Price fixing is against the law.

That three publishers colluded with Apple against Amazon is bad. Limiting competition is good for no one in the long run.

So long as there is no limiting of available markets, I don't see it hurting writers. Publishers (whether self-published or traditionally published) set the prices of books sold wholesale. Retailers like Apple and Amazon can put downward pressure on the wholesale price, but so long as alternatives exist and are not squeezed out of the market by anti-competitive practices, writers will still have a fair market in which to sell their works.

I think that the "paradigm shift" mentioned in the last quote refers to the fact that publishers don't get as large a piece of the wholesale pie for e-books. Manipulating the wholesale/retail price as they were trying to do protects their profits.

It's bad for authors and retailers and readers.

The agreement among the three publishers wasn't about limiting competition. Instead, Amazon is the one trying to put everyone out of business by underpricing books, putting retailers out of business, and destroying the print market. A publisher invests money in authors, editorial, marketing, graphics, to produce books -- and expects a profit. A very, very small margin of profit, btw. The publisher uses middlemen such as Amazon and BN and bookstores to sell that product.

Then Amazon prices the ebooks so cheaply that the other retailers go out of business (e.g. Borders.) You are left with a monopoly, the two-ton gorilla Amazon. The largest bookseller in the world. Soon to be one of the few remaining booksellers in the world.

This leads to LESS choice for all of us.

What is legal is setting a floor price. Nintendo, Wii, and other manufacturers set a minimum price for their product. No retailer is allowed to sell retail below that price or they lose the right to sell.

If publishers are going to get together in any way, maybe they need to get together in a way that sets a floor or abandons violators, including Amazon. Essentially go on strike against Amazon's discount, market-shrinking ways.

There's nothing bad about this at all for authors. Authors are in a better place right now than they've ever been. They have more choices than ever.

It's the same for readers. This means lower prices for books and more choice. More choice because Amazon and B&N and Kobo have made it possible for authors to go directly to the reader through ebooks at prices that are reasonable and fair.

The middleman is the publisher. And the publisher is who suffers because of the outrageous overhead that forces them to charge outrageous prices for books.

And THAT's who this is about. Not Amazon with a monopoly—because that's false. Amazon is NOT a monopoly. Publishers are free to sell their books on their own or take them elsewhere. Don't punish Amazon because they have the better business model and have become wildly popular. It isn't as if they're hiring third world children to distribute those ebooks.

What this is REALLY about is a group of publishers COLLUDING to fix prices. Which, the last time I looked, was against the law and frowned upon. Hence the lawsuit and the settlement. The publishers colluded to fix prices in order to save their bottom line in a time of turmoil in the publishing industry. Their business model is failing and they are scrambling to do anything they can except fix the real problem: them.

This is the logical conclusion of Amazon's push to be the sole publisher/distributor in the world. Yes, everyone who thinks he's an author will be able to get his book published by Amazon and he will call himself a published author. Yes, your boring Uncle Joe will show up at the family dinner boasting that he's now a published author.

But there'll be no neighborhood bookstore. No bookstores at all. And you'll have an online choice of a hundred million e-books written by a whole host of Uncle Joes, books indistinguishable from each other because no one has vetted them, edited them, or put their seal of approval on them.

Yes, it's a GREAT time to be a lousy self-published author. But will the rest of us -- consumers and writers alike -- actually find it a better place just because we can now buy a crap e-book for 99 cents?

There's a place for traditional publishers and traditionally published books. And if they want to price their product higher than the dreck books, why shouldn't they be able to? No one's stopping you from choosing the dreck books. If the price is too high for the quality books, then don't buy them. Stick to the dreck instead.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/

And I'm going to make another educated guess that you've read his posts where he's shot down all of your points. The rest of my guess is that you don't agree and choose instead to go the fear-mongering route and the slippery slope argument.

I'm fifty-one and I don't have any problem with bookstores going out of business. There will still be a need for some of them through the kinds of books that don't translate well to e-readers (think of coffee table books as an example.) Libraries will continue to exist, too. I suggest reading my thread titled "Ebooks for Libraries" if you haven't already. Ebooks offer the best opportunity for me to get published. If you don't like that, then fine, I won't expect you to be one of my readers. I have no problem with that, either

By the way, the big publishers have produced plenty of dreck, too, all vetted through their system. And then sold in bookstores.

And he makes excellent points.

