Friday, April 15, 2011

Monday, March 07, 2011

Scott Turow On Random House (reposted w. permission)

Random House, the largest trade book publisher in the U.S., announced last week that it is adopting the agency model for selling e-books. For readers and authors concerned about a diverse literary marketplace, this is welcome news, a chance for online bookselling to avoid the winner-take-all trap. Random House's move gives brick-and-mortar bookstores, many of which are now selling e-books but cannot afford to lose money on those sales, a fighting chance in the new print + digital landscape.
 
"Book retailers have faced extraordinary challenges in recent years," said Authors Guild President Scott Turow, "a double whammy of recession and a shift to digital books that had cut many stores out. For anyone who loves bookstores, this is the best news out of the publishing industry in a long time. Random House's move may prove to be a lifeline for some bookstores."  
 
Apple introduced the agency model into bookselling last year when it launched the iPad and the iBookstore. In January 2010, as Steve Jobs was announcing Apple's new device, Amazon controlled an estimated 90% of the U.S. e-book market. The price of entry into that market was steep: Amazon, using the reseller model for e-books, was routinely selling e-books at a substantial loss to build the market and to ward off competitors such as Barnes & Noble, which had just begun selling the Nook. As we described in last month's alert (How Apple Saved Barnes & Noble. Probably.):  
 
Apple wouldn't sell e-books under the reseller model that Amazon had been using to lock down the market. (Under that model, the publisher sells e-books to a reseller at a discount of about 50%. The reseller can then sell the e-book at any price, constrained only by antitrust law and the reseller's ability to absorb losses.) Instead, Apple would sell e-books under the same "agency model" it used for iPhone apps. Under the agency model, Apple acts as the publisher's agent, selling e-books at the price established by the publisher and taking a 30% commission on each sale. To participate, a publisher would have to agree to a set of ceilings on e-book prices, generally $12.99 or $13.99 for new books. A publisher would also have to agree not to sell to others under more favorable terms.  
 
If the agency model took hold, unfettered discounting of e-books would be out. Amazon would lose its ability to buy market share in a nascent, booming industry.  
 
Macmillan leapt at the agency model, and Amazon fought back. In a dramatic, week-long showdown, Amazon removed the buy buttons from print and digital editions of virtually all of Macmillan's books. Macmillan stood firm, and five of the big six trade publishers (all except Random House) quickly adopted the agency model. The Guild immediately backed the agency model as essential for creating a healthy, diverse e-book retailing environment, even though it would mean lower royalties for many authors in the near term.  
 
Barnes & Noble benefitted more than anyone from publishers' adoption of the agency model. It still had to subsidize sales of many Random House titles to stay in the game with Amazon, but it didn't have to lose money on the sales of other titles. Barnes & Noble's share of the e-book market grew at a pace that surprised everyone in the industry and is now approaching 20%.  
 
The biggest beneficiaries of Random House's shift to the agency model may be independent booksellers, many of which are now selling e-books through an arrangement with Google. While Barnes & Noble could absorb some losses in selling Random House e-books, this was out of the question for most independent booksellers. Many readers will soon be able to support their local booksellers when they buy e-books, without paying a stiff price for their loyalty.
 
"Getting local booksellers into the e-book game is essential," said Mr. Turow. "Equally essential, if e-books are going to help sustain a vibrant literary culture, is restoring the traditional division of proceeds between authors and publishers. Random House and other major publishers have a lot of work to do on that score."
 
 
--------------------------------
Feel free to forward, post, or tweet.  Here is a short URL for linking: http://tiny.cc/3o9fa

Sunday, March 06, 2011

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights | Librarian in Black Blog – Sarah Houghton-Jan

About 70 posts into the discussion, the Librarian's true motivation is revealed.
I will say this for her, she is an excellent self-promoter.

Over the long term, I cannot see that her business model is in the public interest.
As Scott Turow pointed out, authors must have a financial incentive to write.

If publishing e-books does not make financial sense, the quality of e-books will
deteriorate, and the field will be left to the vain and to the advertisers.

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights | Librarian in Black Blog – Sarah Houghton-Jan

My response to Sarah was:
This is telling, Sarah. Thank you for sharing your true motivation.

"Writing, and giving away my writing, helps others–which is why
I got into libraries in the first place. It also even helps me by raising my profile
and exposure, which leads to other paid engagements (like speaking and training).
This blog, which has always been free and CC-licensed, helped me get more paid gigs
than anything I was ever paid to write and that’s a fact."

For you, writing isn't a career. It is an advertisement for your paid services.

That is all very well, but some authors don't share your desire to make their living
as paid speakers and trainers. They want to write books, and be paid a fairly and
freely negotiated fraction of the price for which each copy of those books is legally sold.

Each copy.

Legally sold.

In pursuit of your own paid career as a speaker and trainer, you arrogate to yourself
the right to demand that authors' private contracts are unilaterally renegotiated
without their consent.

Why should anyone pay to be trained by you, or to hear you speak?
Doesn't knowledge want to be free?
Doesn't everyone in the world have the right to benefit from your wisdom
regardless of their ability to pay for the experience?
Do you allow your audiences to make audio and video recordings of your paid speeches
and training sessions, and to then sell or "share" those recordings of your paid work ...
without paying you?

Possibly, you do. You might consider that great publicity, and for a time it could be.

If Sarah truly and honestly "put her money where her mouth is", she would upload videos and audios of her
paid speeches and training sesssion etc. Free.

