Random House to Adopt Agency Model Starting 3/1

[ABthree]

---

Nallia wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

You are, but I'm only on page 4. 

---

Only 4 for me, too.  Alan must, uh, have a little one. 

---

I am so not going there.

---

Monitor, of course.  The mind on you! 

[tmgn]

No.  That is not what I said nor what I meant to imply.  That might be what other people are saying and implying.  No hidden meanings with me.  I tend to say what I mean.  I never said worth less.

[Ya_Ya]

---

tmgn wrote:

That might be what other people are saying and implying.  No hidden meanings with me.  I tend to say what I mean.  I never said worth less.

---

So you'll pay less for something, but it's not worth less?  Or you'll pay more for something but it's not worth more?  

Really, I don't understand.

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

I think there is a bit of a misinterpretation going on here.  There is a difference between "worth less" and "worthless."  If one item holds more worth to a person than another, then the other is worth less.  If an item is felt to have little to no worth at all, then it is worthless.

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

The more I see the word "worth," the more stupid and the less like a real word it looks. 

[Doug_Pardee Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

tmgn wrote:

I think (and I could be wrong) that Amazon didn't just delete the illegal copies; they also ended up deleting legal downloaded copies.

---

The situation was that the publisher did not have the right to publish those titles. Amazon deleted the e-books from the users' libraries on the Amazon site. When the user's Kindle synced up, it found the e-book was no longer in the user's library and removed it from Kindle.

If the user had made a copy of the e-book, they could still be reading it. It was only a problem for those who blithely trusted that nothing could go rwong with their libraries on the Amazon site.

Much bigger disruptions occur when a bookseller loses its contract to provide e-books from a publisher. Fictionwise is probably the poster-child of this, where many people lost almost their entire Fictionwise libraries when the Agency Model hit last year. Any e-books they'd downloaded were safe, but the ones that they were counting on Fictionwise to keep for them suddenly went away, without warning and without any recourse; there was no way to redownload them.

[tmgn]

I believe someone was suggesting that I (and possibly others) thought an ebook is worth less based only because of the limitations on the lending.  If you read my initial post, I thought I was pointing out that there are a couple of reasons why I'm not okay with the price increase.  Mentioning my reservations on just one of my reasons (as the only reason why I didn't care for the price increase) I felt was unfair and didn't fully represent what I was saying.  The fact that in the past a couple of ebooks were remotely removed from libraries is also problematic.  You wouldn't have them to lend even on a limited basis if that were to happen.  You wouldn't have them to read for yourself a second or third time.  I'm sure it won't happen again.  But didn't Apple just remove some apps from devices?  That's all I am saying - no deliberate deletions please - ever - if you want a higher price...and I do understand the difference between worthless and worth less.  I just didn't think that without assurances they were worth more at this point in time.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

You are, but I'm only on page 4. 

---

Only 4 for me, too.  Alan must, uh, have a little one. 

---

I am so not going there.

---

Monitor, of course.  The mind on you! 

---

I actually have a 24" monitor so I don't think that's the issue... Other things can be discussed in private. 

[Ya_Ya]

---

tmgn wrote:

Mentioning my reservations on just one of my reasons (as the only reason why I didn't care for the price increase) I felt was unfair and didn't fully represent what I was saying.  The fact that in the past a couple of ebooks were remotely removed from libraries is also problematic.  You wouldn't have them to lend even on a limited basis if that were to happen.  You wouldn't have them to read for yourself a second or third time.  I'm sure it won't happen again.  But didn't Apple just remove some apps from devices?  That's all I am saying - no deliberate deletions please - ever - if you want a higher price...

---

But they can't promise to never deliberately delete a file again.  They can do their absolute best to not allow a file to be sold without proper permissions through their site, but they cannot promise that an error will never be made, that such a file will not sneak through.  In a perfect world, yes.  In our world, no.  And I absolutely do not want a company continuing an illegal action because they made a mistake.  I would rather they take the book back then leave it out there and continue breaking the law.  That would make them far more unethical, in my eyes, knowingly breaking the law, than removing it and refunding the purchase price.  Surely you aren't suggesting they should have continued their illegal (although unintentionally so) activity because remedying it meant taking back books.  

