<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_1435225</id>
	<title>Authors' Amazon Awareness</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265468820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Geoffrey.landis writes <i>"Many book lovers were surprised this week when Amazon.com <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/30/1341235/Amazon-Pulls-Book-Publishers-Listings-Ebook-Wars-Underway">removed books</a> from the publisher Macmillan from the shelves (<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/02/1351229/Amazon-Surrenders-To-Macmillan-On-eBook-Pricing">later restored</a>), including such popular imprints as St. Martin's, Henry Holt, and the science fiction publisher Tor.  But readers shouldn't have been surprised, according to the Author's Guild. The Author's Guild <a href="http://whomovedmybuybutton.com/aboutus.php">lists a history of earlier instances</a> where Amazon stopped listing a publisher's books in order to pressure them to accept terms, dating back to early in 2008, when Amazon removed the 'buy' buttons for works from the British publisher Bloomsbury, representing such authors as William Boyd, Khaled Hosseini, and J.K. Rowling. In response, the Author's Guild has set up a service called <a href="http://whomovedmybuybutton.com/">Who Moved My Buy Button</a> to alert authors when their books are removed from Amazon's lists."</i>
Amazon's actions have generated ill-will on the parts of many authors, who &mdash; being authors &mdash; are only too happy to explain their viewpoints at length. Two such examples are Tobias Buckell's breakdown of why Amazon <a href="http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/">isn't the righteous defender of low-prices they claim to be</a> and Charlie Stross's <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/02/amazonfail-round-up.html">round-up of the situation</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geoffrey.landis writes " Many book lovers were surprised this week when Amazon.com removed books from the publisher Macmillan from the shelves ( later restored ) , including such popular imprints as St. Martin 's , Henry Holt , and the science fiction publisher Tor .
But readers should n't have been surprised , according to the Author 's Guild .
The Author 's Guild lists a history of earlier instances where Amazon stopped listing a publisher 's books in order to pressure them to accept terms , dating back to early in 2008 , when Amazon removed the 'buy ' buttons for works from the British publisher Bloomsbury , representing such authors as William Boyd , Khaled Hosseini , and J.K. Rowling. In response , the Author 's Guild has set up a service called Who Moved My Buy Button to alert authors when their books are removed from Amazon 's lists .
" Amazon 's actions have generated ill-will on the parts of many authors , who    being authors    are only too happy to explain their viewpoints at length .
Two such examples are Tobias Buckell 's breakdown of why Amazon is n't the righteous defender of low-prices they claim to be and Charlie Stross 's round-up of the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geoffrey.landis writes "Many book lovers were surprised this week when Amazon.com removed books from the publisher Macmillan from the shelves (later restored), including such popular imprints as St. Martin's, Henry Holt, and the science fiction publisher Tor.
But readers shouldn't have been surprised, according to the Author's Guild.
The Author's Guild lists a history of earlier instances where Amazon stopped listing a publisher's books in order to pressure them to accept terms, dating back to early in 2008, when Amazon removed the 'buy' buttons for works from the British publisher Bloomsbury, representing such authors as William Boyd, Khaled Hosseini, and J.K. Rowling. In response, the Author's Guild has set up a service called Who Moved My Buy Button to alert authors when their books are removed from Amazon's lists.
"
Amazon's actions have generated ill-will on the parts of many authors, who — being authors — are only too happy to explain their viewpoints at length.
Two such examples are Tobias Buckell's breakdown of why Amazon isn't the righteous defender of low-prices they claim to be and Charlie Stross's round-up of the situation.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047466</id>
	<title>Re:bn.com</title>
	<author>Chaos Incarnate</author>
	<datestamp>1265489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Borders took their online retail <i>back</i> in house years ago</htmltext>
<tokenext>Borders took their online retail back in house years ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Borders took their online retail back in house years ago</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046076</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1265477460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a book?  If you want a book that was just published recently you should be willing to pay the price.  If you're not then vote with your wallet and wait for the paperback or for the copyright to expire (yes we need to fix that, I know.)</p><p>Sadly authors don't get the lion's share of the money, but they get a LOT more for the first runs (hardback, ebook, etc.) than the residuals from cheaper paperbacks once the book gets older.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a book ?
If you want a book that was just published recently you should be willing to pay the price .
If you 're not then vote with your wallet and wait for the paperback or for the copyright to expire ( yes we need to fix that , I know .
) Sadly authors do n't get the lion 's share of the money , but they get a LOT more for the first runs ( hardback , ebook , etc .
) than the residuals from cheaper paperbacks once the book gets older .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a book?
If you want a book that was just published recently you should be willing to pay the price.
If you're not then vote with your wallet and wait for the paperback or for the copyright to expire (yes we need to fix that, I know.
)Sadly authors don't get the lion's share of the money, but they get a LOT more for the first runs (hardback, ebook, etc.
) than the residuals from cheaper paperbacks once the book gets older.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046664</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265482320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I buy something, I want to own it. I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it. That's just ridiculous.</p></div><p>Or, even worse, until the DRM provider looses the database record detailing your purchases.</p><p>This is situation I find myself in. For the past two years I have had an ongoing battle with Adobe.</p><p>My Adobe ID is in a format 'no longer recognised' on Adobe's database, hence I no longer have access to any of my purchased content.</p><p>I've learned my lesson<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy something , I want to own it .
I do n't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it .
That 's just ridiculous.Or , even worse , until the DRM provider looses the database record detailing your purchases.This is situation I find myself in .
For the past two years I have had an ongoing battle with Adobe.My Adobe ID is in a format 'no longer recognised ' on Adobe 's database , hence I no longer have access to any of my purchased content.I 've learned my lesson .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy something, I want to own it.
I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it.
That's just ridiculous.Or, even worse, until the DRM provider looses the database record detailing your purchases.This is situation I find myself in.
For the past two years I have had an ongoing battle with Adobe.My Adobe ID is in a format 'no longer recognised' on Adobe's database, hence I no longer have access to any of my purchased content.I've learned my lesson ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045792</id>
	<title>First Rule of Negotiating</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1265474580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell the seller you don't need their product unless they agree to your terms.  This is not school - this is hardball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell the seller you do n't need their product unless they agree to your terms .
This is not school - this is hardball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell the seller you don't need their product unless they agree to your terms.
This is not school - this is hardball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048946</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Japan, so going to a bookstore and getting a copy isn't an option.  A locally owned shop carrying the English books that I'm interested in is even less of an option.  e-books fit the bill perfectly for my situation, and Amazon had the lowest prices in the past (like, ridiculously lower prices than other e-book stores, $9 vs. $25). I have ordered real books from amazon.com as well, but unless I want to pay exorbitant prices on shipping, I have to choose an option which can take 1-2 months for them to arrive.  And then I have a real book, which takes up a lot of space in my 1 room apartment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Japan , so going to a bookstore and getting a copy is n't an option .
A locally owned shop carrying the English books that I 'm interested in is even less of an option .
e-books fit the bill perfectly for my situation , and Amazon had the lowest prices in the past ( like , ridiculously lower prices than other e-book stores , $ 9 vs. $ 25 ) . I have ordered real books from amazon.com as well , but unless I want to pay exorbitant prices on shipping , I have to choose an option which can take 1-2 months for them to arrive .
And then I have a real book , which takes up a lot of space in my 1 room apartment : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Japan, so going to a bookstore and getting a copy isn't an option.
A locally owned shop carrying the English books that I'm interested in is even less of an option.
e-books fit the bill perfectly for my situation, and Amazon had the lowest prices in the past (like, ridiculously lower prices than other e-book stores, $9 vs. $25). I have ordered real books from amazon.com as well, but unless I want to pay exorbitant prices on shipping, I have to choose an option which can take 1-2 months for them to arrive.
And then I have a real book, which takes up a lot of space in my 1 room apartment :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1265475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation.  If they don't like the terms of the negotiation, they don't have to accept them...</p></div><p>You're missing the point.  Amazon <b>didn't</b> merely say "we don't like your terms, so we won't sell your e-books."  What they did was say "We don't like your terms on one item, e-books, so unless you accept our terms on that we won't sell anything else of yours, either, no hardcover or paperback, sales, not just electronic."</p><p>They were trying to use their market dominance in one area to allow them to dictate prices in another area.  And not for the first time.</p><p>This why monopoly is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation .
If they do n't like the terms of the negotiation , they do n't have to accept them...You 're missing the point .
Amazon did n't merely say " we do n't like your terms , so we wo n't sell your e-books .
" What they did was say " We do n't like your terms on one item , e-books , so unless you accept our terms on that we wo n't sell anything else of yours , either , no hardcover or paperback , sales , not just electronic .
" They were trying to use their market dominance in one area to allow them to dictate prices in another area .
And not for the first time.This why monopoly is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation.
If they don't like the terms of the negotiation, they don't have to accept them...You're missing the point.
Amazon didn't merely say "we don't like your terms, so we won't sell your e-books.
"  What they did was say "We don't like your terms on one item, e-books, so unless you accept our terms on that we won't sell anything else of yours, either, no hardcover or paperback, sales, not just electronic.
"They were trying to use their market dominance in one area to allow them to dictate prices in another area.
And not for the first time.This why monopoly is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047716</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>Fizzol</author>
	<datestamp>1265448720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have to disagree. Amazon carries far more titles than all my local and chain stores put together. Also, I'm perfectly happy with browsing through books at the computer, downloading samples and making my choices that way. It's quick, convenient, relatively cheap and doesn't kill trees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to disagree .
Amazon carries far more titles than all my local and chain stores put together .
Also , I 'm perfectly happy with browsing through books at the computer , downloading samples and making my choices that way .
It 's quick , convenient , relatively cheap and does n't kill trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to disagree.
Amazon carries far more titles than all my local and chain stores put together.
Also, I'm perfectly happy with browsing through books at the computer, downloading samples and making my choices that way.
It's quick, convenient, relatively cheap and doesn't kill trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045830</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265474940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a free market, the best suited coorporation grows more rapidly than its less suited competitors. Once it reaches a certain size (compared to its competitors) it starts to use various methods of coercion to squash competition, possibly stomping out competitors that are better. This creates a monopoly in place of the free market. Thus, free markets tend towards monopolies. It follows that a free market is a self-destructive utopia. Many governments have laws to offset this development, but they often do not perform that well, having to balance out various issues, such as not stiffling innovation, not being to expensive to enforce, and politicians taking "campaing contributions" (or whatever you want to call the bribes) from monopoly coorporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free market , the best suited coorporation grows more rapidly than its less suited competitors .
Once it reaches a certain size ( compared to its competitors ) it starts to use various methods of coercion to squash competition , possibly stomping out competitors that are better .
This creates a monopoly in place of the free market .
Thus , free markets tend towards monopolies .
It follows that a free market is a self-destructive utopia .
Many governments have laws to offset this development , but they often do not perform that well , having to balance out various issues , such as not stiffling innovation , not being to expensive to enforce , and politicians taking " campaing contributions " ( or whatever you want to call the bribes ) from monopoly coorporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a free market, the best suited coorporation grows more rapidly than its less suited competitors.
Once it reaches a certain size (compared to its competitors) it starts to use various methods of coercion to squash competition, possibly stomping out competitors that are better.
This creates a monopoly in place of the free market.
Thus, free markets tend towards monopolies.
It follows that a free market is a self-destructive utopia.
Many governments have laws to offset this development, but they often do not perform that well, having to balance out various issues, such as not stiffling innovation, not being to expensive to enforce, and politicians taking "campaing contributions" (or whatever you want to call the bribes) from monopoly coorporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045960</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265476500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot has DRM on the brain. DRM has nothing to do with this issue.</p><p>This is about a big corporation doing harm to content creators.</p><p>Shop at your local mom and pop bookshop, or at least try to avoid the big Borders and B&amp;N's if you care about supporting smaller authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot has DRM on the brain .
DRM has nothing to do with this issue.This is about a big corporation doing harm to content creators.Shop at your local mom and pop bookshop , or at least try to avoid the big Borders and B&amp;N 's if you care about supporting smaller authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot has DRM on the brain.
