Amazon makes a direct offer to Hachette authors: 100% ebook royalties

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Yes, that has been the point of just about every post that I have made in this thread. Please re-read tham carefully and literally. I stand behind every one.

You did say:

Originally Posted by j.p.s

0.00001 is above and beyond 0

No idea what that means, I'm just pointing out that there is no .00001

[SleepyBob]

By the same logic, everything that Amazon does is also not adhering to the terms of the contract. It cuts both ways, so it is a useless argument.

[ProfCrash]

There is no contract. It expired in March. There is nothing for Amazon to adhere to

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

By the same logic, everything that Amazon does is also not adhering to the terms of the contract. It cuts both ways, so it is a useless argument.

Oh? It is a useless argument to say that there is no contractual obligations of any sort between Amazon and Hachette? Why?

Who said either of them was adhering to any terms of any contract? The issue up for discussion is Hachette's lack of interest in making one -- and sticking authors into the crossfire.

[SleepyBob]

I'm talking about the whole round-and-round started by j.p.s. about

So, rather than cutting back and withholding services, Amazon has been going above and beyond the provisions of the (nonexistent) contract.

It's just as pointless to laud Amazon for "going above and beyond" a nonexistent contract as it is/would be to lambast them for failing to do something (e.g. failing to supply pre-order buttons), relative to a nonexistent contract.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

I'm talking about the whole round-and-round started by j.p.s. about

It's just as pointless to laud Amazon for "going above and beyond" a nonexistent contract as it is/would be to lambast them for failing to do something (e.g. failing to supply pre-order buttons), relative to a nonexistent contract.

Oh.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Who said either of them was adhering to any terms of any contract? The issue up for discussion is Hachette's lack of interest in making one -- and sticking authors into the crossfire.

Some authors.

Most Hachette authors aren't affected because they weren't going to make any more money than their advance anyway.

Indie authors are benefiting from reduced competition, as are some of the authors (those who have earned out their advances) of other publishers.

A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to sell a book. A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to let people reserve a book before the release date.

Such contracts are vehicles for high-volume retailers to demand lower-than-normal quantity wholesale prices. Putting aside the considerations unique to literature, there is no moral benefit in giving in to the sweetheart deal demands of an Amazon or WalMart.

Originally Posted by darryl

And of course, who benefits from agency pricing other than the large publishers?

I benefit as a reader if the publishers are, in the long run, better able to resist pressure from big retailers to lower the price of their product. This would enhance publisher ability to buy book proposals with advances high enough so authors can do a good job on the books I read. Now, if book prices rose so high public libraries couldn't afford to buy the titles I want to read, that would be bad for me as a reader. But I judge the dangers of the future books I want to read not being a well researched and edited as those of today as being greater than the risk I won't be able to get them through libraries, or afford a used copy several years after release.

Indie writers benefit because books they are competing against cost more. The bigger the gap between indie and major publisher prices, the more indie books will sell. That is just basic economics.

Now, the benefit to Hachette, of not agreeing to new contract, doesn't have to come from agency. It could come from any means that keeps book prices, and publisher revenue, from being pushed down.

Originally Posted by darryl

The only arguments I have seen that others benefit are based on the Amazon is an evil monopoly theory, which I regard as not only ironic given its source, but also untrue.

What source are you referring to?

The idea that Amazon has a sufficiently high enough share of book sales as to have leverage over producers is so obvious that I doubt there is any identifiable source.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Some authors.

...falls under the category of "authors". I never said "all authors".

Most Hachette authors aren't affected because they weren't going to make any more money than their advance anyway.

Indie authors are benefiting from reduced competition, as are some of the authors (those who have earned out their advances) of other publishers.

A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to sell a book. A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to let people reserve a book before the release date.

Such contracts are vehicles for high-volume retailers to demand lower-than-normal quantity wholesale prices. Putting aside the considerations unique to literature, there is no moral benefit in giving in to the sweetheart deal demands of an Amazon or WalMart.

