L is for Lawsuit

L is for Lawsuits.

Specifically, the lawsuit the government brought against Apple and five of the big publishers: Simon and Shuster, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan and Penguin. Basically, they are accused of conspiring to fix e-book prices. (The lawsuit is a 36 page document. I have read only half of it so far. It’s pretty interesting, for a legal paper.)

Which they probably did. They deny it (who wouldn’t?) but I think they probably did do exactly that. If they hadn’t, I doubt they Agency Model could have worked.

Three of the publishers – Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster – have settled. Part of their settlement includes the right for retailers to set their own prices. (A right retailers had before!!!!)

I mean, I kind of understand why they did it. Amazon is no angel. Amazon was selling bestsellers at a discount in order to sell kindles and get the bulk of the market share. So, yeah, lots of stores have loss leaders. Even physical bookstores discount popular books in order to get people in the store and maybe buy other books (how many readers you know who can actually just buy one book in a store, hmm?). Physical stores still do and the publishers have nothing to say about them.

The thing with Amazon is that Amazon is bigger than most (all!) physical bookstores. If they had succeeded in gaining most of the e-book market, if the e-book market grew larger than physical book, and if it got to the point where a good chunk of a publisher’s money came from Amazon, Amazon could than have turned around and said: you must sell your books to me at this price or don’t sell to me at all. The books would have stayed cheap (or at least cheaper than hardcovers!). But Amazon would be making a profit, too.

From what I remember from one and only business class, Walmart did the same thing. Since their stores provided most of a manufacturer’s money, they threatened to discontinue selling their products if the manufacturer didn’t sell to them at the price Walmart wanted. It’s why a lot of businesses started outsourcing their manufacturing jobs.

Amazon might have done that, too. (They did get rid of the buy buttons for one of the publishers’ books when they first fought over pricing. Amazon lost.) I doubt it would have worked. The readers, us, would have objected if we couldn’t buy the books we wanted. Maybe Amazon would be willing to risk it. I don’t know.

Either way, I think the publishers were afraid of falling victim to Amazon.  They wanted to decrease or slow down the speed with which Amazon was gaining market share. I understand that.  They were afraid being forced to sell bestsellers to Amazon at the paperback price instead of the hardcover price like always. Fixing e-book prices, with Apple, was their solution.

IMHO, it was a bad solution. They managed to break the law. Price fixing is illegal. Okay, yes, no one has actually been convicted of price-fixing and they all deny it. But, really, what am I to believe? Also, three publishers settled.

Then they set e-book prices which are almost the same or higher than physical copy (this makes so little sense I have to conclude they were trying not to sell ebooks in an effort to hurt Amazon.). I ranted on this topic a while back.

I think, at some point or other, Amazon would have stopped using ever single bestseller as loss leaders. A few maybe, but not every single one. Thing is, 9.99 is still higher most paperbacks. Cheaper than hardcovers, but paperbacks are usually cheaper, just not a whole lot cheaper. (Used books are cheaper still. Sometimes only 1 penny. But by the time the physical book drops to that price, the e-book version will likely be less than 9.99.) So.

Also, I don’t think there is anything wrong with selling ebooks at a little less than paperback prices instead of slightly less than hardcover prices.

So . . . I think the publishers deserve this lawsuit. Yeah.

About these ads

21 thoughts on “L is for Lawsuit

  1. I have to agree with J.C. Martin, this was really informative. I have to admit, I’ve been somewhat in the loop and still somewhat confused about this issue, so you really broke it down for me. But I definitely agree with you. I own a Kindle, and there’s been a book I’ve wanted to buy for so long – I won’t say which book – but the price set has been ridiculously high. I told people I refused to pay that price, and everybody I told said I was crazy. But I don’t think I am. Why would I pay such a high price for a book on Kindle when I could get it in paperback for so much less? Which means I’m currently waiting for the paperback to come out. I don’t mind waiting, but I feel this whole thing is absolutely insane, and I whole-heartedly agree with your judgement on this issue.

  2. Great post about the topic. I’m w/ Fiona, I won’t buy an ebook if I can get the paperback for less. That just doesn’t make sense, especially since there is no paper the ebook needs to be printed on, or binding. I don’t think the ebooks have to be insanely cheap, but they should be the lowest cost option (not including used books)

  3. Great breakdown of the lawsuit. I agree completely. I love the real deal in books, with pages and beautiful covers, but I also love my e-reader. I don’t think I’ve purchased less books since I’ve gotten an e-reader, I think I purchase about the same. The higher e-reader prices made no sense whatsoever. If they don’t want to sell e-readers, I’m sure they have contractual ways of not selling books that way . . .but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to lose the market . . .so amazon gains . . . somehow publishers will survive. I think amazon and e-readers have given new writers a chance.

  4. I never understood why ebooks were the same price, if not more expensive than, some paperbacks. Love how you broke the lawsuit. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the legal jargon and just failing miserably.

  5. I want to reblog this because I agree and think it an interesting topic, and rather than hitting that convienent steal this (er “Reblog”) button, I am asking you for permission first.

      1. Well I just want to make sure. It might’ve come off as trying to steal your post (you never know how someone on the internetz will react..better to be a little too cautious)

  6. Reblogged this on Guard's Blog and commented:
    I never really thought about the situation in this way, but after reading this post, I agree with it, and anyhow go check it out random people who find my little corner of the nets.

Say something. Go on.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s