However, I still rebel against the inherent unfairness of any artist/publisher being unable to set their own prices for their own products. And that's what Amazon is doing -- telling traditionally published authors/publishers that they have no right to decide what their books should sell for. Since Amazon is the biggest bookseller in the world -- and soon may be the only bookseller in the world -- this is a frightening prospect for writers who want to retain some control over how to value their own work.

If you SELF-publish through Amazon, you're allowed to set your own price. Why can't Amazon allow traditionally published books the same courtesy? Why does Amazon get to decide that it must go for nine bucks?

If you think the price of an e-book is too high JUST DON'T BUY IT. No one is forcing you to. Ditto if the price is a house is just too high, DON'T BUY IT. Buy a cheaper one.

as a reseller in the same way that Barnes & Noble (or any other brick and mortar bookstore) gets to sell a paper book at 40% off. Seems like a rather simple concept to me.

When someone self-pubs their book through Amazon, I suppose they're still a reseller, just without the middleman of the publisher. I'm not privy to the contracts between publishers and Amazon, so I don't know what deals they've made. But really, Amazon is nothing more than a reseller, a platform by which authors, whether backed by a traditional publisher or not, can sell their books to a wider audience.

Now what you seem to be missing from this legal decision is the fact that it was about collusion between publishers and Apple. It wasn't about Amazon doing something "wrong" by reselling books at a price lower than the publishers wanted.

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the issue that strikes me as unfair to traditionally published authors. That Amazon allows SOME sellers (self-pubbed authors) to set their prices, but then steps in and demands that a certain group of sellers (publishers) set their prices at whatever Amazon decides it should be.

If I self-published with Amazon, I can set my book at fifty bucks. And Amazon will let me.

If I sell my hand-made ceramic kitties, I can set whatever price I want. And Amazon will let me.

What makes published authors somehow different? If in fact my traditionally published books are unreasonably high-priced, then the market will determine it's too high, and consumers won't buy the books. So why won't Amazon let that remain a decision between seller and buyer? Why does Amazon get to set the price?

If you're a self-published author, then you should welcome the fact that publishers charge a lot more for their products. It makes your books more competitive, doesn't it?

You'll have to ask Amazon. I don't really care as I won't be going with a traditional publisher anyway. And unless the contracts authors have with traditional publishers state otherwise then they're just as free to self-pub as any else. Some are doing just that, too.

Again, the issue of the suit was about the big publishers colluding and conspiring to fix prices between them and Apple. That's an unfair trade practice and has nothing to do with Amazon setting prices on the products they resell. Big difference there between the two subjects.

It's about them not allowing Amazon and other retailers to DISCOUNT the books as they choose.

Amazon regularly discounts self-published authors books. If they see the price lower somewhere else, they will discount your book. They also do regular promotions.

They can discount all similar products, regardless of quality or the artist on the brand?

If you're going to give them the right to underprice all hammers at the same cheapo variety, then you give them the right to underprice everything to its lowest common denominator.

If MY book isn't cheaper anywhere else, why should they price it based on an unrelated author's cheap e-book price?

so, I'm not sure what your point is.

I think the problem I have with your argument is that you're acting as if Amazon is the bad guy here for wanting to set their own prices of the books they've bought at wholesale.

But Amazon didn't file the lawsuit against the Big 6. The Department of Justice did that. Why? Because what the Big 6 did was WRONG. Illegal. Which why three of them immediately settled.

Amazon is merely trying to run a business and from all accounts, it's a very successful one. They aren't hurting publishers. Publishers are hurting THEMSELVES with their bloated overhead, bloated pricing, and their ham-handed attempt to hang onto to their failing business model. One that, by the way, has never been all that great.

gets to set the price?

He sells the hammers at WHOLESALE to the retailers and they, in turn, set whatever price they desire.

If Amazon wants to sell books at a discount to undercut the competition, why should we complain? Because Amazon is successful at what they do?

Please.

in order to put every other book retailer out of business. So they become the monopoly.

They don't re-price self-published authors' books. If I self-publish with Amazon and I want to set my price high, I can do it. They don't tell me what my price is.

It's only with traditional publishers. This is what strikes me as unfair.

Which is what ANY smart retailer will do. If they can do it at a loss, then so be it. But it seems to me that Amazon is looking pretty healthy for a company selling their flagship product at a loss.

