MAJOR e-Book Settlement for Amazon: Pushes Publishing Over a Cliff

[3113]

They're saying this is the push over the cliff--and will have a major impact on autors as well as publishers and book sellers. From here:

Publishing insiders worry that a decisive court ruling benefiting retailer Amazon.com Inc. will undermine an industry already struggling with the transition to e-books. A federal court Thursday approved a settlement between the Justice Department and three of the country's largest publishers, who were accused of colluding to fix prices for e-books. Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers and Simon & Schuster were alleged to have conspired with Apple Inc. to control the price of e-books sold online as part of a larger effort to end Amazon's online dominance.

The two elements of wrongdoing alleged in the case — publishing competitors conspiring to limit competition in the e-book market, and fixing the retail price — are a sign of an industry grappling with disruptive change.

"Here is an example of what I would call a desperate last stand by publishers to protect themselves against a paradigm shift in publishing — and they failed," said Jonathan Kirsch, a Los Angeles-based author and publishing attorney. "By putting the legal approval on this settlement, the district court has pushed us over a certain kind of cliff. In terms of the real-life experiences of publishers, authors and readers, this will represent a fundamental change in how books are published and sold," Kirsch said.

 

[lovecraft68]

What's odd here is that I thought Amazon was the one "fixing" the prices on e-books, by dictating that the only way you can get 70% royalty is to price your book within their preferred range of $2.99-$9.99.

So Apple takes it to Samsung, but loses to Amazon, can't win them all.

 

[Handley_Page]

This may sound a trifle old-fashioned (as I am), but I don't fancy the idea of going into a book store or a library and choosing a title from a computer-generated list. I wanna hold the real book!

As an aside to that, it's going to be good night to the first edition collectors fun.
. .

 

[lovecraft68]

This may sound a trifle old-fashioned (as I am), but I don't fancy the idea of going into a book store or a library and choosing a title from a computer-generated list. I wanna hold the real book!

As an aside to that, it's going to be good night to the first edition collectors fun.
. .

I think this is just referring to the e-market. There will (hopefully) always be print books.

Although I have no issue with selling e-books. I personally have a huge book collection and always prefer the print edition

 

[emap]

There's one thing I never got about the whole ebook versus regular book thing. Why does the company care which you buy?

Granted ebooks are not as expensive as the regular books, but so long as you are buying the book made by the company isn't that a good thing?

 

[lovecraft68]

There's one thing I never got about the whole ebook versus regular book thing. Why does the company care which you buy?

Granted ebooks are not as expensive as the regular books, but so long as you are buying the book made by the company isn't that a good thing?

But the e-book is cheaper. Then again, its cheaper for them as well.

I suppose that they have to lower the price of the print book to compete with the e-versions, which cuts into their profit.

Another issue is anyone can self publish their own e-book so the more popular e-books get the less people need them.

I think, what's not being taken into account is the consumer. They're the ones who are buying more e-books than print books right now.

there will always be die hards like me, who want print versions, but a lot of people would rather have a small device that holds 1000 books then a bookcase full of old paperbacks.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

I think, what's not being taken into account is the consumer.

Excuse me? What publisher cares about the consumer? Take DVDs for example. They are:

• Encrypted, so you can't back them up or copy them (eg. to hard disk)
• Region-encoded so you can't easily import them from overseas
• Loaded with insulting message about "you wouldn't steal a car so DON'T STEAL THIS DVD!"
• You have to wade through more insults in 5 languages about the jail term you'll get if you copy it
• They disable fast-forward just to make sure you have to watch all the insults

And in the case of iTunes libraries, once I buy a song in my name, I can't easily transfer it to (say) my children. Which I could in the case of a physical medium (like a 45 or LP record).

Bring on self-publishing, I say.

 

[rjordan]

This may sound a trifle old-fashioned (as I am), but I don't fancy the idea of going into a book store or a library and choosing a title from a computer-generated list. I wanna hold the real book!

As an aside to that, it's going to be good night to the first edition collectors fun.
. .