DRM has nothing to do with this issue.This is about a big corporation doing harm to content creators.Shop at your local mom and pop bookshop, or at least try to avoid the big Borders and B&amp;N's if you care about supporting smaller authors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046098</id>
	<title>Amazon is rarely the sole distributor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless Amazon is the ebook publisher, the ebook is usually available from other ebook stores or the publisher's website.  However, Amazon is trying to become the sole distributor, by offering authors 70\% royalties if Amazon is their publisher, the list is between $2.99 and $9.99, below the price of any print copies, allows Text To Speech, and various other caveats beneficial to Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Amazon is the ebook publisher , the ebook is usually available from other ebook stores or the publisher 's website .
However , Amazon is trying to become the sole distributor , by offering authors 70 \ % royalties if Amazon is their publisher , the list is between $ 2.99 and $ 9.99 , below the price of any print copies , allows Text To Speech , and various other caveats beneficial to Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Amazon is the ebook publisher, the ebook is usually available from other ebook stores or the publisher's website.
However, Amazon is trying to become the sole distributor, by offering authors 70\% royalties if Amazon is their publisher, the list is between $2.99 and $9.99, below the price of any print copies, allows Text To Speech, and various other caveats beneficial to Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045818</id>
	<title>bn.com</title>
	<author>otis wildflower</author>
	<datestamp>1265474880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's shit like this that makes me glad we live in a free system that has competition, even as messy as it gets (and yeah, corruption, incompetence, etc. I get it).</p><p>If you don't like Amazon's shenanigans, there's bn.com, powells.com, daedalusbooks.com, etc.</p><p>Incidentally, IIRC, Borders' online fulfillment got outsourced to Amazon years ago, their online presence otherwise is a pathetic fuckin joke compared to bn.com, I haven't shopped Borders since I got my 3rd edition Player's Handbook at the Borders in the WTC..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's shit like this that makes me glad we live in a free system that has competition , even as messy as it gets ( and yeah , corruption , incompetence , etc .
I get it ) .If you do n't like Amazon 's shenanigans , there 's bn.com , powells.com , daedalusbooks.com , etc.Incidentally , IIRC , Borders ' online fulfillment got outsourced to Amazon years ago , their online presence otherwise is a pathetic fuckin joke compared to bn.com , I have n't shopped Borders since I got my 3rd edition Player 's Handbook at the Borders in the WTC. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's shit like this that makes me glad we live in a free system that has competition, even as messy as it gets (and yeah, corruption, incompetence, etc.
I get it).If you don't like Amazon's shenanigans, there's bn.com, powells.com, daedalusbooks.com, etc.Incidentally, IIRC, Borders' online fulfillment got outsourced to Amazon years ago, their online presence otherwise is a pathetic fuckin joke compared to bn.com, I haven't shopped Borders since I got my 3rd edition Player's Handbook at the Borders in the WTC..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045940</id>
	<title>Authors versus consumers it is...</title>
	<author>bruce\_the\_loon</author>
	<datestamp>1265476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw this debate start earlier this week on Schlock Mercenary's site <a href="http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/dear-mister-bezos-are-you-still-all-mad-and-stuff/" title="schlockmercenary.com">http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/dear-mister-bezos-are-you-still-all-mad-and-stuff/</a> [schlockmercenary.com]. Seems like the author found the discussion heading away from the self-righteous line he wanted and killed it.
</p><p>Don't think he realized how many of his readers are consumers who want the best price for something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw this debate start earlier this week on Schlock Mercenary 's site http : //www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/dear-mister-bezos-are-you-still-all-mad-and-stuff/ [ schlockmercenary.com ] .
Seems like the author found the discussion heading away from the self-righteous line he wanted and killed it .
Do n't think he realized how many of his readers are consumers who want the best price for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw this debate start earlier this week on Schlock Mercenary's site http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/dear-mister-bezos-are-you-still-all-mad-and-stuff/ [schlockmercenary.com].
Seems like the author found the discussion heading away from the self-righteous line he wanted and killed it.
Don't think he realized how many of his readers are consumers who want the best price for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045808</id>
	<title>There can be only one?  Since when?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1265474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to shadow Amazons draconian pressure tactics, but if I want a product bad enough, I will find another reseller, maybe even a B&amp;M.  A "who moved my buy button" service?  Are you kidding me?  I wasn't aware that there was but one bookstore left in the world.</p><p>When retailers and e-tailers realize that people do not take kindly to being screwed with when the want it and want it NOW, AND the fact that I can and will spend the extra 87 cents to buy it from someone else to avoid bullshit, perhaps they'll stop with these games.  Hell, I get pissed when I'm not allowed to see what the final tax and/or shipping costs will be until I "create an account"(that would be a hint e-tailers, knock that shit off), and ultimately I end up shopping elsewhere.</p><p>Amazon is not the almighty end all be all of e-product.  If you start treating it as such, or allow them the illusion that they are, the illusion will become reality.  Buy <b>or sell</b> elsewhere if you have or find an issue.  Yeah, it can be just THAT simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to shadow Amazons draconian pressure tactics , but if I want a product bad enough , I will find another reseller , maybe even a B&amp;M .
A " who moved my buy button " service ?
Are you kidding me ?
I was n't aware that there was but one bookstore left in the world.When retailers and e-tailers realize that people do not take kindly to being screwed with when the want it and want it NOW , AND the fact that I can and will spend the extra 87 cents to buy it from someone else to avoid bullshit , perhaps they 'll stop with these games .
Hell , I get pissed when I 'm not allowed to see what the final tax and/or shipping costs will be until I " create an account " ( that would be a hint e-tailers , knock that shit off ) , and ultimately I end up shopping elsewhere.Amazon is not the almighty end all be all of e-product .
If you start treating it as such , or allow them the illusion that they are , the illusion will become reality .
Buy or sell elsewhere if you have or find an issue .
Yeah , it can be just THAT simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to shadow Amazons draconian pressure tactics, but if I want a product bad enough, I will find another reseller, maybe even a B&amp;M.
A "who moved my buy button" service?
Are you kidding me?
I wasn't aware that there was but one bookstore left in the world.When retailers and e-tailers realize that people do not take kindly to being screwed with when the want it and want it NOW, AND the fact that I can and will spend the extra 87 cents to buy it from someone else to avoid bullshit, perhaps they'll stop with these games.
Hell, I get pissed when I'm not allowed to see what the final tax and/or shipping costs will be until I "create an account"(that would be a hint e-tailers, knock that shit off), and ultimately I end up shopping elsewhere.Amazon is not the almighty end all be all of e-product.
If you start treating it as such, or allow them the illusion that they are, the illusion will become reality.
Buy or sell elsewhere if you have or find an issue.
Yeah, it can be just THAT simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012</id>
	<title>How is it not preventing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265476920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent?</i></p><p>Yes.</p><p>Which it is.</p><p>Unless you've been under a rock, Apple is doing a book store.  And Barnes &amp; Nobel is too, along with the nook reader...  Why do you think Amazon *had* to capitulate?</p><p>free market economics works just fine but it doesn't fix things instantly.  Over the long run though things will be fixed and arrive at a natural state.  Regulation always serves to create an artificial plateau of being that you'd never find otherwise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 've read TFA , but is n't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent ? Yes.Which it is.Unless you 've been under a rock , Apple is doing a book store .
And Barnes &amp; Nobel is too , along with the nook reader... Why do you think Amazon * had * to capitulate ? free market economics works just fine but it does n't fix things instantly .
Over the long run though things will be fixed and arrive at a natural state .
Regulation always serves to create an artificial plateau of being that you 'd never find otherwise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent?Yes.Which it is.Unless you've been under a rock, Apple is doing a book store.
And Barnes &amp; Nobel is too, along with the nook reader...  Why do you think Amazon *had* to capitulate?free market economics works just fine but it doesn't fix things instantly.
Over the long run though things will be fixed and arrive at a natural state.
Regulation always serves to create an artificial plateau of being that you'd never find otherwise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</id>
	<title>Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265474580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great idea: go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy. Even better? Get one at a locally owned shop. Book-buying is better in person: browsing shelves, reading through a few pages, checking out your favorite section, then finding that rare gem that you'd have never seen on Amazon anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea : go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy .
Even better ?
Get one at a locally owned shop .
Book-buying is better in person : browsing shelves , reading through a few pages , checking out your favorite section , then finding that rare gem that you 'd have never seen on Amazon anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea: go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy.
Even better?
Get one at a locally owned shop.
Book-buying is better in person: browsing shelves, reading through a few pages, checking out your favorite section, then finding that rare gem that you'd have never seen on Amazon anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048350</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1265455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, I used to think this.  And while it's true, there's also a flip side to physical books.</p><p>Here's a story for you from my own life.  My family were avid book collectors.  Around about the time I was 18 we easily had two thousand books in the house if not more, collected over my life, and the life of my Mom, and Grandmother.  The problem was, around about then we sold my grandmothers house so she could have some more money in her retirement to live on.  The place we moved was smaller and we simply no longer had room for all those books.  Obviously we kept our favorite authors and such, but the rest we donated to the local library.  Now while this was grand for them, I to this day STILL miss always being able to just reach out and grab a book to read.  Now I'm grown, have my own house, and my collection has begun to grow again, but nonetheless, if a e-book reader and store would come out that managed DRM in a more acceptable way, and priced more closely to the price of dead tree books, then I would quite happily purchase that way.  Simply for the sake, of never having to leave books behind again, if my family has to move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , I used to think this .
And while it 's true , there 's also a flip side to physical books.Here 's a story for you from my own life .
My family were avid book collectors .
Around about the time I was 18 we easily had two thousand books in the house if not more , collected over my life , and the life of my Mom , and Grandmother .
The problem was , around about then we sold my grandmothers house so she could have some more money in her retirement to live on .
The place we moved was smaller and we simply no longer had room for all those books .
Obviously we kept our favorite authors and such , but the rest we donated to the local library .
Now while this was grand for them , I to this day STILL miss always being able to just reach out and grab a book to read .
Now I 'm grown , have my own house , and my collection has begun to grow again , but nonetheless , if a e-book reader and store would come out that managed DRM in a more acceptable way , and priced more closely to the price of dead tree books , then I would quite happily purchase that way .
Simply for the sake , of never having to leave books behind again , if my family has to move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, I used to think this.
And while it's true, there's also a flip side to physical books.Here's a story for you from my own life.
My family were avid book collectors.
Around about the time I was 18 we easily had two thousand books in the house if not more, collected over my life, and the life of my Mom, and Grandmother.
The problem was, around about then we sold my grandmothers house so she could have some more money in her retirement to live on.
The place we moved was smaller and we simply no longer had room for all those books.
Obviously we kept our favorite authors and such, but the rest we donated to the local library.
Now while this was grand for them, I to this day STILL miss always being able to just reach out and grab a book to read.
Now I'm grown, have my own house, and my collection has begun to grow again, but nonetheless, if a e-book reader and store would come out that managed DRM in a more acceptable way, and priced more closely to the price of dead tree books, then I would quite happily purchase that way.
Simply for the sake, of never having to leave books behind again, if my family has to move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053494</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1265569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Macmillan didn't want to just raise prices, the wanted to both raise AND lower prices depending on when in the release cycle they were; when the book is just out in HC, the e-book is 12.95 to 14.95, later when it comes out in PB the e-book prices is supposed to be reduced accordingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Macmillan did n't want to just raise prices , the wanted to both raise AND lower prices depending on when in the release cycle they were ; when the book is just out in HC , the e-book is 12.95 to 14.95 , later when it comes out in PB the e-book prices is supposed to be reduced accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Macmillan didn't want to just raise prices, the wanted to both raise AND lower prices depending on when in the release cycle they were; when the book is just out in HC, the e-book is 12.95 to 14.95, later when it comes out in PB the e-book prices is supposed to be reduced accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048364</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1265455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between being a monopoly and just being an influential player. There's no law against using your influence, if you're a company of any size- except if you're in a monopoly position.</p><p>The fact that Amazon isn't a monopoly should be thoroughly highlighted by the fact that Macmillan beat them on this one- Amazon caved because their competitors were offering better terms. If they were a monopoly, that wouldn't have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between being a monopoly and just being an influential player .
There 's no law against using your influence , if you 're a company of any size- except if you 're in a monopoly position.The fact that Amazon is n't a monopoly should be thoroughly highlighted by the fact that Macmillan beat them on this one- Amazon caved because their competitors were offering better terms .