Of course, in time, everyone who might have wanted to pay to hear her speak could more conveniently
access a free mp3 (or whatever) from the comfort of their internet connection.

Then, Sarah would be walking a mile in the moccasins of the authors whose works she thinks should
be freely shared and resold.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Illinois legislation impacting Amazon Associates Program? | The Whole Bird Politics

Wow!!!
Who knew that Amazon is an authority on what is unconstitutional ?

Illinois legislation impacting Amazon Associates Program? | The Whole Bird Politics

Greetings from the Amazon Associates Program:

We regret to inform you that the Illinois state legislature has passed
an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that,
if signed by Governor Quinn, would leave Amazon.com little choice
but to end its relationships with Illinois-based Associates.

I am very surprised that a corporation is allowed to stir the pot in this way. My
understanding was that it is constitutional for the individual States to levy taxes
to meet their needs.

I'm also surprised that Amazon affiliates aren't routinely taxed on their income from
sales referrals. Shouldn't there be some kind of tax forms... 1099s??

As I see it, any income paid to affiliates is either taken out of Amazon's cut on sales,
or it is taken out of the publishers' and authors' cut. Since the author does not receive
that amount, the author isn't paying taxes on it.

Someone ought to be paying taxes. I'm with Illinois on this. I think Michigan and Kentucky
and Florida ought to be taxing Amazon affiliates' income, too.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Snarking back at a pirate

 

After two or more years, YAHOO finally, apparently, did the right thing and parted ways with
one of the worst alleged pirates on the internet.

These people make $0.03 (three cents) from every download that they can trick
booklovers, movie-lovers, music-lovers, magazine-lovers etc into illegally downloading. Also,
they tell their audience that they, too, can make money by sharing movies, e-books, music that
they do not own, and that they have downloaded illegally.

They do not tell those innocent persons that the pirates will receive approximately 20% of
the new members' commissions.

Nor do they tell their victims that by illegally downloading copyrighted material, the victims
in theory risk the possibility of prosecution, fines of up to $250,000 per file downloaded, and
up to 5 years in prison.

Okay. There's a slim chance that that would happen. Nevertheless, if you are going to "steal"
("stealing" isn't the legally correct term for infringing copyright) copyrighted material, you
ought to be given the opportunity to make an informed decision whether it is worth it.

The "Free Book Club" was a club that infringed copyright, and encouraged others to do so.
It infringed AMAZON's copyright, by snagging reviews, or substantial portions of AMAZON-owned
reviews from the pages of books that were being legally sold on AMAZON.

It infringed the publishers' copyright by posting copyrighted cover art.

It provided links to a file hosting site, so that members of their club could follow the links
and illegally download copyrighted works that had been illegally uploaded to that site in violation
of the hosting site's terms of use, and the copyright of the true copyright owners.

Make no mistake, just because one person has infringed copyright by uploading an in-copyright
e-book, movie, tune, magazine, etc to a file-hosting site, that does not make a "stolen" work
free and legal for everyone else to "steal".

The work is still under copyright. The right to copy it, and distribute it still belongs to
the author.


Subject: Book Club Newsletter (important, please read)
From: Club Admin

Dear Book Club Members
We have closed the FreeBookClub at Yahoo Groups.
This was due to an argument with Yahoo over our 'absolute' right to inform members of complimentary books etc., and even though we are not the hosts of these giveaways, we do not accept that we should told what we can or cannot say to our membership in an email newsletter. Yahoo has lost the plot!
We are currently looking for a more reliable mailing service, but in the meantime, if you would like to continue to recieve notifications about new giveaways, please join our Google Group, using the form below. Hopefully they better understand our legal rights of free speech!


Regards, Club Admin
The problem, I think, comes with these pirates' misunderstanding of what "free" and "complimentary"
and "giveaway" mean.

A book can be "complimentary" if it is given away by someone with the legal right to give it
away. In the case of most of the works these pirates shared, the copyright owner probably did
not voluntarily give it away. Is it logical that at the same time that "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
and "The Social Network" are on pay-per-view on TV, or even still running in cinemas, is it
reasonable to believe that the film-makers want you to be able to get it free from FILESONIC?

Personally, I wonder about the "free speech" issue. It might be a matter covered by the truth
in advertising laws.

Is there a legal difference between something "stolen" and something "free"?

Where does solicitation to commit a crime begin?

Friday, February 11, 2011

The E-Book Royalty Mess, courtesy of Authors' Guild

The E-Book Royalty Mess: An Interim Fix
 
February 11, 2011. To mark the one-year anniversary of the Great Blackout, Amazon's weeklong shut down of e-commerce for nearly all of Macmillan's titles, we're sending out a series of alerts on the state of e-books, authorship, and publishing. The first installment ("How Apple Saved Barnes & Noble. Probably.") discussed the outcome, of that battle, which introduced a modicum of competition into the distribution of e-books. The second, ("E-Book Royalty Math: The House Always Wins") took up the long-simmering e-royalty debate, and showed that publishers generally do significantly better on e-book sales than on hardcover sales, while authors always do worse.
 
Today, we look at the implications of that disparity, and suggest an interim solution to minimize the harm to authors.
 