And yes, they DO reprice self-published books. If another retailer lowers its price, Amazon will match or better it. Because they're trying to keep for consumer dollars. They also structure their royalty deals based on the price of the self-published book.

But, again, these same publishers who colluded to fix prices seemed to have to problem with discounting books in brick and mortar stores. How many times have you walked into a bookstore and seen books as high as 30% off?

Amazon is doing nothing different and the price fixing was designed specifically to HURT Amazon. Not the other way around. So who is the bad guy here?

If publishers don't produce any books, print or otherwise, then how will libraries choose their products? By trolling the internet for likely good books? Libraries do indeed lend out e-books, but a large number of patrons want print books, and those will be unavailable.

I don't dispute that ebooks offer the best opportunity for EVERYONE to get published. Go to it.

The world is changing. The big "legacy" publishers don't want to change and are holding onto their old model, however detrimental to them and everyone else. I have no problem with them failing. In the meantime, smaller publishers are figuring out how to survive on ebooks alone. Amazon isn't the only player that's learned this. They're just the biggest one at the moment. Who's to say some other ebook publisher won't make it as big as Amazon and be an equal competitor?

Read the thread I posted about ebooks and libraries for the answer to your question. The librarians do a better job of explaining that I would.

And I know you weren't disputing the opportunity that ebooks offer. Rather, you were making a judgment to the effect that authors that publish to ebook only produce unvetted dreck, and that's flat out untrue.

continue to exist as they do now, with a lot of older books available. They are also actively seeking ebook deals with publishers, but many publishers are refusing to deal with them.

Self-published authors, however, are all to happy too make library deals.

I know many readers -- children, especially -- who are not fine with that.

And there's data that shows we process information differently on a screen vs. the printed page. We scan digital information. We absorb print information more deeply.

If publishers go extinct, we'll have fewer choices.

I think the big names will continue to be in print and there will always be a number of print copies available for those who prefer print books.

But any business has to adapt and change. There are those who couldn't imagine a world without vinyl records, but we've managed to survive just fine.

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

This isn't just about publishers pricing their books higher. It's about them COLLUDING. Agreeing to never price their ebooks lower (or allow discounts) in an attempt to control the ebook marketplace.

They've never seemed to have a problem with discounts on PRINT books, however. So why is that?

Because this has nothing to do with books, and everything to do with trying to hold on to a failing business model. Publishers are becoming largely irrelevant thanks to technology, and they're using illegal scams rather than do the hard work and find a new business model.

That said, here's the line that really slays me:

"Yes, it's a GREAT time to be a lousy self-published author. But will the rest of us -- consumers and writers alike -- actually find it a better place just because we can now buy a crap e-book for 99 cents?"

For one thing, many, many self-publishing authors are not "lousy." And the price range of self-published books is anywhere from 99 cents to $5.99. If readers keep getting burned at the 99 cent level, they will stop buying those books. Nobody is forcing them on you.

As for this particular writer, I've been published multiple times by Big 6 publishers. In fact I still have a book coming out in January of next year. I've also now begun self-publishing titles and am making up to $50K a month and have had more exposure as a writer than I've ever gotten with my traditionally published books.

So the answer is YES, writers—and, I believe, readers—will find it a better place. I already do. Are you aware that most traditional published writers have to have a day job in order to survive? Thanks to self-publishing, many writers are now working full time at their craft and making a good, living wage.

Then there's this:

"But there'll be no neighborhood bookstore. No bookstores at all. And you'll have an online choice of a hundred million e-books written by a whole host of Uncle Joes, books indistinguishable from each other because no one has vetted them, edited them, or put their seal of approval on them."

Do you REALLY think traditional publishers are going to stop this from happening? They are rapidly moving toward ebooks. Many are making ebook only deals with authors. One Big 6 publisher even bought a self-publishing firm to go after that market.

I have been told by more than one industry professional that "ebooks are the future." So all of this wailing about bookstores has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. Print books will die out just as DVDs and CDs are slowly dying out, because it's the natural progression of things.

As for a "seal of approval"—do you seriously think that a publisher's seal or approval is worth anything? Have you seen what publishers are publishing these days? Does the "seal of approval" on 50 Shades of Gray make it a good book?

The seal of approval comes from READERS. THEY decide what they like and don't like. And any self-publisher worth his salt is making sure that his books are properly edited. So what exactly does a traditional publisher offer him?

"And if they want to price their product higher than the dreck books, why shouldn't they be able to?"