There was a day, not too long ago, when writers needed to hold a real paper manuscript, too. Some still insist on it. I was a writer in the electronic, automotive and motorcycle fields for 40 years. My first manuscripts were written on legal tablets and typed on typewriters by secretaries. Cut-and-paste was cut with scissors and paste with rubber cement (or tape). I haven't written anything for submission on paper since the early 80's. Since then, I map, compose, edit and submit everything electronically. Clients would shit if I brought them a paper manuscript.

Back in the late 70's and early 80's computer gurus were touting the paperless office. One countered them saying, "The paperless office is as likely as the paperless bathroom." There are still going to be some books that need to be printed, mainly because of graphics, for a lot of reasons. But for books that are just words (e.g. novels), or books I'm likely to use for research, I MUCH prefer reading them electronically where I can change the font to suit the environment, search for specific information or quote/print excerpts.

rj

 

[lovecraft68]

Excuse me? What publisher cares about the consumer? Take DVDs for example. They are:

• Encrypted, so you can't back them up or copy them (eg. to hard disk)
• Region-encoded so you can't easily import them from overseas
• Loaded with insulting message about "you wouldn't steal a car so DON'T STEAL THIS DVD!"
• You have to wade through more insults in 5 languages about the jail term you'll get if you copy it
• They disable fast-forward just to make sure you have to watch all the insults

And in the case of iTunes libraries, once I buy a song in my name, I can't easily transfer it to (say) my children. Which I could in the case of a physical medium (like a 45 or LP record).

Bring on self-publishing, I say.

Okay, but why shouldn't they? If they don't take precautions a person will buy a DVD and burn it and give to people who burn it and....

One sale goes to 50 people.

Everyone gets jerked off when they try to cover themselves from piracy, but then the company goes out of business and its oh, jeez now.... What is it with people that think they should get everything for free and its okay to rip off faceless corporations? Oh, they don;t need it?

Let's put it this way, you were asking about publishing not to long ago.

So you bust your ass, write a book and put in on amazon or Smashwords.

You sell a copy for $3.99, then find out that people passed it around, they sent it to a hundred friends. Instead of them saying hey this is a great book, buy one, its Here you go.

100 people read your book, only one pays for it.

Change your tune any?

Not trying to be a jerk, but think of it in those terms, close to home so to speak.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

100 people read your book, only one pays for it.

Change your tune any?

I'm accustomed to this 1% rule. I've sold software in the past and generally (in Shareware at least) you find 1% of the number of downloads translate into sales. It isn't that far removed from the 1% of readers on this site who "pay" for a story by scoring it.

Now you can add DRM and generally make life miserable for your customers, but here is the important fact: All DRM will be broken.

One way or another, your work will be copied. And not everyone has to be genius to do it. One genius cracks the DRM, and the copied work is then distributed. So, all the DRM has done is annoy the genuine customers.

In fact, if I want a copy of a movie/show without the insults, without the region encoding, without the encryption, then I go get that from a pirate site. In other words, the pirate site offers a good product. The "genuine" site offers a crappy product.

Cory Doctorow gave an interesting talk about this. He gave an example of (I think) the BBC making its TV shows available for download, after they were broadcast, with DRM slapped on them so you couldn't copy them. But the crazy part was, the show was already broadcast "free to air" in advance of this. Anyone wanting to make a free, un-DRM copy could, when the show went to air. So why on earth apply DRM to the after-the-event copy? It's just annoying the customer for no logical, technical reason.

I've bought movies like (say) Gone With The Wind from Amazon. It's region encoded. Why? It's not like they are trying to get people to watch it at the theatre before buying it on DVD. The movie came out 73 years ago. There's no logical reason for it. It's like they are doing it "because they can" without any thought about the consumer.

And when companies sit there thinking "let's screw the consumer", well what do you think the consumer thinks in return?

 

[sun_sea_sky]

What is it with people that think they should get everything for free and its okay to rip off faceless corporations?

I don't believe the majority of people think they should get stuff for free, because most people are honest.

But as I said earlier, if the official copy is crappy, and the pirate copy better, which one are you going to get?

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't believe the majority of people think they should get stuff for free, because most people are honest.

But as I said earlier, if the official copy is crappy, and the pirate copy better, which one are you going to get?