Negotiating a publishing contract is frequently contentious, but authors have long been able to take comfort in this: once the contract is signed, the interests of the author and the publisher are largely aligned. If the publisher works to maximize its revenues, it will necessarily work to maximize the author's royalties. This is the heart of the traditional bargain, whereby the author licenses the publisher long-term, exclusive book rights in the world's largest book market in exchange for an advance and the promise of diligently working to the joint benefit of author and publisher.
 
Now, for the first time, publishers have strong incentives to work against the author's interests.
 
As we discussed in our last alert, authors and publishers have traditionally acted as equal partners, splitting the net proceeds from book sales. Most sublicenses, for example, provide for a fifty-fifty split of proceeds, and the standard hardcover trade book royalty -- 15% of the retail price -- represented half of the net proceeds from selling the book when the standard was established.* But trade book publishers currently offer e-book royalties at precisely half what the terms of a traditional proceeds-sharing arrangement would dictate -- paying just 25% of net income on e-book sales. That's why the shift from hardcover to e-book sales is a win for publishers, a loss for authors.
 
The Pushback
 
The publisher's standard reply to this -- which we heard yet again after last week's alert -- is a muddle, conflating fixed costs with variable costs. Let's address that before we move on.
 
For any book, a publisher has two types of fixed costs: those attributable to the publisher's operations as a whole (office overhead, investments in infrastructure, etc.) and those attributable to the particular work (author's advance, editing, design). The variable costs for the book are the unit costs of production. These costs (print, paper, binding, returns, royalty) tell a publisher how much more it costs to get, say, 10,000 additional hardcover books to stores and sell them. The publisher's gross profit per unit (unit income minus unit costs) is the amount against which the author's royalties are traditionally and properly measured. With this sort of analysis, a publisher can compare the gross profitability per unit of, for example, a hardcover to a trade paperback edition.
 
Investments in technology change nothing. Publishers never argued, for example, that hardcover royalties needed to be cut when they began equipping their editorial and design staffs with expensive (at the time) personal computers, buying pricey computers and software for their designers, tying those computers together with ever-more-powerful Ethernet cables and routers, and hiring support staff to maintain it all. Publishers simply took their share of the gross profits from book sales and applied it to all of their costs, as they always have. What remains after deducting those costs is deemed the publisher's net profit. Similarly, authors take their share of the proceeds of their book sales and apply it to their overhead (food, clothing, shelter, and computer technology) and costs (their labor and out-of-pocket costs to write the manuscript). What remains is the author's net profit.
 
The proper question is this: how much better off is a publisher if it sells a book, print or digital, than it is if it doesn't? That is what we measured. We then compared that to the author's print and digital royalties per book.
 
Publisher's E-Gains + Author's E-Losses = E-Bias
 
Applying standard trade hardcover and e-book terms to Kathryn Stockett's "The Help," David Baldacci's "Hell's Corner," and Laura Hillenbrand's "Unbroken," we found that publishers do far better by selling e-books than hardcovers (realizing "e-gains" of 27% to 77%), while the authors do much worse (suffering "e-losses" of 17% to 39%). Publishers can't help being influenced by the gains; e-bias will inevitably drive their decisions.
 
Some simplified examples show how e-bias plays out in publishing decisions:
 
1. Promotional Bias. Assume a publisher is contemplating whether to invest a portion of a book's limited marketing budget in stimulating the sale of digital books (paying for featured placement in the Kindle or Nook stores, perhaps) or in encouraging print sales through a promotion at physical bookstores. Either way, the publisher expects the investment to boost sales by 1,000 copies. A sensible publisher would spend the money to promote digital books, pocketing an additional $1,570 to $4,170 on those sales compared to hardcover sales. Such a decision, however, would cost Ms. Stockett, Mr. Baldacci, and Ms. Hillenbrand $1,470, $1,570, and $670, respectively, in royalties.
 
2. Print-Run Bias. E-gains of 27% to 77% become irresistible when a publisher looks at risk-adjusted returns on investment, as any businessperson would. Once a book is typeset for print, the publisher must invest an additional $30,000 to have 10,000 hardcover books ready for sale, using the figures from our prior alert. Once the digital template is created and distributed to the major vendors, on the other hand, there is no additional cost to having the book ready for purchase by an unlimited number of customers. Even the encryption fee (50 cents per book, at most) isn't incurred until the reader purchases the book. In this environment a publisher is nearly certain to keep print runs as short as possible, risking unavailability at bookstores, in order to decrease overall risk and maximize the publisher's return on investment.
 
Publishers, in short, will work to increase e-book sales at the inevitable expense of hardcover sales, tilting more and more purchases toward e-books, and their lower royalties. Publishers, as sensible, profit-maximizing entities, will work against their authors' best interests.
 
An Interim Solution: Negotiate an E-Royalty Floor
 
This won't go on forever. Bargain basement e-royalty rates are largely a result of negotiating indifference. The current industry standards for e-royalties began to gel a decade or so ago, when there was no e-book market to speak of. Authors and agents weren't willing to walk away from publishing contracts over a royalty clause that had little effect on the author's earnings.
 
Once the digital market gets large enough, authors with strong sales records won't put up with this: they'll go where they'll once again be paid as full partners in the exploitation of their creative work. That day is fast approaching, and would probably be here already, were it not for a tripwire in the contracts of thousands of in-print books. That tripwire? If the publisher increases its e-royalty rates for a new book, the e-royalty rates of countless in-print books from that publisher will automatically match the new rate or be subject to renegotiation.
 