$9.99 is still higher than most self-published books. Nobody's saying that publishers have to charge 99 cents. With most retail products, the manufacturer gives the retailer a SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICE and the retailer is free to price the product however he feels will sell the most units and still make him a profit. And that's all this is really about.

I assume by "dreck" books you mean self-published titles. I hear this a lot, but it seems to me that the Big 6 publishers are just as capable of publishing dreck. Like 50 Shades of Gray. Or Snookie's latest novel. Or thousands of over pieces of crap that are churned out by publishers ever single year.

You seem to take the attitude that only publishers can save the world from a glut of crappy books. I'm sorry, but that's completely false. Did you know that some of the greatest and/or most popular authors the world has ever produced were self-published? Here's a partial list:

Gertrude Stein

Zane Grey

Upton Sinclair

Carl Sandburg

Ezra Pound

Mark Twain

Edgar Rice Burroughs

Stephen Crane

Bernard Shaw

Anais Nin

Thomas Paine

Virginia Wolff

e.e. Cummings

Edgar Allen Poe

Rudyard Kipling

Henry David Thoreau

Benjamin Franklin

Walt Whitman

Alexandre Dumas

William E.B. DuBois

Beatrix Potter

I know a number of full-time authors in my position, and we're doing fine in this so-called old school of publishing. Which, ironically, is where many self e-pubbed authors want to be when they get the chance.

I occasionally teach writing classes, and have been exposed to the utterly atrocious self-published stuff that's out there by students who couldn't sell it the traditional way, for good reason. Every so often I come across a true gem of an unpublished writer. And guess what? They almost all DO get published eventually. Because there actually is a merit system in publishing.

The self-published authors you list above, interestingly enough, date back at least half a century ago or more, to the days when many if not most books were self-published. So... where are the amazing artistic writers of TODAY who are entirely self-published? I can think of a number of good authors who started off traditionally published (and whose talents were obviously recognized by the Establishment) who later moved into self-publishing for a variety of reasons. But what about some names of brilliant writers who started off self-published and stayed there?

Last edited Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:59 AM - Edit history (2)

"I know a number of full-time authors in my position, and we're doing fine in this so-called old school of publishing."

And I congratulate you for that. I am also one of those authors. My average yearly income is about $100K when all is said and done. But when I started self-publishing, I made that $100K in three months. Straight royalties. No advances. And my books are still earning. Many of my friends, who had day jobs, were able to quit them and concentrate on writing full time.

That said, MOST traditionally published authors start out with advances in the $5K to $15K range per book. They're usually locked into a two-book deal, an exclusivity clause in their contracts, and those two books will not be released until a year or even two after they receive that advance. Even authors getting a second contract (and that's not guaranteed) make advances only slightly higher. So now we're talking four years at say, if they're lucky, $30K to $40K with no guarantee that they'll earn out their advance. That's $30K to $40K spread out over those four years. I doubt many of them are making a living through books.

What you and I manage to earn is not even remotely close to what most traditionally published authors earn. We are the lucky ones. To say anything else is disingenuous at best and easily proven wrong by the facts.

"I can think of a number of good authors who started off traditionally published (and whose talents were obviously recognized by the Establishment) who later moved into self-publishing for a variety of reasons. But what about some names of brilliant writers who started off self-published and stayed there?"

I listed names that I think we can all agree on (to some extent) as "great authors," so, of course most of them are either dead or from a while back.

The self-publishing revolution is currently in its infancy, and there are plenty of websites pointing to new, untested authors who are selling books like crazy. There is one website partially devoted to self-publishing successes and lists dozens of authors who have sold in excess of 50,000 books in a year or less. Even in the traditionally publishing world that would be considered a success. And many of those authors have never had traditional publishing deals.

Will they ever be considered masters of their craft? It's far too early to tell. They obviously have a lot of readers. But ask me again in about thirty years. And during that time let's keep an eye out for the new Mark Twains coming from traditional publishing as well.

What I found very interesting, however, was this line:

"The self-published authors you list above, interestingly enough, date back at least half a century ago or more, to the days when many if not most books were self-published."

Yes, there was a time when many if not most books were self-published. Yet they somehow managed to become known and revered without traditional publishing gatekeepers.

Then some middle man figured out how to handle publishing and make a killing at it, and a new industry was born. But the ONLY REASON publishers had the upper hand for so long in the modern era was because they had control of a) the printing press; b) distribution; and c) marketing—with the latter two being the most important.