If they were a monopoly , that would n't have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between being a monopoly and just being an influential player.
There's no law against using your influence, if you're a company of any size- except if you're in a monopoly position.The fact that Amazon isn't a monopoly should be thoroughly highlighted by the fact that Macmillan beat them on this one- Amazon caved because their competitors were offering better terms.
If they were a monopoly, that wouldn't have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</id>
	<title>Free Market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent?  When a single entity can have that kind of power, isn't it a monopoly?<br> <br>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion, do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 've read TFA , but is n't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent ?
When a single entity can have that kind of power , is n't it a monopoly ?
...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion , do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent?
When a single entity can have that kind of power, isn't it a monopoly?
...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion, do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046408</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265480280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I&rsquo;m all for it. But first we would find someone with the power and money to actually push that trough courts and parliament.<br>How would we do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I    m all for it .
But first we would find someone with the power and money to actually push that trough courts and parliament.How would we do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I’m all for it.
But first we would find someone with the power and money to actually push that trough courts and parliament.How would we do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046544</id>
	<title>Does Amazon Marketplace work with blocked books?</title>
	<author>netringer</author>
	<datestamp>1265481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I wrong or doesn't the "Available New and Used from $nn from these..." Marketplace Sellers listing still work when Amazon themselves won't stock the book?</p><p>There's still a very competitive new and used book marketplace,.</p><p>I know. Not for ebooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I wrong or does n't the " Available New and Used from $ nn from these... " Marketplace Sellers listing still work when Amazon themselves wo n't stock the book ? There 's still a very competitive new and used book marketplace,.I know .
Not for ebooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I wrong or doesn't the "Available New and Used from $nn from these..." Marketplace Sellers listing still work when Amazon themselves won't stock the book?There's still a very competitive new and used book marketplace,.I know.
Not for ebooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046344</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265479740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see it as publishers imposing price controls. Not a very "free market" thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as publishers imposing price controls .
Not a very " free market " thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as publishers imposing price controls.
Not a very "free market" thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049558</id>
	<title>Re:How is it not preventing this</title>
	<author>wrook</author>
	<datestamp>1265466720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What confuses me is this: isn't having a distributor dictate the price of an item to a retailer called "price-fixing"?  Isn't is illegal in the US?  If I understand correctly, Macmillan and many authors are upset that Amazon want to sell at a reduced retail price while still paying the *same* wholesale price.  Shouldn't that be allowed in a free market economy (as long as they aren't selling below cost in order to force out smaller players)?</p><p>So why did Amazon have to capitulate?  Clearly they have to buy the books at whatever rate the publisher wants.  That's fair enough.  But I can't understand why they can't set whatever retail price they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What confuses me is this : is n't having a distributor dictate the price of an item to a retailer called " price-fixing " ?
Is n't is illegal in the US ?
If I understand correctly , Macmillan and many authors are upset that Amazon want to sell at a reduced retail price while still paying the * same * wholesale price .
Should n't that be allowed in a free market economy ( as long as they are n't selling below cost in order to force out smaller players ) ? So why did Amazon have to capitulate ?
Clearly they have to buy the books at whatever rate the publisher wants .
That 's fair enough .
But I ca n't understand why they ca n't set whatever retail price they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What confuses me is this: isn't having a distributor dictate the price of an item to a retailer called "price-fixing"?
Isn't is illegal in the US?
If I understand correctly, Macmillan and many authors are upset that Amazon want to sell at a reduced retail price while still paying the *same* wholesale price.
Shouldn't that be allowed in a free market economy (as long as they aren't selling below cost in order to force out smaller players)?So why did Amazon have to capitulate?
Clearly they have to buy the books at whatever rate the publisher wants.
That's fair enough.
But I can't understand why they can't set whatever retail price they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045744</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265474100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion, do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members?</p></div><p>If the RIAA members weren't previously colluded in the organization we call the RIAA, yeah. As it stands, it comes down to who's the biggest monopoly (or oligopoly, in the RIAA's case), and the music industry is far bigger than the online music distribution industry so Apple's fucked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion , do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members ? If the RIAA members were n't previously colluded in the organization we call the RIAA , yeah .
As it stands , it comes down to who 's the biggest monopoly ( or oligopoly , in the RIAA 's case ) , and the music industry is far bigger than the online music distribution industry so Apple 's fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion, do you think that Apple could pull a similar stunt with RIAA members?If the RIAA members weren't previously colluded in the organization we call the RIAA, yeah.
As it stands, it comes down to who's the biggest monopoly (or oligopoly, in the RIAA's case), and the music industry is far bigger than the online music distribution industry so Apple's fucked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1265480640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.</p></div></blockquote><p>My wife is a nationally published, best-selling young adult author (see sig).  I do all our bookkeeping.  And right now I live on my wife's income, so the ability of authors to make money on their books is a subject very near and dear to my heart.  While YA is a different market than general fiction, it is similar enough to make some general statements.  One of those statements is that the right of authors to make money barely enters into this debate, no matter how badly these authors want to talk about it (and generate press from it).  Here's why.

</p><p>At present, typical royalty rates for hardcover books are anywhere from 5\% to 15\%, depending on total sales, escalation clauses, and so forth.  Some publishers have experimented with higher rates (even as high as 50\%) in exchange for lower advances, but these are still a minority.  So you can figure a typical $20 hardcover makes an author $2.  Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors, <i>the royalty is on cover price</i> in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.  In other words, Amazon's discount will not usually eat into the author's cut.  Whether it eats into the publisher's cut or Amazon's cut, and to what extent, is beyond my ken.

</p><p>Paperback rates are lower--say, 5\% to 10\%.  A $10 paperback (for nice round numbers) typically makes an author $1.  Same caveats apply.

</p><p>Publishing houses are still all over the map on eBook sales.  I don't have a lot of information on this one, but my understanding is that 25\% would be a great (but reachable) eBook royalty, while I've never heard anything less than 10\%.  I have heard higher numbers--like 30\% and 50\%--mostly in conjunction with experimental publishing models, as with the hardcovers.

</p><p>So on a $9.99 eBook, a typical author is making $1 to $2.50.  Which is pretty much exactly the range they get on dead-tree publishing.

</p><p>I have seen a lot of authors really freaking out about this MacMillan stuff, and honestly the issue is complex enough from a market standpoint that I don't think anyone involved is really "blameworthy."  Amazon wants to sell eBooks, and cheap books sell better than expensive ones (big shocker, right?).  MacMillan wants greater say in its ability to price its own wares.  Personally I think eBooks are generally less desirable, and therefore worth less, than physical copies, for various reasons every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader can probably recite.

</p><p>Really the only authors who have suffered at all are MacMillan authors whose stuff got delisted, and even then--people forget that Amazon only controls about half on the online book sale market, which is in turn only about 30\% of the retail book industry.  Although it has a head start in the eBook realm, even as an eBook retailer Amazon already has serious competition ramping up.  They don't even remotely resemble a monopoly.

</p><p>So while this is an interesting and important debate for the publishing industry, my assessment is that it impacts authors a lot less than authors like to think.  Which is about on par with any part of the business side of publishing.  My experience is that the "artists" in the publishing industry are much better treated than those in (say) the music industry, but the fact remains that publishing is a business, and some of the "artistes" in the group get very angry when something reminds them of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do respect the right of authors to make some money , but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version , there 's something highly wrong.My wife is a nationally published , best-selling young adult author ( see sig ) .
I do all our bookkeeping .
And right now I live on my wife 's income , so the ability of authors to make money on their books is a subject very near and dear to my heart .
While YA is a different market than general fiction , it is similar enough to make some general statements .
One of those statements is that the right of authors to make money barely enters into this debate , no matter how badly these authors want to talk about it ( and generate press from it ) .
Here 's why .
At present , typical royalty rates for hardcover books are anywhere from 5 \ % to 15 \ % , depending on total sales , escalation clauses , and so forth .
Some publishers have experimented with higher rates ( even as high as 50 \ % ) in exchange for lower advances , but these are still a minority .
So you can figure a typical $ 20 hardcover makes an author $ 2 .
Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors , the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply .
In other words , Amazon 's discount will not usually eat into the author 's cut .
Whether it eats into the publisher 's cut or Amazon 's cut , and to what extent , is beyond my ken .
Paperback rates are lower--say , 5 \ % to 10 \ % .
A $ 10 paperback ( for nice round numbers ) typically makes an author $ 1 .
Same caveats apply .
Publishing houses are still all over the map on eBook sales .
I do n't have a lot of information on this one , but my understanding is that 25 \ % would be a great ( but reachable ) eBook royalty , while I 've never heard anything less than 10 \ % .
I have heard higher numbers--like 30 \ % and 50 \ % --mostly in conjunction with experimental publishing models , as with the hardcovers .
So on a $ 9.99 eBook , a typical author is making $ 1 to $ 2.50 .
Which is pretty much exactly the range they get on dead-tree publishing .
I have seen a lot of authors really freaking out about this MacMillan stuff , and honestly the issue is complex enough from a market standpoint that I do n't think anyone involved is really " blameworthy .
" Amazon wants to sell eBooks , and cheap books sell better than expensive ones ( big shocker , right ? ) .
MacMillan wants greater say in its ability to price its own wares .
Personally I think eBooks are generally less desirable , and therefore worth less , than physical copies , for various reasons every / .
reader can probably recite .
Really the only authors who have suffered at all are MacMillan authors whose stuff got delisted , and even then--people forget that Amazon only controls about half on the online book sale market , which is in turn only about 30 \ % of the retail book industry .
Although it has a head start in the eBook realm , even as an eBook retailer Amazon already has serious competition ramping up .
They do n't even remotely resemble a monopoly .
So while this is an interesting and important debate for the publishing industry , my assessment is that it impacts authors a lot less than authors like to think .
Which is about on par with any part of the business side of publishing .
My experience is that the " artists " in the publishing industry are much better treated than those in ( say ) the music industry , but the fact remains that publishing is a business , and some of the " artistes " in the group get very angry when something reminds them of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.My wife is a nationally published, best-selling young adult author (see sig).
I do all our bookkeeping.
And right now I live on my wife's income, so the ability of authors to make money on their books is a subject very near and dear to my heart.
While YA is a different market than general fiction, it is similar enough to make some general statements.
One of those statements is that the right of authors to make money barely enters into this debate, no matter how badly these authors want to talk about it (and generate press from it).
Here's why.
At present, typical royalty rates for hardcover books are anywhere from 5\% to 15\%, depending on total sales, escalation clauses, and so forth.
Some publishers have experimented with higher rates (even as high as 50\%) in exchange for lower advances, but these are still a minority.
So you can figure a typical $20 hardcover makes an author $2.
Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors, the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.
In other words, Amazon's discount will not usually eat into the author's cut.
Whether it eats into the publisher's cut or Amazon's cut, and to what extent, is beyond my ken.
Paperback rates are lower--say, 5\% to 10\%.
A $10 paperback (for nice round numbers) typically makes an author $1.
Same caveats apply.
Publishing houses are still all over the map on eBook sales.
I don't have a lot of information on this one, but my understanding is that 25\% would be a great (but reachable) eBook royalty, while I've never heard anything less than 10\%.
I have heard higher numbers--like 30\% and 50\%--mostly in conjunction with experimental publishing models, as with the hardcovers.
So on a $9.99 eBook, a typical author is making $1 to $2.50.
Which is pretty much exactly the range they get on dead-tree publishing.
I have seen a lot of authors really freaking out about this MacMillan stuff, and honestly the issue is complex enough from a market standpoint that I don't think anyone involved is really "blameworthy.
"  Amazon wants to sell eBooks, and cheap books sell better than expensive ones (big shocker, right?).
MacMillan wants greater say in its ability to price its own wares.
Personally I think eBooks are generally less desirable, and therefore worth less, than physical copies, for various reasons every /.
reader can probably recite.
Really the only authors who have suffered at all are MacMillan authors whose stuff got delisted, and even then--people forget that Amazon only controls about half on the online book sale market, which is in turn only about 30\% of the retail book industry.
Although it has a head start in the eBook realm, even as an eBook retailer Amazon already has serious competition ramping up.