So, what's to be done in the meantime? Here's a solution that won't cascade through countless backlist books: soften the e-bias by eliminating the author's e-loss. That is, negotiate for an e-royalty floor tied to the prevailing print book royalty amount.
 
Turning again to our last alert for examples, here are the calculations of e-losses and e-gains without an e-royalty floor:
 
"The Help," by Kathryn Stockett
Author's Standard Royalty: $3.75 hardcover; $2.28 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = -39%
Publisher's Margin: $4.75 hardcover; $6.32 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = +33%
 
"Hell's Corner," by David Baldacci
Author's Standard Royalty: $4.20 hardcover; $2.63 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = -37%
Publisher's Margin: $5.80 hardcover; $7.37 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = +27%
 
"Unbroken," by Laura Hillenbrand
Author's Standard Royalty: $4.05 hardcover; $3.38 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = -17%
Publisher's Margin: $5.45 hardcover; $9.62 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = +77%
 
Here are the calculations with an e-royalty floor:
 
"The Help," by Kathryn Stockett
Author's Adjusted Royalty: $3.75 hardcover; $3.75 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = Zero
Publisher's Margin: $4.75 hardcover; $4.85 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = +2%
 
"Hell's Corner," by David Baldacci
Author's Adjusted Royalty: $4.20 hardcover; $4.20 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = Zero
Publisher's Margin: $5.80 hardcover; $5.80 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = Zero
 
"Unbroken," by Laura Hillenbrand
Author's Adjusted Royalty: $4.05 hardcover; $4.05 e-book.
Author's E-Loss = Zero
Publisher's Margin: $5.45 hardcover; $8.85 e-book.
Publisher's E-Gain = +62%
 
While this wouldn't restore authors to full partnership status in the sale of their work, it would prevent them from being harmed as publishers try to maximize their revenues. This is only an interim solution, however. In the long run, authors will demand to be restored to full partnership, and someone will give them that status.
 
Part 4 of this series will look at online piracy and book publishing.
 
--------------------------------
 
*A traditional industry rule of thumb was that the price of a hardcover should be five or six times the cost of production. (John P. Dessauer, Book Publishing: What It Is, What It Does. R.R. Bowker 1974, p. 92). To keep the math simple, let's assume that it's priced at five times the cost of production, that there are no returns, and that the bookseller pays the publisher 50% of the list price for the book. Of the 50% the publisher receives, subtract 20% for the cost of production (one-fifth the retail price) and the net proceeds are 30% of the retail list price. Split that in two, and one arrives at the author's standard hardcover royalty, 15% of the retail list price. (A current rule of thumb is that the cost of producing a hardcover is about 15% of the retail price, but the actual costs vary widely.)
 
--------------------------------
Feel free to forward, post, or tweet.  Here is a short URL for linking: http://tiny.cc/0p0jb

Friday, February 04, 2011

From The Authors' Guild

E-Book Royalty Math: The Big Tilt
 
To mark the one-year anniversary of the Great Blackout, Amazon's weeklong shut down of e-commerce for nearly all of Macmillan's titles, we’re sending out a series of alerts this week and next on the state of e-books, authorship, and publishing. The first installment (How Apple Saved Barnes & Noble. Probably.) discussed the outcome, one year later, of that battle. Today, we look at the e-royalty debate, which has been simmering for a while, but is likely to soon heat up as the e-book market grows. 
 
E-book royalty rates for major trade publishers have coalesced, for the moment, at 25% of the publisher’s receipts. As we’ve pointed out previously, this is contrary to longstanding tradition in trade book publishing, in which authors and publishers effectively split the net proceeds of book sales (that's how the industry arrived at the standard hardcover royalty rate of 15% of  list price). Among the ills of this radical pay cut is the distorting effect it has on publishers’ incentives: publishers generally do significantly better on e-book sales than they do on hardcover sales. Authors, on the other hand, always do worse.
 
How much better for the publisher and how much worse for the author? Here are examples of author’s royalties compared to publisher’s gross profit (income per copy minus expenses per copy), calculated using industry-standard contract terms:  
 
“The Help,” by Kathryn Stockett  
Authors Standard Royalty: $3.75 hardcover; $2.28 e-book. Author’s E-Loss = -39% 
Publishers Margin: $4.75 hardcover; $6.32 e-book. Publisher’s E-Gain = +33%
 
“Hell’s Corner,” by David Baldacci 
Author's Standard Royalty: $4.20 hardcover; $2.63 e-book. Author’s E-Loss = -37% 
Publishers Margin: $5.80 hardcover; $7.37 e-book. Publisher’s E-Gain = +27%
 
“Unbroken,” by Laura Hillenbrand 
Authors Standard Royalty: $4.05 hardcover; $3.38 e-book. Author’s E-Loss = -17% 
Publishers Margin: $5.45 hardcover; $9.62 e-book. Publisher’s E-Gain = +77%
 
So, everything else being equal, publishers will naturally have a strong bias toward e-book sales. It certainly does wonders for cash flow: not only does the publisher net more, but the reduced royalty means that every time an e-book purchase displaces a hardcover purchase, the odds that the author’s advance will earn out -- and the publisher will have to cut a check for royalties -- diminishes. In more ways than one, the author’s e-loss is the publisher’s e-gain.
 