It's unreasonable, to me, to expect perfection.  One demands it, hopes for it, one strives for it, one rewards companies who get really really close to it, but nobody ever achieves it.  That's why that particular requirement was "ignored', IMO.  It can't be assured in the real world - and if it's a concern, digital media is the wrong media.  Not just worth less, but the wrong media altogether, IMO.

The onus of downloading is on the user.  Nobody says you have to have only one download.  You can download your online books multiple times to multiple locations.  That prevents them from being able to take it away - even when they are required to do so.  You still have the same access you ever had.  [Although one might argue the ethicality of continuing to use an accidentally illegally obtained object/document/book.]

In any case, it's absolutely fine that for your reasons X ebook is not worth (to you!) the same as X DTB.  All that poster was saying was that, to her, that one was an unimportant consideration.  It's fair that you want to pay less because of restrictions - just as it should be fair that she and I don't necessarily because we don't value the losses those restrictions cause as highly.  Or at all.

[scott88]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

scott88 wrote:

They do not adjust to the highest price that they think people will pay, they set the price that they think will make them the most money which is not necessarily the higher price. If lowering the price get enough additional people to buy the product that it offsets the lower margin then the company makes more money. The fact that RH has increased the price does not guaranty more money for them as fewer people will buy the books a "monopoly" or not.

---

You're assuming that the publishers' intent is to maximize profits on eBooks.  It is not.  They see eBooks as competition to what they continue to consider "real" books, and they tend to see every eBook purchased as a "real" book sale lost.  If they could make eBooks go away, they would.  As I said, once you recognize that mindset, many inexplicable pricing decisions make perfect sense.

Here's the most extreme example I know: 

Atlas Shrugged

  

The irony ot it happening to this particular book is delicious:  you can have the most technologically advanced edtion of the book if you want it, but you'll have to pay more for it than for ANY DTB version available.  That makes NO sense in terms of maximizing profits on the eBook -- but it makes plenty of sense in terms of moving warehousefuls of paper. 

---

Are people buying the ebook at the higher price? What incentive does the publisher have to lower the ebook price? if people want the book but are unwilling to  pay the ebook price they will buy the cheaper DTB. They presumable get higher margin on the ebook and do not have a lost sale from the people not willing to pay that price since they sell the DTB version.

[tmgn]

Wow.  I wasn't suggesting anything like that .  Glad to see my concerns were hijacked and morphed into something they weren't meant to be. Kind of shocked since I don't think that way.  Obviously if Amazon had a problem with the copyright, that's a different story - but I did read somewhere (a couple of places actually) that "legal" copies were deleted as well.  I have now been told that is not what happened at all, and they were all "illegal" because of the copyright issue.  Okay, I'm corrected, and Amazon obviously had to address the situation.  It wasn't the "illegal" copies I was having a problem with.  I have no problem with illegal copies of anything being deleted.  I taught my kids to pay for their music downloads.  Since I read (what I am now told was erroneous information) that legal downloads were deleted as well, I was basing my concerns on that.  Twisting a person's words is not harmless.  So, no, I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm saddened to think it was being implied that I thought otherwise.  Obviously it is not a perfect world.

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

tmgn wrote:

Wow.  I wasn't suggesting anything like that .  Glad to see my concerns were hijacked and morphed into something they weren't meant to be. Kind of shocked since I don't think that way.  Obviously if Amazon had a problem with the copyright, that's a different story - but I did read somewhere (a couple of places actually) that "legal" copies were deleted as well.  I have now been told that is not what happened at all, and they were all "illegal" because of the copyright issue.  Okay, I'm corrected, and Amazon obviously had to address the situation.  It wasn't the "illegal" copies I was having a problem with.  I have no problem with illegal copies of anything being deleted.  I taught my kids to pay for their music downloads.  Since I read (what I am now told was erroneous information) that legal downloads were deleted as well, I was basing my concerns on that.  Twisting a person's words is not harmless.  So, no, I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm saddened to think it was being implied that I thought otherwise.  Obviously it is not a perfect world.