They don't even remotely resemble a monopoly.
So while this is an interesting and important debate for the publishing industry, my assessment is that it impacts authors a lot less than authors like to think.
Which is about on par with any part of the business side of publishing.
My experience is that the "artists" in the publishing industry are much better treated than those in (say) the music industry, but the fact remains that publishing is a business, and some of the "artistes" in the group get very angry when something reminds them of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046010</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1265476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:<br>"I don't like to do business with people who, apparently as far as I can tell, think sucker punching you when they disagree, even if they have the right to do it, is the way to go about this."<br>I found it affirms my opinion of the situation. YMMV. As in many of these type of debates, your opinion is balanced against a very small subset of idealists who will let moral issues influence their business dealings.<br>That's what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " I do n't like to do business with people who , apparently as far as I can tell , think sucker punching you when they disagree , even if they have the right to do it , is the way to go about this .
" I found it affirms my opinion of the situation .
YMMV. As in many of these type of debates , your opinion is balanced against a very small subset of idealists who will let moral issues influence their business dealings.That 's what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"I don't like to do business with people who, apparently as far as I can tell, think sucker punching you when they disagree, even if they have the right to do it, is the way to go about this.
"I found it affirms my opinion of the situation.
YMMV. As in many of these type of debates, your opinion is balanced against a very small subset of idealists who will let moral issues influence their business dealings.That's what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045922</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1265476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually the whole premise of the article is a fraud anyways, since <a href="http://www.themoneytimes.com/reviews/20100205/amazon-resumes-sale-macmillan-books-id-1099531.html" title="themoneytimes.com">amazon already caved to McMillan</a> [themoneytimes.com], which will now set the price of e-books on amazon.com, and already sharply raised amazon's previous pricing.  So tell me, who is dictating terms here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion.. . Actually the whole premise of the article is a fraud anyways , since amazon already caved to McMillan [ themoneytimes.com ] , which will now set the price of e-books on amazon.com , and already sharply raised amazon 's previous pricing .
So tell me , who is dictating terms here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...If Amazon can dictate terms to book publishers in this fashion...

Actually the whole premise of the article is a fraud anyways, since amazon already caved to McMillan [themoneytimes.com], which will now set the price of e-books on amazon.com, and already sharply raised amazon's previous pricing.
So tell me, who is dictating terms here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046772</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265483220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a "RENT THIS BOOK INDEFINITELY" would be clearer. People aren't familiar with licensing copyrighted works. "Rent" is a term they understand well, and would respond appropriately to, as in "What, I'm paying $14.99 for something I don't even own, can't sell, and might lose access to if your company changes management?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a " RENT THIS BOOK INDEFINITELY " would be clearer .
People are n't familiar with licensing copyrighted works .
" Rent " is a term they understand well , and would respond appropriately to , as in " What , I 'm paying $ 14.99 for something I do n't even own , ca n't sell , and might lose access to if your company changes management ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a "RENT THIS BOOK INDEFINITELY" would be clearer.
People aren't familiar with licensing copyrighted works.
"Rent" is a term they understand well, and would respond appropriately to, as in "What, I'm paying $14.99 for something I don't even own, can't sell, and might lose access to if your company changes management?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046818</id>
	<title>"cheap" $9.99 books?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265483520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stross writes:</p><blockquote><div><p>They lied by falsely positioning themselves as the defenders of cheap $9.99 ebooks</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm so confused.  Here I am with a paperback that says $7.99 on its back.  An ebook costs a <em>fraction</em> of that to manufacture and the paperback's price also includes all the amortized costs (like paying the author!) in its price, so how the fuck is $9.99 "cheap"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stross writes : They lied by falsely positioning themselves as the defenders of cheap $ 9.99 ebooksI 'm so confused .
Here I am with a paperback that says $ 7.99 on its back .
An ebook costs a fraction of that to manufacture and the paperback 's price also includes all the amortized costs ( like paying the author !
) in its price , so how the fuck is $ 9.99 " cheap " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stross writes:They lied by falsely positioning themselves as the defenders of cheap $9.99 ebooksI'm so confused.
Here I am with a paperback that says $7.99 on its back.
An ebook costs a fraction of that to manufacture and the paperback's price also includes all the amortized costs (like paying the author!
) in its price, so how the fuck is $9.99 "cheap"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046406</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>bgalbrecht</author>
	<datestamp>1265480280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There can be two reasons for this, it really does cost more to produce it, or the publisher is evil</p><p>In some cases, the print book was created prior to the advent of ebooks, and so it costs about as much to create the ebook master files as it does to create the master files for a new print edition. If the expected number of sales of the ebook is sufficiently less than even a hardback print run, then it's not profitable for the publisher unless they price it up at a trade paperback or hardback prices. Thanks to the tower of eBabel, there's usually at least 3-4 formats the publisher must prep, although if they have good software, that conversion shouldn't be that hard.  Even so, as someone who is involved at Distributed Proofreaders, I can tell you that even for a simple novel for which you don't have the original electronic source documents, the amount of time it takes to create the master files (for example, scan the book, OCR it, proofread it, generate XML master) at minimum is probably about 8-10 hours.  Even if you freelance this, it's probably going to take a couple thousand to do this. Since our publisher is afraid of copyright infringement, add in the cost of DRM, another couple thousand. Add in Author royalties, the rest of the publisher overhead including profit margin, and the ebook store's markup, it really does cost more than $9.99 to break even if you have projected sales of about 2,000 ebooks.</p><p>In other cases, the publisher created an electronic master document from which the hardbound and mass market paperback editions as well as ebook formats are created.  The publisher made the ebook available at the same time as the HB, and priced it the same as the HB.  Then, when the MMPB came out a year later, the publisher kept the price of the ebook at the HB price.  Why?  Because the publishers don't like ebooks, they're afraid that ebook sales will cannibalize the print editions, and any cheap prices on ebooks will get the consumer to expect all books to be priced cheaply.  You're proof of it, in their eyes.</p><p>In MacMillan's PR campaign for their side of the Amazon dispute, they claim that with their agent model, they will release the ebooks at the same time as the initial HB release, price it around the price of a trade paperback, and eventually drop the price to below that of a MMPB, presumably when the MMPB is released. This sounds good until you take a look at MacMillan's track record.  Most of their ebooks are currently priced at HB or TPB prices, even though there's a MMPB available, and their TOR/Forge SF/F imprint has almost no ebooks available. If they really do change their ways, great, if not, it won't be any different from now, where I don't buy ebooks from MacMillan because either they're too expensive, or unavailable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There can be two reasons for this , it really does cost more to produce it , or the publisher is evilIn some cases , the print book was created prior to the advent of ebooks , and so it costs about as much to create the ebook master files as it does to create the master files for a new print edition .
If the expected number of sales of the ebook is sufficiently less than even a hardback print run , then it 's not profitable for the publisher unless they price it up at a trade paperback or hardback prices .
Thanks to the tower of eBabel , there 's usually at least 3-4 formats the publisher must prep , although if they have good software , that conversion should n't be that hard .
Even so , as someone who is involved at Distributed Proofreaders , I can tell you that even for a simple novel for which you do n't have the original electronic source documents , the amount of time it takes to create the master files ( for example , scan the book , OCR it , proofread it , generate XML master ) at minimum is probably about 8-10 hours .
Even if you freelance this , it 's probably going to take a couple thousand to do this .
Since our publisher is afraid of copyright infringement , add in the cost of DRM , another couple thousand .
Add in Author royalties , the rest of the publisher overhead including profit margin , and the ebook store 's markup , it really does cost more than $ 9.99 to break even if you have projected sales of about 2,000 ebooks.In other cases , the publisher created an electronic master document from which the hardbound and mass market paperback editions as well as ebook formats are created .
The publisher made the ebook available at the same time as the HB , and priced it the same as the HB .
Then , when the MMPB came out a year later , the publisher kept the price of the ebook at the HB price .
Why ? Because the publishers do n't like ebooks , they 're afraid that ebook sales will cannibalize the print editions , and any cheap prices on ebooks will get the consumer to expect all books to be priced cheaply .
You 're proof of it , in their eyes.In MacMillan 's PR campaign for their side of the Amazon dispute , they claim that with their agent model , they will release the ebooks at the same time as the initial HB release , price it around the price of a trade paperback , and eventually drop the price to below that of a MMPB , presumably when the MMPB is released .
This sounds good until you take a look at MacMillan 's track record .
Most of their ebooks are currently priced at HB or TPB prices , even though there 's a MMPB available , and their TOR/Forge SF/F imprint has almost no ebooks available .
If they really do change their ways , great , if not , it wo n't be any different from now , where I do n't buy ebooks from MacMillan because either they 're too expensive , or unavailable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There can be two reasons for this, it really does cost more to produce it, or the publisher is evilIn some cases, the print book was created prior to the advent of ebooks, and so it costs about as much to create the ebook master files as it does to create the master files for a new print edition.
If the expected number of sales of the ebook is sufficiently less than even a hardback print run, then it's not profitable for the publisher unless they price it up at a trade paperback or hardback prices.
Thanks to the tower of eBabel, there's usually at least 3-4 formats the publisher must prep, although if they have good software, that conversion shouldn't be that hard.
Even so, as someone who is involved at Distributed Proofreaders, I can tell you that even for a simple novel for which you don't have the original electronic source documents, the amount of time it takes to create the master files (for example, scan the book, OCR it, proofread it, generate XML master) at minimum is probably about 8-10 hours.
Even if you freelance this, it's probably going to take a couple thousand to do this.
Since our publisher is afraid of copyright infringement, add in the cost of DRM, another couple thousand.
Add in Author royalties, the rest of the publisher overhead including profit margin, and the ebook store's markup, it really does cost more than $9.99 to break even if you have projected sales of about 2,000 ebooks.In other cases, the publisher created an electronic master document from which the hardbound and mass market paperback editions as well as ebook formats are created.
The publisher made the ebook available at the same time as the HB, and priced it the same as the HB.
Then, when the MMPB came out a year later, the publisher kept the price of the ebook at the HB price.
Why?  Because the publishers don't like ebooks, they're afraid that ebook sales will cannibalize the print editions, and any cheap prices on ebooks will get the consumer to expect all books to be priced cheaply.
You're proof of it, in their eyes.In MacMillan's PR campaign for their side of the Amazon dispute, they claim that with their agent model, they will release the ebooks at the same time as the initial HB release, price it around the price of a trade paperback, and eventually drop the price to below that of a MMPB, presumably when the MMPB is released.
This sounds good until you take a look at MacMillan's track record.
Most of their ebooks are currently priced at HB or TPB prices, even though there's a MMPB available, and their TOR/Forge SF/F imprint has almost no ebooks available.
If they really do change their ways, great, if not, it won't be any different from now, where I don't buy ebooks from MacMillan because either they're too expensive, or unavailable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045654</id>
	<title>Why is Amazon the bad guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265473200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me Amazon was actually fighting for lower prices, helping people who like to read.  Are the authors anti-reader?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me Amazon was actually fighting for lower prices , helping people who like to read .
Are the authors anti-reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me Amazon was actually fighting for lower prices, helping people who like to read.
Are the authors anti-reader?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049542</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>mmurphy000</author>
	<datestamp>1265466540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors, the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.</p></div></blockquote><p>That may be true for the YA market. For technology books, and AFAIK non-fiction in general, royalty rates in contracts are on net (after reseller discounts), rather than on gross. That certainly was the case for the two I signed, and I did a fair amount of research to determine that this was, indeed, the norm. Reseller discounts can run as high as 55\%, though ~40\% is more typical.</p><p>And, of course, that's a good part of the reason why I started my own publishing firm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors , the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.That may be true for the YA market .
For technology books , and AFAIK non-fiction in general , royalty rates in contracts are on net ( after reseller discounts ) , rather than on gross .
That certainly was the case for the two I signed , and I did a fair amount of research to determine that this was , indeed , the norm .
Reseller discounts can run as high as 55 \ % , though ~ 40 \ % is more typical.And , of course , that 's a good part of the reason why I started my own publishing firm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors, the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.That may be true for the YA market.
For technology books, and AFAIK non-fiction in general, royalty rates in contracts are on net (after reseller discounts), rather than on gross.
