![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Something fishy about the anti-Amazon propaganda
The publishing-related blogosphere has constant updates about the DOJ case against Apple & 5 publishers (called the Price-Fix Six in some areas). I encourage people to read lots of them, because this is a big, complicated case hinging on aspects of law most of us don't run across often, and the legal issues are not directly related to the future-of-book-industry discussions.
Quick roundup of links:
DearAuthor.com: Antitrust Primer for the Publishing Price Fixing Lawsuit--what it says.
DOJ Lawsuit Update: Where Windowing Becomes Important--update with excerpts of collusion details
The Passive Voice: Yes, the customer pays a little more--a lawyer's post about the denial to dismiss the case.
Murderati: DOJ files antitrust lawsuit against publishers--tells authors, "What I DON'T recommend is ignoring it as if it's some esoteric business thing that has nothing to do with you."
AARdvark: Letter to the Department of Justice by Simon Lipskar, board member of the Association of Authors' Representatives, who thinks the DOJ is going to run publishing.
David Gaughran: An Open Letter to the DOJ from Someone Who Actually Cares About Writers (and Readers)--rebuttal, more or less, to Lipskar's points.
Galleycat: How to Write the DOJ about the eBook Pricing Lawsuit--Requires sending a physical letter, not an email (and, IMHO, a damned good thing that is, or they'd be getting novella-length letters).
----
Which brings me around to the *actual* topic of today's post: the "danger to the industry" of low (e)book pricing. Konrath has been his usual restrained, quiet self during the lawsuit drama, leaving his fans unsure exactly where he stands based his few indecisive tweets. (Wait, that doesn't look right. Whaddaya mean, this browser doesn't support the sarcasm tag? Why don't we have Kibo's HappyWeb yet?)
While I was entertained at publishers' supporters insisting that Amazon will destroy the book business (by selling millions of books at prices people like, including by thousands of authors who don't have publishing contracts), I am, again, delightfully enjoying Konrath's response.
In his post about Exploited Writers in an Unfair Industry, he tackles the "OMG MUST NOT LET AMAZON DECIDE ON PUBLIC PRICES!!!" meme that publishers yell about:
(To be fair, there *is* some cause for concern. Good nonfic takes considerably longer to write than fiction--it involves research & fact-checking that fiction can often write around--and it can't scale down to the $4-per-book midpoint that genre fiction is moving to. However, that's not what the lawsuit is about... none of the publishers has so much as hinted that they want different marketing terms for fiction & nonfiction.)
Quick roundup of links:
DearAuthor.com: Antitrust Primer for the Publishing Price Fixing Lawsuit--what it says.
DOJ Lawsuit Update: Where Windowing Becomes Important--update with excerpts of collusion details
The Passive Voice: Yes, the customer pays a little more--a lawyer's post about the denial to dismiss the case.
Murderati: DOJ files antitrust lawsuit against publishers--tells authors, "What I DON'T recommend is ignoring it as if it's some esoteric business thing that has nothing to do with you."
AARdvark: Letter to the Department of Justice by Simon Lipskar, board member of the Association of Authors' Representatives, who thinks the DOJ is going to run publishing.
David Gaughran: An Open Letter to the DOJ from Someone Who Actually Cares About Writers (and Readers)--rebuttal, more or less, to Lipskar's points.
Galleycat: How to Write the DOJ about the eBook Pricing Lawsuit--Requires sending a physical letter, not an email (and, IMHO, a damned good thing that is, or they'd be getting novella-length letters).
----
Which brings me around to the *actual* topic of today's post: the "danger to the industry" of low (e)book pricing. Konrath has been his usual restrained, quiet self during the lawsuit drama, leaving his fans unsure exactly where he stands based his few indecisive tweets. (Wait, that doesn't look right. Whaddaya mean, this browser doesn't support the sarcasm tag? Why don't we have Kibo's HappyWeb yet?)
While I was entertained at publishers' supporters insisting that Amazon will destroy the book business (by selling millions of books at prices people like, including by thousands of authors who don't have publishing contracts), I am, again, delightfully enjoying Konrath's response.
In his post about Exploited Writers in an Unfair Industry, he tackles the "OMG MUST NOT LET AMAZON DECIDE ON PUBLIC PRICES!!!" meme that publishers yell about:
Let's say I sell widgets. I sell them wholesale, to retailers, for $5. ... Now say a retailer decides to sell my widgets for $3. In other words, they take a $2 loss each one sold.Emphasis added. That's an IMPORTANT point... publishers weren't making any noise about "omg, the public will get used to half-price books!!!" when those books were hardcovers. But it's apparently a Great Evil for the public to "expect" ebooks to cost $10 or less. Because then they might take action against the publishers, just like they did when big box stores were selling new hardcovers for $15 and new trade paperbacks for $6. We all remember how those actions nearly destroyed the publishing industry, right? We're still reeling from the aftereffects, waiting for the full selection of new books we used to have.
Why would I be upset over that? I'd be thrilled! Many more people would buy my widgets because of the low price, and I'd be making a lot more money.
That's why publishers didn't complain when big box stores began discounting. Did you hear one peep out of the Big 6 when hardcovers were being discounted? Nope. Mom and pop bookstores were buying their books at Sam's Club and Costco because it was cheaper than they could get through their distributors. Publishers didn't care. They were making money.
But the Big 6 didn't want any retailers setting the price on ebooks. Because as bloated, lazy, ignorant, and ineffective as they are, publishers saw how quickly readers were flocking to Amazon and the Kindle, and they finally recognized the threat. Publishers had a lock on paper distribution. Ebooks didn't require that.
If ebooks became the dominant media, publishers would no longer have any power.
(To be fair, there *is* some cause for concern. Good nonfic takes considerably longer to write than fiction--it involves research & fact-checking that fiction can often write around--and it can't scale down to the $4-per-book midpoint that genre fiction is moving to. However, that's not what the lawsuit is about... none of the publishers has so much as hinted that they want different marketing terms for fiction & nonfiction.)