Inertia, unfortunately, is embedded in the contractual landscape. If the publisher were to offer more equitable e-royalties in new contracts, it would ripple through much of the publisher’s catalog: most major trade publishers have thousands of contracts that require an automatic adjustment or renegotiation of e-book royalties if the publisher starts offering better terms. (Some publishers finesse this issue when they amend older contracts, many of which allow e-royalty rates to quickly escalate to 40% of the publisher’s receipts. Amending old contracts to grant the publisher digital rights doesn’t trigger the automatic adjustment, in the publisher's view.) Given these substantial collateral costs, publishers will continue to strongly resist changes to their e-book royalties for new books.
 
Resistance, in the long run, will be futile. As the e-book market continues to grow, competitive pressures will almost certainly force publishers to share e-book proceeds fairly. Authors with clout simply won’t put up with junior partner status in an increasingly important market. New publishers are already willing to share fairly. Once one of those publishers has the capital to pay even a handful of authors meaningful advances, or a major trade publisher decides to take the plunge, the tipping point will likely be at hand.
 
In the meantime, what’s to be done? We’ll address that in our next installment in this series, on Monday.
 
Our assumptions and calculations for the figures above follow.
 
-------------------------------------------------------- 
Doing the Numbers: Hardcover
 
To keep things as simple as possible, we assumed that for hardcovers: (1) the publisher sells at an average 50% discount to the wholesaler or retailer (2) the royalty rate is 15% of list price (as it is for most hardcover books, after 10,000 units are sold), (3) the average marginal cost to manufacture the book and get it to the store is $3, and (4) the return rate is 25% (a handy number -- if one of four books produced is returned, then the $3 marginal cost of producing the book is spread over three other books, giving us a return cost of $1 per book). We also rounded up retail list price a few pennies to give us easy figures to work with.
 
“The Help,” by Kathryn Stockett has a hardcover retail list price of $25. The standard royalty (15% of list) would be $3.75. The publisher grosses $12.50 per book at a 50% discount. Subtract from that the author's royalty ($3.75), cost of production ($3), and cost of returns ($1), and the publisher nets $4.75 on the sale of a hardcover book.
 
“Hell’s Corner” by David Baldacci, has a retail list price is $28. The standard royalty is $4.20; the publisher's gross is $14. Subtract royalties ($4.20), production and return costs ($4), and the publisher nets $5.80.
 
“Unbroken,” by Laura Hillenbrand has a hardcover list price of $27. Standard royalties are $4.05. The publisher's gross is $13.50. Subtract royalties of $4.05 and production and return costs of $4, and the publisher nets $5.45.
 
Doing the Numbers: E-Book
 
E-book royalty rates are uniform among the major trade publishers, but pricing and discounting formulas fall into two camps: the reseller model favored by Amazon (Random House is the only large trade publisher using this model) and the agency model introduced by Apple a year ago. (See yesterday’s alert for more information on these models.)
 
Under the reseller model, the online bookseller pays 50% of the retail list price of the book to the publisher and sells the book at whatever price the bookseller chooses (for bestsellers, Amazon typically sells Random House e-books at a significant loss). Random House frequently prices the e-book at the same price as the hardcover until a paperback edition is available.
 
Under the agency model, the online bookseller pays 70% of the retail list price of the e-book to the publisher. The bookseller, acting as the publisher’s agent, sells the e-book at the price established by the publisher, but the publisher is constrained by agreement with Apple and others to set a price significantly below that for the hardcover version.
 
The unit costs to the publisher, under either model, are simply the author’s royalty and the encryption fee, for which we’ll use a generous 50 cents per unit.
 
Here’s the math:
 
“The Help” has an e-book list price of $13 and is sold under the agency model. Publisher grosses 70% of retail price, or $9.10. Author's royalty is 25% of publisher receipts, or $2.28. Publisher nets $6.32. ($9.10 minus $2.28 royalties and $0.50 encryption fee.)
 
“Hell’s Corner” is also sold under the agency model at a retail list price of $15 list price. Publisher grosses 70% of retail price, $10.50. Author's royalty is 25% of publisher receipts, or $2.63. Publisher nets $7.37. ($10.50 minus $2.63 royalties and $0.50 encryption fee.) 
 
“Unbroken” is sold by Random House under the reseller model at a retail list price of $27. Publisher grosses $13.50 on the sale. Author’s royalty, at 25%, is $3.38. Random House nets $9.62. ($13.50 minus $3.38 royalties and $0.50 encryption fee.)
 
------------
Feel free to forward, post, or tweet.  Here is a short URL for linking: http://tiny.cc/r71q0

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The perfect mating

Borders + Yahoo

Occasionally, I try to solve the business world's problems, and if I can stick it to Amazon at the same time, well, that's all right with me.

Last night, I was seething --as I often do-- about the problem of certain Yahoogroups that persistently infringe copyright, and that YAHOO refuses to remove despite the OCILLA issues. However, writers, authors, readers all love Yahoogroups.

We booklovers love Yahoogroups! If only Yahoo saw the competitive advantage in being ethical!

Copyright infringement is a huge and growing problem. Facebook, Twitter, Google follow the law, more or less, but they are not exactly proactive about it.

What if readers could trust that "IF IT IS ON YAHOO, IT IS LEGAL"? (This isn't the case right now, but it could be. Authors would be delighted to help Yahoo clean up the few rotters among its groups, if it wanted to do so.)

Amazon doesn't allow freelance authors to give away free e-books and free novellas on Amazon's DTP platform. Yahoo could. Why doesn't Yahoo look into it? "IF IT IS ON YAHOO, IT IS LEGAL".