That certainly was the case for the two I signed, and I did a fair amount of research to determine that this was, indeed, the norm.
Reseller discounts can run as high as 55\%, though ~40\% is more typical.And, of course, that's a good part of the reason why I started my own publishing firm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31060462</id>
	<title>Re:How is it not preventing this</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>free market economics works just fine</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>free market economics works just fine [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free market economics works just fine

[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051124</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>jisatsusha</author>
	<datestamp>1265536320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be more than happy to do this if books didn't cost at least twice as much as Amazon sell them for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more than happy to do this if books did n't cost at least twice as much as Amazon sell them for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more than happy to do this if books didn't cost at least twice as much as Amazon sell them for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045644</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>RulerOf</author>
	<datestamp>1265473200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I buy something, I want to own it. I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it. That's just ridiculous.</p></div><p>Generally speaking, I agree with you, but I'd say there's a notable exception.  If I could choose to <b>buy</b> (and <i>own</i>) product A for $X, or I could choose to <b>license</b> product A for $X-Y, licensing might be a viable alternative in certain situations.  Kind of like renting a DVD movie or console game, only with more straightforward (I suppose) DRM.  DRM that, of course, by being a licensee rather than an owner, I'd be explicitly agreeing to be "managed" by.<br> <br>Similar to the difference between buying Windows licenses--and yes I'm aware of the irony in what I've just written--and buying into Software Assurance, only on the sub-$100,000 scale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy something , I want to own it .
I do n't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it .
That 's just ridiculous.Generally speaking , I agree with you , but I 'd say there 's a notable exception .
If I could choose to buy ( and own ) product A for $ X , or I could choose to license product A for $ X-Y , licensing might be a viable alternative in certain situations .
Kind of like renting a DVD movie or console game , only with more straightforward ( I suppose ) DRM .
DRM that , of course , by being a licensee rather than an owner , I 'd be explicitly agreeing to be " managed " by .
Similar to the difference between buying Windows licenses--and yes I 'm aware of the irony in what I 've just written--and buying into Software Assurance , only on the sub- $ 100,000 scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy something, I want to own it.
I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it.
That's just ridiculous.Generally speaking, I agree with you, but I'd say there's a notable exception.
If I could choose to buy (and own) product A for $X, or I could choose to license product A for $X-Y, licensing might be a viable alternative in certain situations.
Kind of like renting a DVD movie or console game, only with more straightforward (I suppose) DRM.
DRM that, of course, by being a licensee rather than an owner, I'd be explicitly agreeing to be "managed" by.
Similar to the difference between buying Windows licenses--and yes I'm aware of the irony in what I've just written--and buying into Software Assurance, only on the sub-$100,000 scale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046178</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>homer\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1265478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Great idea: go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy. Even better? Get one at a locally owned shop. Book-buying is better in person: browsing shelves, reading through a few pages, checking out your favorite section, then finding that rare gem that you'd have never seen on Amazon anyway.</i> <br> <br>

Why? I value my time and I like to spend it doing other things. Amazon makes it incredibly easy for me to purchase the books I want, new or used. In fact, I have a few books that I could not have found if not for amazon.com. <br> <br>
I see amazon, like any other store, as my agent who aggregates the buying power of consumers to negotiate a price from manufacturers/publishers. I applaud whatever they do to get prices down for me. Authors' rights? That's for them to defend, not me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea : go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy .
Even better ?
Get one at a locally owned shop .
Book-buying is better in person : browsing shelves , reading through a few pages , checking out your favorite section , then finding that rare gem that you 'd have never seen on Amazon anyway .
Why ? I value my time and I like to spend it doing other things .
Amazon makes it incredibly easy for me to purchase the books I want , new or used .
In fact , I have a few books that I could not have found if not for amazon.com .
I see amazon , like any other store , as my agent who aggregates the buying power of consumers to negotiate a price from manufacturers/publishers .
I applaud whatever they do to get prices down for me .
Authors ' rights ?
That 's for them to defend , not me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea: go to a BOOKSTORE and buy a copy.
Even better?
Get one at a locally owned shop.
Book-buying is better in person: browsing shelves, reading through a few pages, checking out your favorite section, then finding that rare gem that you'd have never seen on Amazon anyway.
Why? I value my time and I like to spend it doing other things.
Amazon makes it incredibly easy for me to purchase the books I want, new or used.
In fact, I have a few books that I could not have found if not for amazon.com.
I see amazon, like any other store, as my agent who aggregates the buying power of consumers to negotiate a price from manufacturers/publishers.
I applaud whatever they do to get prices down for me.
Authors' rights?
That's for them to defend, not me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046436</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1265480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind that what was being argued about was *not* the price of *old* ebooks.  What was being argued about was how much Amazon would charge for ebooks on the day the hard cover was first released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that what was being argued about was * not * the price of * old * ebooks .
What was being argued about was how much Amazon would charge for ebooks on the day the hard cover was first released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that what was being argued about was *not* the price of *old* ebooks.
What was being argued about was how much Amazon would charge for ebooks on the day the hard cover was first released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047680</id>
	<title>Well written analysis of this issue</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1265448480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife is an indie author and has been following this debate. <a href="http://dpakman.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/wading-in-on-amazonmacmillan-pricing-debate/" title="wordpress.com">She found a really good description of what is going on here </a> [wordpress.com]. A basic conflict between Amazon's business model vs the book publisher's legacy business model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife is an indie author and has been following this debate .
She found a really good description of what is going on here [ wordpress.com ] .
A basic conflict between Amazon 's business model vs the book publisher 's legacy business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife is an indie author and has been following this debate.
She found a really good description of what is going on here  [wordpress.com].
A basic conflict between Amazon's business model vs the book publisher's legacy business model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045908</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>bangzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1265475900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent? When a single entity can have that kind of power, isn't it a monopoly?</i> <br> <br>

Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in a market is not illegal in itself, a monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field. In this case authors have many choices regarding publication: traditional publishers, self-publication; Publishers have choice over to whom they sell their books: Amazon, B&amp;N, Borders and 1000's of independent book stores; E-book readers are increasingly entering this market segment: Kindle, Nook and many other that we saw demonstrated at CES a few weeks ago.<br> <br>
So no. This is what free market economics is supposed to <b>encourage</b>. In my opinion, Amazon trying to keep prices down is a great thing. The fact that some authors chose to publish their books with MacMillan who tried to reduce their readership by jacking up the price should give incentive to said authors to find a better publisher that actually wants to increase their readership.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 've read TFA , but is n't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent ?
When a single entity can have that kind of power , is n't it a monopoly ?
Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in a market is not illegal in itself , a monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field .
In this case authors have many choices regarding publication : traditional publishers , self-publication ; Publishers have choice over to whom they sell their books : Amazon , B&amp;N , Borders and 1000 's of independent book stores ; E-book readers are increasingly entering this market segment : Kindle , Nook and many other that we saw demonstrated at CES a few weeks ago .
So no .
This is what free market economics is supposed to encourage .
In my opinion , Amazon trying to keep prices down is a great thing .
The fact that some authors chose to publish their books with MacMillan who tried to reduce their readership by jacking up the price should give incentive to said authors to find a better publisher that actually wants to increase their readership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I've read TFA, but isn't this what free market economics is supposed to prevent?
When a single entity can have that kind of power, isn't it a monopoly?
Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in a market is not illegal in itself, a monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field.
In this case authors have many choices regarding publication: traditional publishers, self-publication; Publishers have choice over to whom they sell their books: Amazon, B&amp;N, Borders and 1000's of independent book stores; E-book readers are increasingly entering this market segment: Kindle, Nook and many other that we saw demonstrated at CES a few weeks ago.
So no.
This is what free market economics is supposed to encourage.
In my opinion, Amazon trying to keep prices down is a great thing.
The fact that some authors chose to publish their books with MacMillan who tried to reduce their readership by jacking up the price should give incentive to said authors to find a better publisher that actually wants to increase their readership.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</id>
	<title>Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another reason I loathe DRM. Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books. They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they'll even be available for purchase, and they can revoke ownership of the books remotely without people even noticing (viz the 1984 kerfuffle).</p><p>When I buy something, I want to own it. I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it. That's just ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another reason I loathe DRM .
Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books .
They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they 'll even be available for purchase , and they can revoke ownership of the books remotely without people even noticing ( viz the 1984 kerfuffle ) .When I buy something , I want to own it .
I do n't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it .
That 's just ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another reason I loathe DRM.
Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books.
They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they'll even be available for purchase, and they can revoke ownership of the books remotely without people even noticing (viz the 1984 kerfuffle).When I buy something, I want to own it.
I don't want to license it at the whim of a service that dictates what I can do with it.
That's just ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045958</id>
	<title>Where there enough sales?</title>
	<author>Geert Jalink</author>
	<datestamp>1265476440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there are enough sales for a book, and the book does not insult that much, why would anyone remove all books from any author at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are enough sales for a book , and the book does not insult that much , why would anyone remove all books from any author at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are enough sales for a book, and the book does not insult that much, why would anyone remove all books from any author at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045594</id>
	<title>It's all about the money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to think that I helped Mary Ann North become rich paying $.75 per paperback.  Of all the parties beating their breasts in outrage over this issue the only ones I have any sympathy for are the authors and the readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to think that I helped Mary Ann North become rich paying $ .75 per paperback .
Of all the parties beating their breasts in outrage over this issue the only ones I have any sympathy for are the authors and the readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to think that I helped Mary Ann North become rich paying $.75 per paperback.
Of all the parties beating their breasts in outrage over this issue the only ones I have any sympathy for are the authors and the readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046372</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1265480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I checked the prices of ebooks, and as far as I am concerned, I am finding those prices outrageous.</p><p>I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.</p></div><p>I actually agree with this, and I don't think that the fifteen dollar price, or even the proposed 9.99 price, will end up being the long-term equilibrium price.  In the long term,  I'll bet on low single digits-- the only question is how low.  Four dollars for a book, or one dollar?</p><p>However, I really am horrified by Amazon's anticompetitive actions-- basically, holding paper books hostage for a deal on e-book prices.</p><p>And if you think that Amazon using its market-dominance power to set prices is a good thing for consumers, because they're setting prices at a point where they actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091206/2048537223.shtml" title="techdirt.com" rel="nofollow">lose money on every e-book sold</a> [techdirt.com] and low prices are good, right?  -- you are not thinking very far ahead.  Let me clue you in: Amazon is not trying to secure a dominant market position because they intend to <b>lose</b> money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked the prices of ebooks , and as far as I am concerned , I am finding those prices outrageous.I do respect the right of authors to make some money , but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version , there 's something highly wrong.I actually agree with this , and I do n't think that the fifteen dollar price , or even the proposed 9.99 price , will end up being the long-term equilibrium price .
In the long term , I 'll bet on low single digits-- the only question is how low .
Four dollars for a book , or one dollar ? However , I really am horrified by Amazon 's anticompetitive actions-- basically , holding paper books hostage for a deal on e-book prices.And if you think that Amazon using its market-dominance power to set prices is a good thing for consumers , because they 're setting prices at a point where they actually lose money on every e-book sold [ techdirt.com ] and low prices are good , right ?
-- you are not thinking very far ahead .
Let me clue you in : Amazon is not trying to secure a dominant market position because they intend to lose money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked the prices of ebooks, and as far as I am concerned, I am finding those prices outrageous.I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.I actually agree with this, and I don't think that the fifteen dollar price, or even the proposed 9.99 price, will end up being the long-term equilibrium price.
In the long term,  I'll bet on low single digits-- the only question is how low.
Four dollars for a book, or one dollar?However, I really am horrified by Amazon's anticompetitive actions-- basically, holding paper books hostage for a deal on e-book prices.And if you think that Amazon using its market-dominance power to set prices is a good thing for consumers, because they're setting prices at a point where they actually lose money on every e-book sold [techdirt.com] and low prices are good, right?
-- you are not thinking very far ahead.