---

No one is twisting your words deliberately.  Sometimes it's difficult to get a full picture of what someone is trying to convery over the internet. 

The ebooks weren't downloaded by customers illegally.  They were paid for.  So you weren't wrong there.  The illegality pertained to Amazon not actually having the right to seel the ebook in the first place.

[Ya_Ya]

---

tmgn wrote:

It wasn't the "illegal" copies I was having a problem with.  I have no problem with illegal copies of anything being deleted.  I taught my kids to pay for their music downloads.  Since I read (what I am now told was erroneous information) that legal downloads were deleted as well, I was basing my concerns on that.  Twisting a person's words is not harmless.  So, no, I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm saddened to think it was being implied that I thought otherwise.  Obviously it is not a perfect world.

---

I apologize, then.  That's where the disconnect was - 100%.  I was reading your comments based on you having the full information.  I'm sorry. 

And I 100% agree with you that retailers should never deliberately pull a purchased book if legality is not the basis of it being pulled.  It's, to me, unethical, unprofessional and certainly would turn me off of the format - at least said retailer - as well.

I do object to you saying I "hijacked" or "twisted" your words, however. I responded to what you said based on the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the information I had.  Given that the correct info was in this thread more than once before the post I referred to, it didn't occur to me that you didn't know said info.   

[ABthree]

---

scott88 wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

The irony ot it happening to this particular book is delicious:  you can have the most technologically advanced edtion of the book if you want it, but you'll have to pay more for it than for ANY DTB version available.  That makes NO sense in terms of maximizing profits on the eBook -- but it makes plenty of sense in terms of moving warehousefuls of paper. 

---

Are people buying the ebook at the higher price? What incentive does the publisher have to lower the ebook price? if people want the book but are unwilling to  pay the ebook price they will buy the cheaper DTB. They presumable get higher margin on the ebook and do not have a lost sale from the people not willing to pay that price since they sell the DTB version.

---

You do realize that you said the same thing I did, right, just in different words? 

[mpebbs]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

scott88 wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

The irony ot it happening to this particular book is delicious:  you can have the most technologically advanced edtion of the book if you want it, but you'll have to pay more for it than for ANY DTB version available.  That makes NO sense in terms of maximizing profits on the eBook -- but it makes plenty of sense in terms of moving warehousefuls of paper. 

---

Are people buying the ebook at the higher price? What incentive does the publisher have to lower the ebook price? if people want the book but are unwilling to  pay the ebook price they will buy the cheaper DTB. They presumable get higher margin on the ebook and do not have a lost sale from the people not willing to pay that price since they sell the DTB version.

---

You do realize that you said the same thing I did, right, just in different words? 

---

I think on this particular topic that an original thought would be way more shocking. Seriously, does anyone else feel this poor dead horse has had enough?(please notice my application of the appropriate smiley)

[Ya_Ya]

---

mpebbs wrote:

I think on this particular topic that an original thought would be way more shocking. Seriously, does anyone else feel this poor dead horse has had enough?(please notice my application of the appropriate smiley) 

---

He's been beaten to a bloody pulp, revived, killed again and beaten some more.  But we're all sadists.    "Thank you sir, may he please have another?"

[ABthree]

---

Ya_Ya wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

I think on this particular topic that an original thought would be way more shocking. Seriously, does anyone else feel this poor dead horse has had enough?(please notice my application of the appropriate smiley) 

---

He's been beaten to a bloody pulp, revived, killed again and beaten some more.  But we're all sadists.    "Thank you sir, may he please have another?"

---

Not only that -- which each new crop of newbies, he comes back to life.  This horse has more lives than a whole cattery! 

[mpebbs]

Maybe it's a zombie horse!

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

mpebbs wrote:

Maybe it's a zombie horse!

---

It's a zombie horse belonging to one of the zombie horsemen heralding the zombie apocalypse.