Borders is another company that, from a stock market perspective, appears to be struggling. It, too, is a 'ME TOO'.

But, what if Borders and Yahoo got together?

Yahoo has the platforms and the booklovers yahoogroups, and the languishing search engine, and the Yahoo Answers. Borders still has the bookstores, and the contacts with publishers, and the name, and the good will, and the payment structure.

Do you think that a Borders-Yahoo match-up could provide real competition for AMAZON?

Borders+Yahoo could be a rival for Amazon and Shelfari, and EBay/PayPal.

Borders+Yahoo could transform the bricks and mortar stores into fantastic, book-related internet cafes, and if they worked with NCR, they could do download/POD right there in the stores, and avoid enriching the Post Office.

What do you think?

Monday, January 03, 2011

From Authors Guild

How Apple Saved Barnes & Noble. Probably. 
 
Happy blackout anniversary! Where were you when the lights went out? We're sending out a series of alerts this week and next that look at the state of e-books, authorship and publishing to mark the one-year anniversary of the Great Blackout, when Amazon attempted to protect its near complete dominance of the rapidly growing e-book market through a stunning, punitive act against a publisher that dared to challenge its terms. (To see our account of this showdown as it happened -- posted last Groundhog Day -- go to "The Right Battle at the Right Time.")
 
It was one year ago last Saturday that Amazon turned out the lights on nearly all of Macmillan's books, removing the "buy buttons" from the print and electronic editions of thousands of titles. Macmillan authors, many of whom had linked their websites to Amazon pages that were suddenly disabled and useless, found themselves cut off from readers who frequented the dominant online bookstore.
 
Amazon's stunning move was a preemptive strike, an attempt to keep Macmillan from going through with its plan to shift to an "agency model" for selling e-books. Macmillan, which immediately saw its online sales plummet, stood firm and prevailed: Amazon ended the blackout after a week.
 
The story of the blackout and its aftermath reveals much about the high-stakes device and format war that's reshaping the publishing industry. Last year's Amazon-Macmillan showdown was a critical battle in that war. 
 
One Year Ago: Amazon's 90% E-Book Market Share
 
By last January, Amazon seemed destined to retain an overwhelming share of the e-book market. It then, by most accounts, commanded about 90% of the U.S. trade e-book market. Barnes & Noble had entered the game just two months before, launching the Nook in time, barely, for the critical holiday season. Few in the industry were optimistic about Barnes & Noble's e-book efforts, however.
 
Amazon's strategy, it seemed clear, was to leverage its formidable advantages -- including its dominance of the online print book market -- to all but lock up the e-book market. If it was successful, Amazon would control the equivalent of a vast online book club. Any publisher wanting to sell to the club would have to agree to Amazon's terms. This was an ugly prospect: book clubs tend to be resilient, but ultra low-margin enterprises for all involved, except the proprietor.
 
Amazon went all-in with the Kindle and its proprietary e-reading software. This commitment was most evident on Amazon's home page -- surely the most valuable retail space on the Internet -- on which it featured the Kindle nearly every day since its launch.
 
Amazon's most potent weapon in the e-book format and device war, however, was the strategy it deployed so effectively in its conquest of online bookselling: using its seemingly limitless financial resources to discount books at rates no competitor could long sustain. Amazon now pushed this tactic to a new level, routinely buying e-books at wholesale prices of $13 and $14 and immediately selling them at a loss, for $9.99. This not only built customer enthusiasm for the Kindle and e-books, but helped crush online and offline competitors that were selling physical books. Amazon could win the future as it finished off the past.
 
The prospects for Barnes & Noble in this environment were decidedly grim. Its net income had plummeted during the recession, falling 65% in two years. For Amazon, however, it was as if the Great Recession hadn't happened. Its revenues had grown 65% and its net income increased 72% over the prior two years. Its market capitalization, which had climbed past $55 billion (it stands at $77 billion today), towered over Barnes & Noble's $1 billion.
 
The e-book market, by all appearances, was for sale to the highest bidder -- the retailer willing and able to sell the most digital books at a loss. Barnes & Noble was in no shape to compete against Amazon in that game.
 
Then the game shifted. 
 
Enter Apple
 
On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPad and the iBookstore.
 
Apple wouldn't sell e-books under the reseller model that Amazon had been using to lock down the market. (Under that model, the publisher sells e-books to a reseller at a discount of about 50%. The reseller can then sell the e-book at any price, constrained only by antitrust law and the reseller's ability to absorb losses.) Instead, Apple would sell e-books under the same "agency model" it used for iPhone apps. Under the agency model, Apple acts as the publisher's agent, selling e-books at the price established by the publisher and taking a 30% commission on each sale. To participate, a publisher would have to agree to a set of ceilings on e-book prices, generally $12.99 or $13.99 for new books. A publisher would also have to agree not to sell to others under more favorable terms.
 
If the agency model took hold, unfettered discounting of e-books would be out. Amazon would lose its ability to buy market share in a nascent, booming industry.
 
Five of the big six trade publishers (not Random House) allowed their logos to be displayed at Apple's iPad announcement. The next day, Thursday, Macmillan CEO John Sargent informed Amazon that it would be shifting to the agency model when the iPad was released. It appears that he was the first publisher to do so.
 
