor should they unless they're treated poorly.

Most of the authors I've talked to don't despise their publishers, and actually have very good relationships with their editors. However, almost every author I know whose works are in print but not available as ebooks are unhappy that the publisher has purchased the rights for the ebook and won't publish them. They know that there's a growing market segment that only wants to buy ebooks, and they're losing out on that market. These authors don't even know for sure whether they lost any sales by Amazon not selling MacMillan directly, because Amazon was still selling new (and used) books by other booksellers, as were all of Amazon's competitors. I don't know what percentage of these authors books are random buys, but I doubt that anyone specifically looking for their works were stymied by the Amazon boycott.

I've purchased all of Charlie Stross' books, except for the ones sold by MacMillan, because MacMillan hasn't released any of them as ebooks. I bought The Family Trade used in paperback, so Charlie never actually saw any money from it from me. Had MacMillan sold them as ebooks, I would have bought the series instead of checking it out from the library. Even though I buy very few books at Amazon, and fewer ebooks there, I probably won't buy any of Charlie's Merchant Princes series in ebook should MacMillan ever release them.

[vaughnmr]

Boy that's a gem... look for Texas for political advice. We voted G.W. Bush governor for Texas, and are still mopping up the mess. And what happened after that?... Shesshh. I live in Texas, and these people in power here are hadcore conservatives/neocons. Bike trails are a dirty word here, if you can imagine... I could go on and on, but you definitely don't want to model Texas politics!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

Boy that's a gem... look for Texas for political advice. We voted G.W. Bush governor for Texas, and are still mopping up the mess. And what happened after that?... Shesshh. I live in Texas, and these people in power here are hadcore conservatives/neocons. Bike trails are a dirty word here, if you can imagine... I could go on and on, but you definitely don't want to model Texas politics!

At least we haven't run our state into near-bankruptcy like California....

If you don't like Texas, there's 49 other choices to choose from...

[Scott Nicholson]

I can tell you as an author whose publisher is not only making his ebooks unavailable, but also tying up the rights to prevent me from doing it myself, that it is not only lost income for everybody, it's terrible for an author's career. But those authors may actually be glad the publisher didn't release ebooks, once the smoke clears. Because authors will soon see that they own the content--not publishers. And they can set their own prices irregardless of protectionist schemes or corporate goals. They will price at what they think is fair. If the deal is paper only, it's much likely to go out of print faster and allow the writer to get rights back. Publisher's contracts have become increasingly aggressive.

When Amazon offers a 70 percent royalty for ebooks, and you can walk away at any time, and offer you the largest ebook audience on the planet, Amazon is becoming the most generous publisher on the planet. Or, you can get your ten grand or so and let the publisher tie up your content for years and years. Few authors are talking about this...but publishers are going to be sitting pretty either way if they control erights and are only going to pay authors 15 percent--under deals that are virtually eternal. (Yes, many of the clauses allow the publisher to maintain licensing rights if a laughable minimum is reached, such as a couple hundred bucks in six months or a minimal number of copies sold).

What's scary is very few agents are even talking about it. And they're supposed to be fighting for the writers.

Scott Nicholson
http://hauntedcomputerbooks.blogspot.com

[vaughnmr]

Addition comment (personal) about Texas, not about books.

There are NO bike trails, or bike lanes in my city (Sherman, TX). There are only two bike parking racks in the whole city, other than what you would find at the elementary schools for kids, one at the courthouse, the other at the library. I think I'm the only one, in multiple years, to use the one at the courthouse (jury duty), because the traffic in the immediate area is so bad you are risking your life to even ride a bike in this area. The norm in this area is to use your Suv at all times, even if you have to go only 500 feet to get something. We want to Drill, Drill, Drill, not walk. Walking is almost discouraged unless you are in a Mall, in fact, in most cases there is no path to walk on unless you walk in the street. Sidewalks are a new concept, we are still trying to figure out how to pay for them.

I'm an architectural draftsman in Texas, and no one here can hear my cries for help! Please tell me again how great it is in Texas...

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

At least we haven't run our state into near-bankruptcy like California....

If you don't like Texas, there's 49 other choices to choose from...

Actually, our state IS near bankruptcy.

I had a lot of respect for you before that comment, now you make it sound like the problems with my area don't matter. These issues are important to me.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Maybe no change is good... You mention Brown vs. Topeka. Roe v Wade is still tearing apart society... Maybe the court should have said nothing, leaving it state jurisdictions, or to the legislature

It's in the nature of the sort of issues you have with both a presidential government, codified constitution and a powerful supreme court along with separation of powers.

People really don't realise how different it is in the UK, where we have an cabinet government, uncodified constitution with parliamentary sovereignty*, a relatively weak supreme court and fusion of powers. Of course, we have our own problems, but they're quite different in nature - and for all the political divisions we have, the divisions between supporters of different parties tend to be less clear-cut and sometimes bitter.

(*Parliament can pass no law which a later parliament cannot modify or repeal.)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

Actually, our state IS near bankruptcy.

I had a lot of respect for you before that comment, now you make it sound like the problems with my area don't matter. These issues are important to me.

"You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

Here's a nice graphic representation of the 50 state's credit ratings as of June 2009.

http://www.in.gov/ifa/files/StateCreditRatings.pdf

It doesn't show Texas near bankruptcy.

Let's get this straight. You want me to pay taxes for bicycle paths I will never use, nor have any interest in, because you demand them? And because the government doesn't make me pay for these paths, by not building them, Texas is an evil place to live?

Have I got this straight?

If this is how you judge government, there are other states with governments much more congenial to you views, and no restriction whatsoever about emigrating to them. I do not demand they change to meet my requirements, I merely wish to have a state where my views are implemented. I think of state laws and governments as a buffet from which one is able to choose the sort of government one likes, no matter what one likes.

I do not view a government as a nanny, giving everybody what they want. I view government as a necessary evil, to provide the required framework for a civil and peaceful society, providing such public goods as the majority of people find useful and prudent for said society and are willing to pay for.

In general, that is what Texas government does....

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

"You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

Here's a nice graphic representation of the 50 state's credit ratings as of June 2009.

http://www.in.gov/ifa/files/StateCreditRatings.pdf

It doesn't show Texas near bankruptcy.

You're kidding, right? You drag California into this, over a hypothetical rating of A, and call that near bankruptcy?

Texas was only a hypothetical AA, but they're perfect?

Texas had a GSP of $1.08 Trillion in 2007, and yet California's GSP is $1.82 Trillion, or nearly double that of Texas. I think a deficit of $26 billion isn't that much compared that amount of production.

And let's not mention our educational system. While many make fun of our high schools, our University system is second to none in the world.

This is not to say California is perfect, we have many idiotic laws made by nearsighted political partisians. But, to compare a state who's best known catchphrase was designed to stop their constituents from littering (Don't Mess with Texas) with one known for influencing the world's culture (Hollywood, CA) is disingenuous at best.