I'm the wrong guy to ask. I haven't watched television(other than football or baseball) in fiver years and only seen two movies in that time Watchmen and Girl with a dragon tattoo.

The only thing that would apply to me is I-tunes and I pay for all my songs.

I just don't think its okay to get pirated material because the effect on the other end is creative people losing money on their product.

Just because Springsteen has millions does not give me the right to get free illegal copies of his music.

as for honesty?

I agree, but, we're getting to a point that many people think nothing of getting "bootleg" material they are starting to think of it like that "don;t remove the tag from your mattress" law.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Okay, but why shouldn't they? If they don't take precautions a person will buy a DVD and burn it and give to people who burn it and....

Several of the things s/he mentioned act to encourage illegal copying, not prevent it.

Unskippable, heavy-handed anti-piracy warnings? You can buy legal DVDs and be forced to sit through that crap in order to watch the movie you paid for. Or you can buy a pirated DVD where the warning has been edited out for your convenience...

Zoning restrictions? If they released the same content for all zones, this would just be pointless and vaguely irritating. Instead, they often include extras on the Zone 1 release that aren't available in other regions... and then wonder why people are "pirating" the Zone 1 version rather than buying the crappier, more-expensive local release. Many of them people who would happily pay money for a legit copy if they weren't blocked by idiotic marketing decisions.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

One sale goes to 50 people.

I just want to point out one more thing here. The 50 copies don't translate to 50 lost sales. For example, schoolkids pirating movies. They wouldn't get enough pocket money to pay for them, so if a kid has 1000 movies on his/her hard disk, that doesn't represent 1000 x $30 lost sales. The kid doesn't have that sort of dough.

Let me quote from Mark Coker on the Smashwords site (the book about the secrets to Ebook publishing success): "Some best-selling authors actually encourage pirates to steal their books because they view piracy as a form of free marketing". (my emphasis).

Now if someone whose business is selling books is actively encouraging piracy, doesn't that show that the view of pirates as somehow "evil unethical thieves" is missing a chance to view this as a business opportunity?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Let me quote from Mark Coker on the Smashwords site (the book about the secrets to Ebook publishing success): "Some best-selling authors actually encourage pirates to steal their books because they view piracy as a form of free marketing". (my emphasis).

Happens outside music, too. I know of several successful musicians whose attitude is "copy all you like, and if you feel so inclined there's a donate button on my website". It seems to be especially common among those who've been screwed over by commercial labels.

That said, not all artists feel that way and I try to respect the ones who don't... within reason. If I buy a CD, I'm not going to feel a whole lot of guilt about copying it to my PC or burning a mix disc.

(And maybe I'll start buying from iTunes when they can explain to me why it is that they're charging more for Australian users to download the exact same song.)

 

[sun_sea_sky]

(And maybe I'll start buying from iTunes when they can explain to me why it is that they're charging more for Australian users to download the exact same song.)

"Because they can."

And do we love them for it?

 

[lovecraft68]

I just want to point out one more thing here. The 50 copies don't translate to 50 lost sales. For example, schoolkids pirating movies. They wouldn't get enough pocket money to pay for them, so if a kid has 1000 movies on his/her hard disk, that doesn't represent 1000 x $30 lost sales. The kid doesn't have that sort of dough.

Let me quote from Mark Coker on the Smashwords site (the book about the secrets to Ebook publishing success): "Some best-selling authors actually encourage pirates to steal their books because they view piracy as a form of free marketing". (my emphasis).

Now if someone whose business is selling books is actively encouraging piracy, doesn't that show that the view of pirates as somehow "evil unethical thieves" is missing a chance to view this as a business opportunity?

That's an interesting point on Coker.

Made more interesting by this next blurb which is required on the title page of all smashwords books

Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.

Interesting paradox there.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.

It's consistent, really. "If you're reading this book and did not purchase it" (ie. you got a pirated copy from someone) "you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy".

That statement is intended to appeal to the honesty of people who ended up with a pirate copy (maybe someone emailed it to them).

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's consistent, really. "If you're reading this book and did not purchase it" (ie. you got a pirated copy from someone) "you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy".