If there were any doubts about the stakes in this battle, they were erased the following day, when Amazon retaliated by removing the buy buttons from all Macmillan titles (with exceptions for textbooks and scholarly books, where Amazon faced stiff online competition). It removed the buy buttons from all editions -- not just the electronic version -- in an attempt to use its clout in the print book industry to enforce its preferred business model in the e-book industry.
 
Though the e-book market was growing fast, cutting off Macmillan and its authors from Amazon's print book market -- Amazon controlled an estimated 75% of online trade book print sales in the U.S. at the time -- was far more punitive than just severing Macmillan's ties to the e-book market. Amazon had used this buy button removal tactic before to punish publishers in the U.S. and the U.K. who fail to fall in line with Amazon's business plans, but it had never done so as boldly or comprehensively.
 
Amazon blinked, perhaps after consulting with antitrust counsel. After a one-week blackout, Amazon and Macmillan came to terms, and Macmillan could sell e-books through Amazon using the agency model. Four of the other big six would come to terms with Amazon on the agency model. Random House, the largest trade publisher, has chosen not to use the agency model, for reasons we will describe in the future (hint: Stieg Larsson). 
 
One Year Later
 
Barnes & Noble is, unexpectedly, the biggest beneficiary of Apple's entry into the e-book market. With five of the big six trade book publishers using the agency model, Barnes & Noble was able to enter the e-book market based largely on its customer relationships and on technological innovation, rather than on its willingness to burn through capital to subsidize book sales. Its share of the e-book market has grown rapidly over the past year, approaching 20% of trade sales. Its introduction of the Nook Color reportedly gave it a substantial lift over the holidays.
 
Barnes & Noble still finds itself subsidizing sales of Random House e-books -- it generally matches Amazon's price on those titles -- but those costs appear manageable. Barnes & Noble faces substantial challenges, as do all physical bookstores, as publishing moves to its partly digital future, but it appears to have regained its footing. Should the agency model ever collapse, however, Barnes & Noble could quickly find itself at Amazon's mercy. Amazon's growth and profitability continue to soar, and its appetite for out-discounting competitors at any cost appears undiminished.
 
In the meantime, Apple is not standing still. According to numerous, but conflicting, reports Apple may be revising the terms for booksellers using iPhone and iPad apps as e-readers.  We will be watching these developments closely.
 
Tomorrow: The E-Royalty Debate
 
------------
Feel free to forward, post, or tweet.  Here is a short URL for linking: http://tiny.cc/s6433

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Bathetic as it may be, I wonder whether or not the Feds will include copyright infringement among their list of charges against the WikiLeaks founder. It might stick, and the maximum penalty for knowing, repeated copyright infringement is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each work.




Works are usually books, or songs, or movies, or games.

Usually, for full copyright protection, the "work" has to be registered with the Library Of Congress. Are state secrets entered into the loc.gov?

Can one argue that government employees' reports are "works"? Were they "works for hire" and does that make a difference? I don't know. Everything one writes is said to be instantly copyrighted to the author.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized copying and publishing of works without the permission of the copyright owner... usually the author.

It seems to me, that the WikiLeaks problem may make passage of COICA (s~3804) much more likely.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

S-3804 Why Authors And Voice Talent Need Help


Senators considering S 3804 should read this. This is a prime example of why authors and voice talent need a change in the law.

As I said before, the books are not "Complimentary". They are stolen. Illegally posted. Posted without permission. 

The club owner admits as much.

**********************************************************************************


The Complimentary Books Site has Changed Location!
Dear Members

It would seem that Google finally took down the 'Books' site (due to terms of service!... which means that some book publishers complained!!). Anyway, after just an hour, the new site is 'live again'

I honestly don't know why they bother!

Please use the following url to find the new site as this will always point to the new Google pages as they are created

"XXXXXX" ">XXXXXX Click Here to Collect Your Complimentary Books!

It's always fun and games trying to get these nice 'goodies' to the membership!!

Regards

Club Admin


******************************************
Why do publishers bother?
Feel free to tell this pirate, my friends. The income that he is making from his piracy is made at great cost to those he preys upon. He is a parasite!

Friday, November 12, 2010

How To Recognize A Pirate

Yahoo, Google, Picassa and others are involved in some fairly blatant piracy. So much for "Don't Be Evil"!

Here... put your deductive powers to the test and see if you can spot the tacit admission that these people understand perfectly well that the books they are telling you (innocent readers) are "free", "freely available" and "complimentary" are in fact pirated in violation of the law and the rights of the authors.

***************************************************************************
Welcome to The Free Book Club!

If you love free books, then you have come to the right place, you are sure to find something you like with us!


Use the menu on the left to view the book collections' when you find something you like, click on the link and download it.

It's as easy as that!

Please tell your friends about our site, we are sure they will appreciate the thought!


Join our FREE BOOKS club TODAY!

NOTE: Don't miss out!... 'Its the early bird that catches the worm'

Due to complaints by book companies, files get deleted all the time, so join the club using the form below, and you will be notified the minute a new bookmix has been completed!

 *******************************************************************
The BOOK CLUB is indeed free to join, as long as the Yahoo group owner does not recognize your author name, in which case, you are not welcome.

Many of the books are only "free" because someone else stole them. They may have been snagged from a pirate site, they could contain all manner of viruses and trojans and formatting horrors. If you download one of these books, not only are you receiving stolen goods, but you could be getting a lot of nasty stuff you did not expect.

"COMPLIMENTARY" books.

