07-27-2019, 06:17 PM | #31 | |
eReader Wrangler
Posts: 7,409
Karma: 48452719
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boise, ID
Device: PB HD3, GL3, Tolino Vision 4, Voyage, Clara HD
|
Quote:
Now some of these publishers are finding (surprise, surprise) that they have to lower their prices on eBooks because too many people are borrowing from the library instead of buying eBooks. We still have agency pricing and we still don't have the sales we used to have on major new releases, but at least some of the publishers are finally "getting it." We'll see how it plays out. |
|
07-27-2019, 07:18 PM | #32 |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,908
Karma: 26616647
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
There used to be sales....but nobody put the entire NYT's best seller list on sale for $9.99 during the new release, hardback window. That’s what started the war. That’s what led to the publisher's actions.
Ultimately there came a choice....cease releasing ebooks at the same time as the hard backs....or cease allowing ANY seller to set the price of the ebooks (Agency pricing). Amazon choose Agency pricing over having ebooks time windowed like paperbacks. All of those book sellers with their sales on this book or that book...could not compete with selling the entire NYT's best seller list as a loss leader. They didn’t have Amazon's access to capitol to survive that price dumping. Apple was the stick the publishers needed to combat Amazon. Nobody else had a remote chance of competing against Amazon's money. |
Advert | |
|
07-27-2019, 08:01 PM | #33 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,025
Karma: 39312118
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Consider the second sentence below from the OP article (reached via public library paid-for access):
Quote:
As for the library patron waiting a year or two, for the one copy, that seems to me a totally fair trade-off between freedom to read and keeping publishers away from the newspaper industry death march. I know that's just Macmillan. And waiting for one copy in Wyoming won't be the same as waiting for one copy in Chicago. But I commend this. |
|
07-27-2019, 09:34 PM | #34 | ||||
Wizard
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My view is that, as the court pointed out and I quoted above, referring to the conspiring publishers: Quote:
|
||||
07-27-2019, 09:45 PM | #35 |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,908
Karma: 26616647
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
Hold on....your quotes back my point. The difference is Apple and the publishers should have sued Amazon instead of colluding. It doesn’t state that Amazon wasn’t price dumping.
I think the judges position that it doesn’t matter if competitors are hurt if prices are lowered for consumers...is naive. Selling goods below cost because you have more access to capitol than all the competition....is harmful. Customers aren’t getting a lower price due to some more efficient process. Amazon just ate the difference. They wouldn’t have done so forever. They might not have raised prices....they just would have told publishers to take less per book. And with most of the book sellers run out of business...publishers would have been powerless to fight. Which is WHY the publishers had to fight when they did. None of which was given consideration by judge Koh. All of which might well come under revue now |
Advert | |
|
07-27-2019, 10:31 PM | #36 | |||
Wizard
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The conspirators had the lawful option of suing. I infer they did not do so because they knew they had no case. And yes, Amazon may well have later told publishers to take less per book, preserving lower prices for the benefit of consumers. It's called business. Price points, particularly those set by an oligopoly in the absence of competition, do not attract the protection of anti-trust law. It's all about the consumer! |
|||
07-28-2019, 05:33 AM | #37 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
While two of the appeals judges did uphold Cote, the other appeal judge, Jacobs, expressly blasted Amazon for their actions in the case saying that Amazon was rather obviously guilty of anti-trust actions. But hey, that's what lawyers do, cherry pick opinions that back their case while ignoring the ones that refute their case. A lawyer's job is to win the case by any legal means possible. |
|
07-28-2019, 07:01 AM | #38 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
|
Quote:
Many lawyers love to refer to minority opinions when the majority one doesn't support them, so I suppose I shouldn't blame an amateur for adopting the same practice. |
|
07-28-2019, 07:46 AM | #39 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
Yea, many lawyers love to refer to opinions that agree with them and dismissing opinions that don't. I suppose I shouldn't blame a lawyer for just following common practice. Of course, I don't really expect a lawyer that doesn't practice law in the US to understand certain aspects of US law and custom. Of course, the real point here is that Cote ignored any evidence that Amazon was engaged in possible anti-trust actions, so pointing to her opinion when talking about if Amazon might have violated anti-trust laws is rather misleading. You can't find evidence of mis-doing if you refuse to look for it. Last edited by pwalker8; 07-28-2019 at 07:51 AM. |
|
07-28-2019, 08:26 AM | #40 |
Wizard
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
|
I must indeed be missing something. I didn't realise that the law differed so much in the US that 1 judge out of 3 constituted the majority and carried the case.
|
07-28-2019, 09:21 AM | #41 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
Nice try for at a misdirection though. |
|
07-28-2019, 09:25 AM | #42 |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,908
Karma: 26616647
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
Correct. So while we did get judgement against Apple and the publishers, Amazon’s actions have never been considered by a court. The DOJ might well look into this.
|
07-28-2019, 10:07 AM | #43 | |||
Wizard
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-28-2019, 12:59 PM | #44 |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,908
Karma: 26616647
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
You make it sound like folks can just whistle up an anti-trust case. Even IF the government would have taken in the case, by the time a verdict is rendered, its way too late from a business perspective.
|
07-28-2019, 07:18 PM | #45 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
Citing dissents happens a fair amount in the US, especially as attitudes towards the original decision shift. An example is that when the DC Circuit court upheld the appointment of Mueller, they cited Scalia's dissent in Morrison v Olsen et al. (usually referenced simply as Morrison), a rather famous and influential dissent. Appellate law in the US is generally focused on the technical aspects which were specifically listed in the appeal as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the trial judge's decision. So saying that a decision was upheld as a way to validate that the decision was correct is misleading. That's simply not the way it works in the US. Appellate courts decide if a specific point of law was correctly applied, not if the case was correctly decided. Most of the time, when a judgement is overturned, it is returned to the trial court to reconsider keeping in mind the appellate court's clarification of how the law should be applied. No idea how common law countries do appeals. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kindle owners lending library problem | Purple Lady | Kindle Fire | 12 | 11-02-2016 12:53 PM |
Article: The publishing industry has a problem, and EPUB is not the solution - And my | avid01 | General Discussions | 6 | 09-01-2013 03:43 PM |
E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga? | kjk | News | 444 | 01-02-2010 06:01 PM |