...wait, so if I buy something off Smashwords I'm not allowed to let my partner look at it on my e-reader? That's far more restrictive than print books.

 

[PennLady]

Interesting paradox there.

As SSS noted, it's no paradox. I've also seen paperbacks that say if the copy you have has no cover, then it's been stolen/pirated, etc. I guess it's all in the "if."

 

[PennLady]

...wait, so if I buy something off Smashwords I'm not allowed to let my partner look at it on my e-reader? That's far more restrictive than print books.

No, that's not what it means. It means you can't/shouldn't give your electronic copy to someone else. Which is still restrictive when compared to how you could share/give away a hard copy, but then the difference is if you had a print book and let someone else read it, then you couldn't read it. You no longer had physical possession of the book. But you can copy the e-book, and then you'd have two copies (if you gave one to a friend) but only have paid for one.

This is one of the major complaints I've seen lodged against e-books. Some feel that these restrictions will go away, the way they've gone away in many places with music files. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[lovecraft68]

...wait, so if I buy something off Smashwords I'm not allowed to let my partner look at it on my e-reader? That's far more restrictive than print books.

Semantics.

I would think there's no issue in same household. That's a far cry from you e-mailing it to three friends who then in turn e-mail it etc....

With a print book, you buy it and you can lend it to someone, who of course could lend it to someone. But at some point you bought the book and want it back.

With e-books you just e-mail off a copy and you still have it so they can just keep getting sent around.

I'm not getting into rights and wrongs or what's legal,

What I'm saying is that now that I'm selling e-books it has given me a new perspective when I hear movie makers/ music groups etc... complaining of how pirating is costing them millions.

 

[lovecraft68]

As SSS noted, it's no paradox. I've also seen paperbacks that say if the copy you have has no cover, then it's been stolen/pirated, etc. I guess it's all in the "if."

That's interesting because If I remember right, when I used to go to some drug stores back in the day they would sell paperbacks without covers really cheap.

What I'd heard is that it was illegal to sell the book with the cover on the secondary market. You had to rip it off to resell it.

In the comic industry many golden age comics (Late 1930's to early 60's, but in the case of this maybe only into 50's) newspaper stands were allowed credit for copies of comics they could not sell.

However they were required to rip the upper part of the cover off so they couldn't sell it anyway.

Makes complete comics from that time period even more valuable.

 

[3113]

(And maybe I'll start buying from iTunes when they can explain to me why it is that they're charging more for Australian users to download the exact same song.)

Australia's fault, not Apple. Ignoring any currency exchange differences, in order to launch iTune in a country Apple has to make deals not only with record companies, but with the country. Rather like setting up any store in another country--will they be allowed to sell their stuff there? And what rules does Australia have that they must meet? I don't happen to know, but imagine if Australia required Apple to pay the artist a higher percentage. The record companies then says to Apple, "Price must be X because the deal is we get Y amount no matter what, but the rule in this country says that the artist gets more so in order to get our Y amount you have to raise the price...."

Apple has it's own deal with record companies, but that doesn't mean it can dictate to the country it's setting up in what will be. If Australia has certain demands that Apple must adhere to in order to have iTunes available to Australians, then Apple has to figure out how to meet those demands. And the devil in the deal is that sometimes what the country will demand of Apple it won't demand of others. I've no idea, for example, if Amazon Australia has the same prices as Apple on it's downloadable music. An Australian vendor might be cheaper just because Australia wants you supporting them rather than Apple, and so has made it easier and cheaper for them to sell online music as compared to Apple.

 

[trysail]

Is Your E-Book Reading Up On You?
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132058735/is-your-e-book-reading-up-on-you
by Martin Kaste

...They know how fast you read because you have to click to turn the page," says Cindy Cohn, legal director at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It knows if you skip to the end to read how it turns out...

...[The Kindle] is just one more string in their bow," says author Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild. "They could tell you with precision the age, the zip codes, gender and other interests of the people who bought my books. Now you can throw on top of that the fact that a certain number of them quit reading at Page 45...
[emphasis supplied]

...Ultimately, this sort of thing scares the hell out of me," [Stephen] King says...