Complimentary means "given free, as a courtesy". 

This should be investigated under the trades description act, IMHO! The owners didn't give the books "free" as a "courtesy". The person giving it free, as a courtesy doesn't own the rights, and is giving something they have no right to give. That's wrong.

Besides, they aren't giving you the books as a courtesy. They are trying to trick you into purchasing downloading services, and also to use your interest as a hook for selling space to advertisers, who are in turn ripping off respectable businesses who have no idea that their advertising budget is being used to fund copyright infringement.


Tuesday, November 09, 2010

EFF generally encourages the free reproduction and distribution of its informative mailings, so I
assume that this is the case with this plea for donations.

What I find fascinating is that PayPal is apparently doing a matching donation effort to support this
organization.

PayPal profits enormously from copyright infringement, because so many pirates receive accept payments for copyright infringing sales of intellectual property that they have no right to sell (or otherwise monetize) through PayPal.

I've never heard that PayPal attempts to make any sort of restitution to the authors and publishing professionals. This open sponsorship by PayPal of an organization that is campaigning against COICA strikes me as quite significant.






This is a friendly message from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. View it in a web browser.
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Dear Friend of Digital Freedom,

Donate to EFF this week and you can double — or even triple — the value of your contribution! PayPal and Convio will match up to $5,000 in donations to EFF made via PayPal between Tuesday, November 9, and Friday, November 12, 2010.
First, double your donation through PayPal.
  • Go to the (XXXXXXXX redacted).
  • Enter the information and choose PayPal as your payment method.
  • You will be redirected to a PayPal login page to complete the transaction.
  • You're done! PayPal matching is automatic.
Then, triple your donation with employee matching.
  • Ask your human resources department if your employer matches your charitable donations.
  • Fill out the paperwork and forward it to EFF for completion (if necessary).
  • You're done! It's a simple step that maximizes your impact and keeps EFF going strong.
Even current members can make contributions to help put EFF on top! And as an added bonus, the charity that raises the most money and the charity that receives the most donation transactions will each receive $1,000 prizes. But hurry, the contest ends on Friday!
Thanks in advance for your support!



Friday, November 05, 2010

nihilistic_kid: Copyright follies

Fascinating blog piece in defense of an author whose copyright was allegedly (I have to say that) infringed by a magazine.

nihilistic_kid: Copyright follies

The comments are definitely worth reading, too.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Picture This

This is an extended metaphor.

Picture me standing outside Office Minimal. The shop window is broken.
(The shop window is DRM.)

"Free zip drives!" I yell. "Come and get your free zip drive. Oh, yeah! Oh, yeah! Freely available zip drives for everybody. Step right up and get your free zip drives. It's easy to collect all you want. For free!"

As eager zip drive lovers rush through the gaping hole in the window --which I swear I didn't make, I just found it, and am sharing my findings-- I murmur another message.

"Plastic bags! Buy your easy-to-use plastic bag here. For the easy, on-the-spot price of $2.00 you can have the convenience of being able to carry away far more free zip drives than you could manage in your own two hands!"

A police car cruises by.

"Not to worry, Officer," I reassure the patrolman. "I didn't break the window. The freely available zip drives aren't in my hands. I'm just exerting my First Amendment Right of free speech to tell people where to find free zip drives...

"Roll up! Roll up!" I interject to the world. "Get your freely available zip drives. All you can carry. They're in the public domain!" Then turning back to the officer, I tell him, "Zip drives want to be free. $14.99 is too expensive. $14.99 is a ridiculous price, charged by greedy, money-grub...."

The officer has lost interest. The patrol car is already edging past Better Buy, several paces down the street, where one of my associates is distributing wire shopping carts on a profitable basis to Better Buy lovers who are collecting free CDs. All he asks in exchange for the loan of a wire shopping cart is that they look for five seconds at what he has on display when he opens his raincoat.

"Free zip drives! Get your $2.00 plastic bag here!!" I do a little business. Pointing other people at freely available zip drives (hosted elsewhere) is amazingly profitable, and the Law can't touch me.

I hear some of what my associate is telling the officer.

"... only $14.99," he wheedles. "The fat cat CD producers aren't going to miss $14.99. For goodness sake, it's only the price of a fancy coffee."

The law enforcement officer moves on.

A woman in a pink hat flags him down. She appears to be indignant. She points at me. "But, it's stealing!" I hear her say.

"Madam, are you the actual owner of the zip drives?" The yahoo in the patrol car asks her. "You can't go around making unsubstantiated accusations unless you are the person being allegedly ripped off. In which case, I'll need your full real name, your phone number, your email address, proof that you are who you say you are, proof that you actually own those freely available zip discs, a formal statement that you have a good faith belief that you are being ripped off, and...."

More raised voices. I lose interest in the pink hatted protester. Someone who must be the Better Buy manager appears to remonstrate with my friend.

"Yes, I can. I can and I will," my friend blusters as CD-carrying members of the public gather around to back him up. "You'll never stop me. CD-liberation needs to exist."

"You greedy piggy! How dare you complain!" the shoppers exclaim. "We'll never shop in your store again!"

*****

Folks, if someone tells you that a tune, game, image, e-book is "free" or "freely available", do your due diligence. See if the artist has a web site. If he or she does, they are probably alive, the work has probably been created in the last 70 years, and may be under copyright protection.

If it's for sale on Amazon, that is a very good indication that maybe that work isn't supposed to be free.