The gatekeeping wasn't necessary to "protect" readers. Readers can take care of themselves. It was necessary in order to control the flow of business and give the middle men an advantage over the marketplace AND over authors. They could offer authors a pittance because authors had no control over these three essential things. It was completely artificial, and there were undoubtedly as MANY great authors who were rejected as there were terrible authors, because traditional publishing is about SALES not quality. Publishers look for what appeals to the masses and makes their business most profitable.

But thanks to technology, traditional publishers are no longer in control. Authors are now on a largely level playing field. So it would only make sense that self-publishing has seen a resurgence over the last couple years.

EDITED FOR ALL THE RIDICULOUS ERRORS/TYPOS. I NEED TO LEARN NOT TO PRESS THE SUBMIT BUTTON SO FAST.

I can't agree with price fixing of ebooks. For one thing price should reflect perceived quality and value of content--as it always has done with books. Ebooks should be cheaper--you don't have a tangible product. You have ephemeral limited use data bits that require a specialized device to read it.

On the other hand publishers are trying to protect their industry as a whole, and the lowering of costs WILL affect benefits to AUTHORS. Already has.

The best books will still be published on paper. I like the option of both --paper for a book I really want to keep, e-version for quick read stuff to carry around easily.

On the other hand Amazon has too much power, but they have done many things well.

Recession is a factor too--books are a luxury item.

So if a publisher chooses to sell his at a higher price, what's the problem? A certain number of books are priced higher because the creator/publisher believes they're worth more than the 99 cent books. If a well-known artist wants to charge more for his painting than the unknown street artist, shouldn't the well-known artist be able to set his price? Or does some third party come in and say, "No, EVERYTHING must go for the same price." So you get a Picasso for the same price as Joe-the-Plumber's painting of his dog.

Frankly, I'm amazed that everyone here thinks it's OK to tell a writer/publisher that, no, he can't set his own price. That some other entity -- Amazon -- has the right to tell you what you can sell your book for.

Ironically, those authors who publish their own books through Amazon CAN set their own prices. You can set it thirty bucks one day and change it to fifty cents the next, depending on which price you think sells best. Why can't a traditionally published book be treated the same way as the self-published author? Why does Amazon get to decide what to charge for JUST the traditionally published books?

"On the other hand publishers are trying to protect their industry as a whole, and the lowering of costs WILL affect benefits to AUTHORS. Already has."

If you mean toward the positive, then you're correct. More and more authors are beginning to realize that they have spent their careers being more or less ripped off by publishers. Authors get pennies on the dollar for books sold, even though they do the lion's share of the work and are also what makes the industry possible.

Now that technology has leveled the playing field, authors going direct to Amazon and B&N and Kobo and Apple are finding that a world without publishers is much more lucrative.

Most traditionally published authors have to maintain day jobs in order to survive. Those who have transitioned to self-publishing through Amazon, etc., have discovered that they can make a nice living wage.

So, yes, ebooks and technology DO affect benefits to authors. In a very positive way. They now have choices. And, because they can self-publish, they have more negotiating power when they decide to go with traditional publishers.

"The best books will still be published on paper."

Really? Where does THIS tidbit come from? You prefer paper. I used to, too. But there are as many crap paper books as there are ebooks.

By the way, Amazon also provides self-publishers an avenue for publishing print books as well. So I'm not sure what your point is, here.

"On the other hand Amazon has too much power, but they have done many things well."

No one handed power to Amazon. They built their business, made smart moves, learned to innovate, and now dominate the marketplace. Why does this bother people so?

Other companies, including publishers, could easily have taken a longer look at the market and realized where it was heading. Amazon was smart enough to see far into the distance and adjust their business model accordingly.

So why hate on Amazon for being smart and successful? Others are free to compete, including the publishers, who could pull all of their books from Amazon and sell them on their own. But they won't do that. Because THEY DON'T KNOW HOW.

Is anyone else here currently published and in print? And making a living as an author? Or are all these speculative answers based on no experience in the industry?

Since the question was: "what does this mean to us as writers?" I answered it as a writer.

The answer would be different if you're a reader who wants nothing more than a library of 99 cent e-books and nothing else.

Enjoy your success, and don't fault others for finding a way to realize their dreams.

But thanks for your input. I hope to reach your success, some day.