Re: Monopoly vs Cartel
> operating an unofficial price-fixing arrangement as used to operate in all Western countries (and still operates in places like France)
Bollocks. No place has a "prefered nation" clause like the one that got Apple in hot water.
> Amazon demands massive discounts on the books it sells. That means the authors see their income collapse by the same percentage
The relationship between sale price and author remuneration depends entirely on the editor, and then on your contract with the editor.
> (we tend to be paid based on net receipts)
Who's your editor? Most contracts I've seen are of the "variable upfront payment + small amount per copy sold"; I don't think I've ever seen one that actually mentionned the editor's net income. But obviously I haven't seen them all.
> So personally I'd infinitely prefer to see Apple and others being allowed to set their prices at an economically sustainable level.
It's not what Apple and others were caught for. Don't be fooled, the agency model they were going for would have allowed Apple to pressure the editors as much if not more than what Amazon is doing. Amazon is driving the price down (partially) by subsidizing the books (selling at a loss), which means that the publisher is getting more money than what the end customer pays. Apple would have driven the prices down by pushing for a lower price from the editors (while keeping a bigger cut for themselves, of course). That's demonstrably worst for the customer and potentially worst for the publisher too (although it could be better for the publisher, depending on how benevolent and selfless Apple would feel).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