But the bookseller does need a contract in order to entertain reasonable suspicion that they will be able to get enough copies at wholesale prices to make it worth their while to sell.

There is no moral benefit? Why did there need to be? It is business, plain and simple. People buying things to sell them. People wanting to get good prices for bulk orders. People having the right to refuse if they feel it doesn't make economic sense to sell.

There are no considerations unique to literature. Literature is owed nothing. It happens because people feel it is worth buying.

What source are you referring to?

The idea that Amazon has a sufficiently high enough share of book sales as to have leverage over producers is so obvious that I doubt there is any identifiable source.

Distributors always have leverage over producers, since they act as a middleman. It would be scary to live in a world that is illogical to the point where this isn't so.

And regardless, how does that translate to Amazon being evil, which is not a concept inherent in the nature of having leverage in business deals? There is only one source for that -- publishers.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I benefit as a reader if the publishers are, in the long run, better able to resist pressure from big retailers to lower the price of their product. This would enhance publisher ability to buy book proposals with advances high enough so authors can do a good job on the books I read.

How do you know the higher prices are going to the authors? That is certainly not the way it has been with ebooks. If the money went directly to the authors, and there was a line item for publishing expenses (editing, cover art, etc.), then your argument makes sense. But the publishers are just propping up the price of hardcover books, and I doubt that authors got a huge raise when agency was instituted, or a huge pay cut when discounting was once again allowed.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to sell a book. A bookseller does not need a contract with a publisher to let people reserve a book before the release date.

Really? How do you legally resell a license to an ebook without a contract?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Really? How do you legally resell a license to an ebook without a contract?

+1 That too.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

How do you know the higher prices are going to the authors?

I don't know for sure, but its highly likely. If a company has more money, it highly likely that all stakeholders benefit a bit. Look how much manufacturing wages have increases in China while high-profit-margin US tech companies send them more and more big orders.

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

That is certainly not the way it has been with ebooks.

I don't know how we can be certain, since average advances aren't published, and royalty rates don't impact most big-published authors. But what you are saying here is plausible.

Because of eBooks, I think that average book prices have declined, especially during the first couple of months after release. eBook pricing may be also a factor in the relative stagnation of hardcover prices. This likely explains much of the decline in advances, the other big factor being the mini-depression we still have not quite come out of.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And regardless, how does that translate to Amazon being evil, which is not a concept inherent in the nature of having leverage in business deals? There is only one source for that -- publishers.

I don't think Amazon is evil, but if you google the terms:

Amazon evil

the great majority of the results are not coming from publishers.

Originally Posted by Barcey

Really? How do you legally resell a license to an ebook without a contract?

However Amazon does it. AnemicOak suggested in #39 that maybe the "old contract may have some kind of provision in it to have them able to keep selling them on the same terms for a period of time . . . " Or maybe Amazon has a contract with a wholesaler. Or maybe they have a series of purchase orders. Or maybe there is a verbal agreement. Or maybe they are selling Hachette eBooks illegally, but I doubt it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Or maybe they have a series of purchase orders.

That is exactly how they are selling pbooks: they take consumer orders and then send purchase orders to Hachette.

With indie ebooks, when a publisher uploads the book Amazon keeps on selling them until the publisher pulls them or Amazon chooses to pull them for violations to the KDP contract.

The key point is that what the millionaire authors have been excoriating Amazon for not doing is stuff Amazon is under no obligation to do. They act as if Amazon were legally or morally obligated to promote, discount, and warehouse their books. They aren't. Any obligation they had ended with the old contract. And since there is no new contract or even active negotiations...

Whatever service level they have provided since april is effectively a courtesy. Or charity.

[crossi]

Hachette is not negotiating in good faith. Amazon should cut off any and all services to Hachette that is not specified in a current contract. They've been patient long enough.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

Hachette is not negotiating in good faith. Amazon should cut off any and all services to Hachette that is not specified in a current contract. They've been patient long enough.

I expect that *that* is the real message of the letter.
So that when they delist Hachette it will be a matter of public record why they did it.
The situation is untenable.