Let me clue you in: Amazon is not trying to secure a dominant market position because they intend to lose money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045768</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1265474400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a true free market, Amazon, the organization that the government gives special privileges to by calling it a Corporation, would not exist.</p><p>So, the current situation doesn't resemble a conceptual free market.  And historically the instances of one entity being able to control large portions of an economy without resorting to some sort of coercion (via laws or organized crime) are few.</p><p>Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent monopolies.</p><p>Here, however, nobody is preventing the publishing and sale of a book.  Amazon gets to decide what is sold on its site.  I don't see the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a true free market , Amazon , the organization that the government gives special privileges to by calling it a Corporation , would not exist.So , the current situation does n't resemble a conceptual free market .
And historically the instances of one entity being able to control large portions of an economy without resorting to some sort of coercion ( via laws or organized crime ) are few.Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent monopolies.Here , however , nobody is preventing the publishing and sale of a book .
Amazon gets to decide what is sold on its site .
I do n't see the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a true free market, Amazon, the organization that the government gives special privileges to by calling it a Corporation, would not exist.So, the current situation doesn't resemble a conceptual free market.
And historically the instances of one entity being able to control large portions of an economy without resorting to some sort of coercion (via laws or organized crime) are few.Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent monopolies.Here, however, nobody is preventing the publishing and sale of a book.
Amazon gets to decide what is sold on its site.
I don't see the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046116</id>
	<title>Authors Guild burned up a lot of respect for me...</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1265477820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the President of the Authors Guild went on a rant about how text to speech was infringing on authors "audio rights".<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?\_r=1</a> [nytimes.com]<br>I won't go into the arguments, but suffice it to say I sure as hell don't just automatically trust whatever the authors guild is trying to push.  Even if you think he's right, was this issue SO important he had to write a very public article about it in the NYT?</p><p>On the other hand, Amazon isn't the must trustworthy company in the world either.  The incident with 1984 on the Kindle comes to mind.  This incident only makes it crystal clear that the Kindle is essentially like renting books, not owning them.  It's just kind of amazing that the entire e-book world is rife with anti-consumer paranoia.</p><p>The entire e-book industry is doomed to failure unless they're significantly cheaper than the paper version.  How many people really want to buy a book on technology platform for only a little less?  We all know these are essentially throw-away devices.  In 2 years there will be some Great New "gotta have it" book reader platform that'll make anything right now obsolete.  In 5 years Kindles will be essentially worthless and people will turn their noses up at them like it's a Palm Pilot.  Meanwhile the paper book holds essentially the same value as it did 100 years ago.  So which medium should I buy?  If I don't need a new version of a recent book, I can get a used copy on Amazon for next to nothing, or deeply discounted.  The e-book I can't re-sell, easily loan to a friend, etc.  Inferior technologies can only compete on price.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I love technology.  I just consider "paper books" to be technology (a competing technology of course).  Newer doesn't mean better, and it's difficult for electronics to compete with paper when the content is completely static.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the President of the Authors Guild went on a rant about how text to speech was infringing on authors " audio rights " .http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html ? \ _r = 1 [ nytimes.com ] I wo n't go into the arguments , but suffice it to say I sure as hell do n't just automatically trust whatever the authors guild is trying to push .
Even if you think he 's right , was this issue SO important he had to write a very public article about it in the NYT ? On the other hand , Amazon is n't the must trustworthy company in the world either .
The incident with 1984 on the Kindle comes to mind .
This incident only makes it crystal clear that the Kindle is essentially like renting books , not owning them .
It 's just kind of amazing that the entire e-book world is rife with anti-consumer paranoia.The entire e-book industry is doomed to failure unless they 're significantly cheaper than the paper version .
How many people really want to buy a book on technology platform for only a little less ?
We all know these are essentially throw-away devices .
In 2 years there will be some Great New " got ta have it " book reader platform that 'll make anything right now obsolete .
In 5 years Kindles will be essentially worthless and people will turn their noses up at them like it 's a Palm Pilot .
Meanwhile the paper book holds essentially the same value as it did 100 years ago .
So which medium should I buy ?
If I do n't need a new version of a recent book , I can get a used copy on Amazon for next to nothing , or deeply discounted .
The e-book I ca n't re-sell , easily loan to a friend , etc .
Inferior technologies can only compete on price.Do n't get me wrong , I love technology .
I just consider " paper books " to be technology ( a competing technology of course ) .
Newer does n't mean better , and it 's difficult for electronics to compete with paper when the content is completely static .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the President of the Authors Guild went on a rant about how text to speech was infringing on authors "audio rights".http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?\_r=1 [nytimes.com]I won't go into the arguments, but suffice it to say I sure as hell don't just automatically trust whatever the authors guild is trying to push.
Even if you think he's right, was this issue SO important he had to write a very public article about it in the NYT?On the other hand, Amazon isn't the must trustworthy company in the world either.
The incident with 1984 on the Kindle comes to mind.
This incident only makes it crystal clear that the Kindle is essentially like renting books, not owning them.
It's just kind of amazing that the entire e-book world is rife with anti-consumer paranoia.The entire e-book industry is doomed to failure unless they're significantly cheaper than the paper version.
How many people really want to buy a book on technology platform for only a little less?
We all know these are essentially throw-away devices.
In 2 years there will be some Great New "gotta have it" book reader platform that'll make anything right now obsolete.
In 5 years Kindles will be essentially worthless and people will turn their noses up at them like it's a Palm Pilot.
Meanwhile the paper book holds essentially the same value as it did 100 years ago.
So which medium should I buy?
If I don't need a new version of a recent book, I can get a used copy on Amazon for next to nothing, or deeply discounted.
The e-book I can't re-sell, easily loan to a friend, etc.
Inferior technologies can only compete on price.Don't get me wrong, I love technology.
I just consider "paper books" to be technology (a competing technology of course).
Newer doesn't mean better, and it's difficult for electronics to compete with paper when the content is completely static.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</id>
	<title>Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I checked the prices of ebooks, and as far as I am concerned, I am finding those prices outrageous.<br>
I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.<br>
All of that makes me think they actually are trying to kill the ebook market, where "they" means publishers. Amazon of course is not clean either, and they obviously have been taking advantage of their public policy to look like saviors, that they are not.<br>
<br>
tldr: ebooks are way too expensive. Anything above 3-4$ for an old book or 4-8$ for a novelty is just plain insane. It's not like they require a lot of infrastructure. Oh and of course the author should still get most of the money in that grand scheme. But I doubt it's the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked the prices of ebooks , and as far as I am concerned , I am finding those prices outrageous .
I do respect the right of authors to make some money , but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version , there 's something highly wrong .
All of that makes me think they actually are trying to kill the ebook market , where " they " means publishers .
Amazon of course is not clean either , and they obviously have been taking advantage of their public policy to look like saviors , that they are not .
tldr : ebooks are way too expensive .
Anything above 3-4 $ for an old book or 4-8 $ for a novelty is just plain insane .
It 's not like they require a lot of infrastructure .
Oh and of course the author should still get most of the money in that grand scheme .
But I doubt it 's the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked the prices of ebooks, and as far as I am concerned, I am finding those prices outrageous.
I do respect the right of authors to make some money, but when an ebook is twice as expensive as a cheap paperback version, there's something highly wrong.
All of that makes me think they actually are trying to kill the ebook market, where "they" means publishers.
Amazon of course is not clean either, and they obviously have been taking advantage of their public policy to look like saviors, that they are not.
tldr: ebooks are way too expensive.
Anything above 3-4$ for an old book or 4-8$ for a novelty is just plain insane.
It's not like they require a lot of infrastructure.
Oh and of course the author should still get most of the money in that grand scheme.
But I doubt it's the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053060</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books"</p><p>Apparently not.  Well, I'd better ask what you mean by "these books."  Most works I've bought for my Kindle are also available for Sony's ereader.</p><p>Also, isn't the "sole distributor" thing really left up to the publisher and author, who decides which platform they want?  They can certainly choose to sell on the Nook and Sony's, as many authors do.  That's the point of "copyright."  Amazon doesn't hold it; the monopoly to the work is the copyright holder, not Amazon's.</p><p>But nice try.  I think are a merely misinformed Amazon basher.</p><p>"They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they'll even be available for purchase,"</p><p>Harry Potter books aren't available for the Kindle, or at least, they weren't for years.  This is one of the author's mentioned in the article summary.  So it's not up to Amazon.</p><p>A couple of titles (Burning Chrome, Mona Lisa Overdrive), are not available in ebook format.  How come?  Author or publisher.</p><p>Sort of shoots the whole "unquestionable control" by Amazon.  So you're wrong again.</p><p>And there's also the fact that any publisher can put their works up separate from any ebook platform.  Isn't that what O"Reilly has done with Safari and their epub and pdf format ebooks?  Hardly Amazon forcing anyone do to anything.  Amazon sells O'Reilly books still, cheaper than O'Reilly does too.</p><p>"This is another reason I loathe DRM."</p><p>You are aware that Amazon's DRM is like DVD DRM?  BROKE</p><p>PC version or downloaded to the PC from the device, your choice.  Owned.</p><p>"(viz the 1984 kerfuffle)."</p><p>Which has nothing to do with the Macmillan situation.</p><p>Which Amazon apologized for and realized was a stupid move.  And, which, most people don't seem to realize Amazon's move insulated their customers wholesale, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.</p><p>The mention of this is more you not liking ebooks in general or bashing Amazon, not because you are being level-headed for the situation.  Pray tell, how would you have handled the 1984 issue?  This is a sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Amazon sold unauthorized, illegal copies.  They had a list of everyone it was sold to obviously.  They were open to civil, electronic, DMCA, and criminal statutes.  Prosecutors, litigators, the judge could have asked for a list.</p><p>What would you have done?  No question Amazon should have handled it better, but I would have pulled the book too, although I would have made an attempt to contact the copyright holder with their mistake, but even then, they might have been held over the barrel (essentially extorted in the talks).  Their error, compounded by a second one, but if they were before a trial judge and found guilty for NOT pulling the works once they were aware it infringed...does the DMCA apply, and how would you have handled customers also be in the gunsights?</p><p>What would you be saying if they got to a judge that demanded Amazon provide them with a list of all who owned the illegal, electronic work, so the publisher could go MPAA/RIAA on them?  Ended up searching those people's homes, since they would have been in receipt of illegal copies that Amazon may have alerted them to in the first place before removing them so they backed up their stuff?  That would have been a greater cluster fuck than a bunch of stupid, whiny internet holier than thous bashing Amazon months after a single issue in, what, 4 years?</p><p>In the current legal climate, Amazon's actions make a shitload more sense than them doing nothing.  It puts the fault entirely on them.  You want to bash them for it, good, that's why they did it, but don't tell me Amazon totally mishandled the 1984 issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books " Apparently not .
Well , I 'd better ask what you mean by " these books .
" Most works I 've bought for my Kindle are also available for Sony 's ereader.Also , is n't the " sole distributor " thing really left up to the publisher and author , who decides which platform they want ?
They can certainly choose to sell on the Nook and Sony 's , as many authors do .
That 's the point of " copyright .
" Amazon does n't hold it ; the monopoly to the work is the copyright holder , not Amazon 's.But nice try .
I think are a merely misinformed Amazon basher .
" They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they 'll even be available for purchase , " Harry Potter books are n't available for the Kindle , or at least , they were n't for years .
This is one of the author 's mentioned in the article summary .
So it 's not up to Amazon.A couple of titles ( Burning Chrome , Mona Lisa Overdrive ) , are not available in ebook format .
How come ?
Author or publisher.Sort of shoots the whole " unquestionable control " by Amazon .
So you 're wrong again.And there 's also the fact that any publisher can put their works up separate from any ebook platform .
Is n't that what O " Reilly has done with Safari and their epub and pdf format ebooks ?
Hardly Amazon forcing anyone do to anything .
Amazon sells O'Reilly books still , cheaper than O'Reilly does too .
" This is another reason I loathe DRM .
" You are aware that Amazon 's DRM is like DVD DRM ?
BROKEPC version or downloaded to the PC from the device , your choice .
Owned. " ( viz the 1984 kerfuffle ) .
" Which has nothing to do with the Macmillan situation.Which Amazon apologized for and realized was a stupid move .
And , which , most people do n't seem to realize Amazon 's move insulated their customers wholesale , whether you want to acknowledge it or not.The mention of this is more you not liking ebooks in general or bashing Amazon , not because you are being level-headed for the situation .
Pray tell , how would you have handled the 1984 issue ?
This is a sort of a damned if you do , damned if you do n't .
Amazon sold unauthorized , illegal copies .
They had a list of everyone it was sold to obviously .
They were open to civil , electronic , DMCA , and criminal statutes .
Prosecutors , litigators , the judge could have asked for a list.What would you have done ?
No question Amazon should have handled it better , but I would have pulled the book too , although I would have made an attempt to contact the copyright holder with their mistake , but even then , they might have been held over the barrel ( essentially extorted in the talks ) .
Their error , compounded by a second one , but if they were before a trial judge and found guilty for NOT pulling the works once they were aware it infringed...does the DMCA apply , and how would you have handled customers also be in the gunsights ? What would you be saying if they got to a judge that demanded Amazon provide them with a list of all who owned the illegal , electronic work , so the publisher could go MPAA/RIAA on them ?
Ended up searching those people 's homes , since they would have been in receipt of illegal copies that Amazon may have alerted them to in the first place before removing them so they backed up their stuff ?
That would have been a greater cluster fuck than a bunch of stupid , whiny internet holier than thous bashing Amazon months after a single issue in , what , 4 years ? In the current legal climate , Amazon 's actions make a shitload more sense than them doing nothing .
It puts the fault entirely on them .
You want to bash them for it , good , that 's why they did it , but do n't tell me Amazon totally mishandled the 1984 issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Amazon is apparently the sole distributor of the authorized electronic version of these books"Apparently not.
Well, I'd better ask what you mean by "these books.
"  Most works I've bought for my Kindle are also available for Sony's ereader.Also, isn't the "sole distributor" thing really left up to the publisher and author, who decides which platform they want?
They can certainly choose to sell on the Nook and Sony's, as many authors do.
That's the point of "copyright.
"  Amazon doesn't hold it; the monopoly to the work is the copyright holder, not Amazon's.But nice try.
I think are a merely misinformed Amazon basher.
"They apparently have unquestionable control over whether or not they'll even be available for purchase,"Harry Potter books aren't available for the Kindle, or at least, they weren't for years.
This is one of the author's mentioned in the article summary.
So it's not up to Amazon.A couple of titles (Burning Chrome, Mona Lisa Overdrive), are not available in ebook format.
How come?
Author or publisher.Sort of shoots the whole "unquestionable control" by Amazon.
So you're wrong again.And there's also the fact that any publisher can put their works up separate from any ebook platform.
Isn't that what O"Reilly has done with Safari and their epub and pdf format ebooks?
Hardly Amazon forcing anyone do to anything.
Amazon sells O'Reilly books still, cheaper than O'Reilly does too.
"This is another reason I loathe DRM.
"You are aware that Amazon's DRM is like DVD DRM?
BROKEPC version or downloaded to the PC from the device, your choice.
Owned."(viz the 1984 kerfuffle).
"Which has nothing to do with the Macmillan situation.Which Amazon apologized for and realized was a stupid move.
And, which, most people don't seem to realize Amazon's move insulated their customers wholesale, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.The mention of this is more you not liking ebooks in general or bashing Amazon, not because you are being level-headed for the situation.
Pray tell, how would you have handled the 1984 issue?
This is a sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Amazon sold unauthorized, illegal copies.
They had a list of everyone it was sold to obviously.
They were open to civil, electronic, DMCA, and criminal statutes.
Prosecutors, litigators, the judge could have asked for a list.What would you have done?
No question Amazon should have handled it better, but I would have pulled the book too, although I would have made an attempt to contact the copyright holder with their mistake, but even then, they might have been held over the barrel (essentially extorted in the talks).
Their error, compounded by a second one, but if they were before a trial judge and found guilty for NOT pulling the works once they were aware it infringed...does the DMCA apply, and how would you have handled customers also be in the gunsights?What would you be saying if they got to a judge that demanded Amazon provide them with a list of all who owned the illegal, electronic work, so the publisher could go MPAA/RIAA on them?
Ended up searching those people's homes, since they would have been in receipt of illegal copies that Amazon may have alerted them to in the first place before removing them so they backed up their stuff?
That would have been a greater cluster fuck than a bunch of stupid, whiny internet holier than thous bashing Amazon months after a single issue in, what, 4 years?In the current legal climate, Amazon's actions make a shitload more sense than them doing nothing.
It puts the fault entirely on them.
You want to bash them for it, good, that's why they did it, but don't tell me Amazon totally mishandled the 1984 issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046414</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Amazon believes that publishers are demanding unreasonable pricing for ebooks, because they want to kill the ebook market, then it makes perfect sense that Amazon might want to put a crimp on the publisher's paper book market, don't you think? LIke I said in my OP, Amazon isn't the only party in this negotiation, and they are not the only party playing hardball. Publishers are trying to quash a disruptive technology (that's the speculation anyway), and Amazon is pushing back - which makes sense, because for a retailer, moving ebooks is much easier than packaging and shipping real books. So far, to me, this appears to be an example of markets behaving exactly as you'd hope they would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Amazon believes that publishers are demanding unreasonable pricing for ebooks , because they want to kill the ebook market , then it makes perfect sense that Amazon might want to put a crimp on the publisher 's paper book market , do n't you think ?
LIke I said in my OP , Amazon is n't the only party in this negotiation , and they are not the only party playing hardball .
Publishers are trying to quash a disruptive technology ( that 's the speculation anyway ) , and Amazon is pushing back - which makes sense , because for a retailer , moving ebooks is much easier than packaging and shipping real books .
So far , to me , this appears to be an example of markets behaving exactly as you 'd hope they would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Amazon believes that publishers are demanding unreasonable pricing for ebooks, because they want to kill the ebook market, then it makes perfect sense that Amazon might want to put a crimp on the publisher's paper book market, don't you think?
LIke I said in my OP, Amazon isn't the only party in this negotiation, and they are not the only party playing hardball.
Publishers are trying to quash a disruptive technology (that's the speculation anyway), and Amazon is pushing back - which makes sense, because for a retailer, moving ebooks is much easier than packaging and shipping real books.
So far, to me, this appears to be an example of markets behaving exactly as you'd hope they would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046272</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon sucks anyway.</title>
	<author>rjiy</author>
	<datestamp>1265479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would I want to kill whole trees just for a few hours of entertainment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I want to kill whole trees just for a few hours of entertainment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I want to kill whole trees just for a few hours of entertainment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051144</id>
	<title>Re:"cheap" $9.99 books?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265536680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please remember this every time you say anything about what something \_should\_ cost: An item's price is what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The cost of production is only a lower bound on the price (at least if you wish to remain profitable). Amazon thinks that people who buy a $260 device are willing to fork over $9.99 per book to be able to make use of it. It's not that unreasonable, and <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/145334/2009/12/amazon\_ebooksales.html" title="macworld.com" rel="nofollow">e-book sales numbers</a> [macworld.com] show that it might be true. Whether it will continue to be so is yet to be seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please remember this every time you say anything about what something \ _should \ _ cost : An item 's price is what the buyer is willing to pay for it .
The cost of production is only a lower bound on the price ( at least if you wish to remain profitable ) .
Amazon thinks that people who buy a $ 260 device are willing to fork over $ 9.99 per book to be able to make use of it .
It 's not that unreasonable , and e-book sales numbers [ macworld.com ] show that it might be true .
Whether it will continue to be so is yet to be seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please remember this every time you say anything about what something \_should\_ cost: An item's price is what the buyer is willing to pay for it.
The cost of production is only a lower bound on the price (at least if you wish to remain profitable).
Amazon thinks that people who buy a $260 device are willing to fork over $9.99 per book to be able to make use of it.
It's not that unreasonable, and e-book sales numbers [macworld.com] show that it might be true.
Whether it will continue to be so is yet to be seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31095278</id>
	<title>Macmillan is only being greedy.</title>
	<author>N3tRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265042340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Macmillan was simply feeling greedy because they were offered a sweeter deal from Apple for their iPad ebook store. Amazon shouldn't be forced to raise the price on electronic books that don't cost any more today than they did when the deal was made in the first place. No matter what their evil practices may be, I'm with Amazon on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Macmillan was simply feeling greedy because they were offered a sweeter deal from Apple for their iPad ebook store .
Amazon should n't be forced to raise the price on electronic books that do n't cost any more today than they did when the deal was made in the first place .
No matter what their evil practices may be , I 'm with Amazon on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Macmillan was simply feeling greedy because they were offered a sweeter deal from Apple for their iPad ebook store.
Amazon shouldn't be forced to raise the price on electronic books that don't cost any more today than they did when the deal was made in the first place.
No matter what their evil practices may be, I'm with Amazon on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049342</id>
	<title>E-book consumers aren't that happy either</title>
	<author>Robotech\_Master</author>
	<datestamp>1265464380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, it's generated ill-will on the part of e-book consumers, too, many of whom feel this whole thing is yet another instance of the continued cluelessness over e-books that they've had to endure for the past ten years, and who feel that authors and publishers are deliberately ignoring them or misrepresenting their positions.</p><p>A couple of examples:</p><p><a href="http://www.teleread.org/2010/02/05/maybe-we-should-be-hurting-the-authors/" title="teleread.org">"Maybe we <i>should</i> be hurting the authors"</a> [teleread.org] by Ficbot<br><a href="http://www.teleread.org/2010/02/06/the-amazonmacmillan-blow-up-an-e-book-lovers-appeal-for-understanding/" title="teleread.org">"The Amazon/Macmillan blow-up: An e-book lover's appeal for understanding"</a> [teleread.org] by me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , it 's generated ill-will on the part of e-book consumers , too , many of whom feel this whole thing is yet another instance of the continued cluelessness over e-books that they 've had to endure for the past ten years , and who feel that authors and publishers are deliberately ignoring them or misrepresenting their positions.A couple of examples : " Maybe we should be hurting the authors " [ teleread.org ] by Ficbot " The Amazon/Macmillan blow-up : An e-book lover 's appeal for understanding " [ teleread.org ] by me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, it's generated ill-will on the part of e-book consumers, too, many of whom feel this whole thing is yet another instance of the continued cluelessness over e-books that they've had to endure for the past ten years, and who feel that authors and publishers are deliberately ignoring them or misrepresenting their positions.A couple of examples:"Maybe we should be hurting the authors" [teleread.org] by Ficbot"The Amazon/Macmillan blow-up: An e-book lover's appeal for understanding" [teleread.org] by me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640</id>
	<title>Re:Kill the DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265473200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an idea: enforce the calling of things by their proper name. i.e. making it illegal to use a "BUY NOW" button in these cases and force them to use a "LICENSE NOW" button instead. False advertising and all that jazz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an idea : enforce the calling of things by their proper name .
i.e. making it illegal to use a " BUY NOW " button in these cases and force them to use a " LICENSE NOW " button instead .
False advertising and all that jazz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an idea: enforce the calling of things by their proper name.
i.e. making it illegal to use a "BUY NOW" button in these cases and force them to use a "LICENSE NOW" button instead.
False advertising and all that jazz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046456</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... Epic Fail on RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authors and publishers want to be able to drop the price of the e-books to $4.99 after a period of time has passed since initial release. The want to be able to set the price between $4.99 and $14.99 ie new books by big authors released at the same time as hardcovers would cost $14.99 -- older e-books sold the same time as the paperback version could cost as little as $4.99</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors and publishers want to be able to drop the price of the e-books to $ 4.99 after a period of time has passed since initial release .
The want to be able to set the price between $ 4.99 and $ 14.99 ie new books by big authors released at the same time as hardcovers would cost $ 14.99 -- older e-books sold the same time as the paperback version could cost as little as $ 4.99</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors and publishers want to be able to drop the price of the e-books to $4.99 after a period of time has passed since initial release.
The want to be able to set the price between $4.99 and $14.99 ie new books by big authors released at the same time as hardcovers would cost $14.99 -- older e-books sold the same time as the paperback version could cost as little as $4.99</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046016</id>
	<title>When were the books restored?</title>
	<author>Joe Helfrich</author>
	<datestamp>1265476920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the link you posted to Charlie's diary, the book's still haven't been restored.  Was this done overnight, or did you fall for Amazon's statement that they were going to restore the books?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the link you posted to Charlie 's diary , the book 's still have n't been restored .
Was this done overnight , or did you fall for Amazon 's statement that they were going to restore the books ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the link you posted to Charlie's diary, the book's still haven't been restored.
Was this done overnight, or did you fall for Amazon's statement that they were going to restore the books?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046052</id>
	<title>Prepare to Troll in 3...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive the AC login, but I need to remain behind it as I work for Barnes &amp; Noble. Also, Disclaimer: I work for Barnes &amp; Noble.</p><p>With any ebook reader that you can attach to a computer, you have control over the ebook you've purchased. With a certain oddly named ereader in particular, you can move the ebook to your computer. Yes, it does still have DRM, which is regrettable, but you have control over the file. The Kindle is a licensed device where you view licensed content, and their Terms and Agreements spell that out, albeit it briefly.</p><p>This past Christmas, more ebooks were sold then physical books. I expect this year will have a thousand and one problems as publishers try to figure out how to place ebooks in their publishing schedule. There has been some talk about having the ebook be released at the same time as the trape paperback, as to not impact hardcover sales as much as they have. Although this would alienate a very large reading audience, such actions have occurred before when companies look to their bottom line.</p><p>Authors make money from their up front payments, bookstores make money from their bargain sections. The publisher sets the price of the books when they are released, and they make their money by selling X number of books. When you buy a book in the trade section of a bookstore, almost every cent of that goes to the publisher. Ebooks don't return the same numbers as trade books to the publisher, but I am unsure of the specifics of that.</p><p>We'll see how it goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive the AC login , but I need to remain behind it as I work for Barnes &amp; Noble .
Also , Disclaimer : I work for Barnes &amp; Noble.With any ebook reader that you can attach to a computer , you have control over the ebook you 've purchased .
With a certain oddly named ereader in particular , you can move the ebook to your computer .
Yes , it does still have DRM , which is regrettable , but you have control over the file .
The Kindle is a licensed device where you view licensed content , and their Terms and Agreements spell that out , albeit it briefly.This past Christmas , more ebooks were sold then physical books .
I expect this year will have a thousand and one problems as publishers try to figure out how to place ebooks in their publishing schedule .
There has been some talk about having the ebook be released at the same time as the trape paperback , as to not impact hardcover sales as much as they have .
Although this would alienate a very large reading audience , such actions have occurred before when companies look to their bottom line.Authors make money from their up front payments , bookstores make money from their bargain sections .
The publisher sets the price of the books when they are released , and they make their money by selling X number of books .
When you buy a book in the trade section of a bookstore , almost every cent of that goes to the publisher .
Ebooks do n't return the same numbers as trade books to the publisher , but I am unsure of the specifics of that.We 'll see how it goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive the AC login, but I need to remain behind it as I work for Barnes &amp; Noble.
Also, Disclaimer: I work for Barnes &amp; Noble.With any ebook reader that you can attach to a computer, you have control over the ebook you've purchased.
With a certain oddly named ereader in particular, you can move the ebook to your computer.
Yes, it does still have DRM, which is regrettable, but you have control over the file.
The Kindle is a licensed device where you view licensed content, and their Terms and Agreements spell that out, albeit it briefly.This past Christmas, more ebooks were sold then physical books.
I expect this year will have a thousand and one problems as publishers try to figure out how to place ebooks in their publishing schedule.
There has been some talk about having the ebook be released at the same time as the trape paperback, as to not impact hardcover sales as much as they have.
Although this would alienate a very large reading audience, such actions have occurred before when companies look to their bottom line.Authors make money from their up front payments, bookstores make money from their bargain sections.
The publisher sets the price of the books when they are released, and they make their money by selling X number of books.
When you buy a book in the trade section of a bookstore, almost every cent of that goes to the publisher.
Ebooks don't return the same numbers as trade books to the publisher, but I am unsure of the specifics of that.We'll see how it goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049130</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>GryMor</author>
	<datestamp>1265462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the rates you quoted \% of list price, \% of wholesale price or \% of retail price?</p><p>If a retailer, after paying the normal wholesale price for one of your wife's books, drops the retail price to the wholesale price, does this increase your cash flow from increased units or decrease it from some wacky royalties of retail price clause?</p><p>From my perspective, what Macmillan is up to feels like some of the dirty tricks Holywood pulls to cut down on the amount of royalties they need to pay after the fact. I really hope I'm wrong, as I'm not seeing how Amazon has the leverage to stop it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the rates you quoted \ % of list price , \ % of wholesale price or \ % of retail price ? If a retailer , after paying the normal wholesale price for one of your wife 's books , drops the retail price to the wholesale price , does this increase your cash flow from increased units or decrease it from some wacky royalties of retail price clause ? From my perspective , what Macmillan is up to feels like some of the dirty tricks Holywood pulls to cut down on the amount of royalties they need to pay after the fact .
I really hope I 'm wrong , as I 'm not seeing how Amazon has the leverage to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the rates you quoted \% of list price, \% of wholesale price or \% of retail price?If a retailer, after paying the normal wholesale price for one of your wife's books, drops the retail price to the wholesale price, does this increase your cash flow from increased units or decrease it from some wacky royalties of retail price clause?From my perspective, what Macmillan is up to feels like some of the dirty tricks Holywood pulls to cut down on the amount of royalties they need to pay after the fact.
I really hope I'm wrong, as I'm not seeing how Amazon has the leverage to stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation.  If they don't like the terms of the negotiation, they don't have to accept them.  Are they supposed to sell books no matter what the terms are?  This is a lot of hot air about nothing.  It's simple, really.  If authors don't like their publisher, if publishers don't like Amazon - they can go elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation .
If they do n't like the terms of the negotiation , they do n't have to accept them .
Are they supposed to sell books no matter what the terms are ?
This is a lot of hot air about nothing .
It 's simple , really .
If authors do n't like their publisher , if publishers do n't like Amazon - they can go elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is one party in a two party negotiation.
If they don't like the terms of the negotiation, they don't have to accept them.
Are they supposed to sell books no matter what the terms are?
This is a lot of hot air about nothing.
It's simple, really.
If authors don't like their publisher, if publishers don't like Amazon - they can go elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049548</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1265466600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon wants to sell eBooks, and cheap books sell better than expensive ones (big shocker, right?).</p></div><p>I know that's the end goal, but I don't think that's the motivation behind their current fight with the publishers.</p><p>Having read one of the linked author's statements, I think he's being very short-sighted.  He talks about how his books sell an order of magnitude less in eBook form than they do in print. But that's because the market is still small...only a small percentage of readers have eBook readers. As people have pointed out in previous Kindle discussions, the initial outlay of money is substantial and it takes a lot of savings on eBooks to recoup that initial cost. The number 1 question I get from people who don't have a Kindle about my Kindle isn't about the experience of using it or anything to do with the device itself. The question I get is, "How much are books and which books are available?"</p><p>If publishers are allowed to set whatever prices they want for their books, the answer to that question becomes more complicated and people are discouraged from buying eBook readers. But by pushing for a standard upper price limit, Amazon is trying to increase the number of people with an eBook reader. And if they're successful and a large percentage of the potential buyers of a book have an eBook reader, the authors will find that the order of magnitude difference between the two formats will all but disappear if not becoming reversed. Once the market exists, it won't matter what prices are charged so long as they're sufficiently discounted from the dead tree edition. But if Amazon allows the price variance now, the time it takes to reach that state will increase and we'll continue to see paper books outsell eBooks by a large margin.</p><p>As you've mentioned, the author's cut for eBooks should be fairly similar to their cut on a traditional book. The difference will be the cut taken by the publishers and the book sellers. I see this as a struggle between traditional production and distribution and Amazon and the other digital distributors. Amazon wants the future to be now and they are pushing the Kindle to create the market for digital distribution. Publishers see how this will marginalize them and are fighting it. As a Kindle owner, I'm happy to see lower prices, but I have no illusion that Amazon is fighting this for the benefit of customers like me. To say so is disingenuous. But it's just as disingenuous for publishers to explain their position by claiming they're fighting for authors. The reality is that authors and readers are the only two sympathetic parties in the system and both sides have justified their actions by appealing to people sympathy towards those two groups when it's really just greed on their part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon wants to sell eBooks , and cheap books sell better than expensive ones ( big shocker , right ?
) .I know that 's the end goal , but I do n't think that 's the motivation behind their current fight with the publishers.Having read one of the linked author 's statements , I think he 's being very short-sighted .
He talks about how his books sell an order of magnitude less in eBook form than they do in print .
But that 's because the market is still small...only a small percentage of readers have eBook readers .
As people have pointed out in previous Kindle discussions , the initial outlay of money is substantial and it takes a lot of savings on eBooks to recoup that initial cost .
The number 1 question I get from people who do n't have a Kindle about my Kindle is n't about the experience of using it or anything to do with the device itself .
The question I get is , " How much are books and which books are available ?
" If publishers are allowed to set whatever prices they want for their books , the answer to that question becomes more complicated and people are discouraged from buying eBook readers .
But by pushing for a standard upper price limit , Amazon is trying to increase the number of people with an eBook reader .
And if they 're successful and a large percentage of the potential buyers of a book have an eBook reader , the authors will find that the order of magnitude difference between the two formats will all but disappear if not becoming reversed .
Once the market exists , it wo n't matter what prices are charged so long as they 're sufficiently discounted from the dead tree edition .
But if Amazon allows the price variance now , the time it takes to reach that state will increase and we 'll continue to see paper books outsell eBooks by a large margin.As you 've mentioned , the author 's cut for eBooks should be fairly similar to their cut on a traditional book .
The difference will be the cut taken by the publishers and the book sellers .
I see this as a struggle between traditional production and distribution and Amazon and the other digital distributors .
Amazon wants the future to be now and they are pushing the Kindle to create the market for digital distribution .
Publishers see how this will marginalize them and are fighting it .
As a Kindle owner , I 'm happy to see lower prices , but I have no illusion that Amazon is fighting this for the benefit of customers like me .
To say so is disingenuous .
But it 's just as disingenuous for publishers to explain their position by claiming they 're fighting for authors .
The reality is that authors and readers are the only two sympathetic parties in the system and both sides have justified their actions by appealing to people sympathy towards those two groups when it 's really just greed on their part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon wants to sell eBooks, and cheap books sell better than expensive ones (big shocker, right?
).I know that's the end goal, but I don't think that's the motivation behind their current fight with the publishers.Having read one of the linked author's statements, I think he's being very short-sighted.
He talks about how his books sell an order of magnitude less in eBook form than they do in print.
But that's because the market is still small...only a small percentage of readers have eBook readers.
As people have pointed out in previous Kindle discussions, the initial outlay of money is substantial and it takes a lot of savings on eBooks to recoup that initial cost.
The number 1 question I get from people who don't have a Kindle about my Kindle isn't about the experience of using it or anything to do with the device itself.
The question I get is, "How much are books and which books are available?
"If publishers are allowed to set whatever prices they want for their books, the answer to that question becomes more complicated and people are discouraged from buying eBook readers.
But by pushing for a standard upper price limit, Amazon is trying to increase the number of people with an eBook reader.
And if they're successful and a large percentage of the potential buyers of a book have an eBook reader, the authors will find that the order of magnitude difference between the two formats will all but disappear if not becoming reversed.
Once the market exists, it won't matter what prices are charged so long as they're sufficiently discounted from the dead tree edition.
But if Amazon allows the price variance now, the time it takes to reach that state will increase and we'll continue to see paper books outsell eBooks by a large margin.As you've mentioned, the author's cut for eBooks should be fairly similar to their cut on a traditional book.
The difference will be the cut taken by the publishers and the book sellers.
I see this as a struggle between traditional production and distribution and Amazon and the other digital distributors.
Amazon wants the future to be now and they are pushing the Kindle to create the market for digital distribution.
Publishers see how this will marginalize them and are fighting it.
As a Kindle owner, I'm happy to see lower prices, but I have no illusion that Amazon is fighting this for the benefit of customers like me.
To say so is disingenuous.
But it's just as disingenuous for publishers to explain their position by claiming they're fighting for authors.
The reality is that authors and readers are the only two sympathetic parties in the system and both sides have justified their actions by appealing to people sympathy towards those two groups when it's really just greed on their part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31060462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_1435225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31051144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31047466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31048364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31049558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31060462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_1435225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31045640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31053060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_1435225.31046664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
