No, that's not monopolistic. Furthermore, I'd love to see the support for your claim that Apple has 80% of the music market. I'm also still waiting for your evidence that Apple did anything wrong.
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.
I hardly think that music-download-review.toptenreviews.com can be considered an authoritative source for Apple's share of the digital music market, nor, even assuming an 80% share, does it indicate that Apple a) has a monopoly in digital music, or b) that they are behaving anti-competitively. In fact, record labels often cut special deals with Amazon, where Amazon is offered better terms than Apple. Are you saying that Amazon and the record labels are colluding?
But, more to the point, it's irrelevant to the discussion. What Apple is doing in music has no bearing on what Amazon is doing in books. An argument that "Apple does it too", while wrong in and of itself, a) doesn't make it ok for Amazon to do it and b) it admits that Amazon is in fact engaged in anti-competitive behavior, by your statement that Apple is and your argument that we give them a pass so why not Amazon, which doesn't really advance your overall argument, unless you are suggesting that we should all just turn a blind eye to Amazon's monopoly, like the DoJ.
http://music-download-review.toptenreviews.com/itunes-review.html
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.
It would help if you made an argument and stuck to it.
First, you claimed that Apple has 80% of the music industry. That's clearly false. You then said that they're the biggest retailer in music. That may or may not be true, but 'largest' doesn't make you a monopoly. If it did, then McDonald's would have a monopoly on fast food and Toyota would have a monopoly on transportation. Clearly, that's false. Then you changed your story and you're now claiming that Apple has 80% of digital downloads. That's largely irrelevant since "digital downloads" is not a market by itself.
So, again, what specific market do you believe Apple has monopolized?
I hardly think that music-download-review.toptenreviews.com can be considered an authoritative source for Apple's share of the digital music market, nor, even assuming an 80% share, does it indicate that Apple a) has a monopoly in digital music, or b) that they are behaving anti-competitively. In fact, record labels often cut special deals with Amazon, where Amazon is offered better terms than Apple. Are you saying that Amazon and the record labels are colluding?
But, more to the point, it's irrelevant to the discussion. What Apple is doing in music has no bearing on what Amazon is doing in books. An argument that "Apple does it too", while wrong in and of itself, a) doesn't make it ok for Amazon to do it and b) it admits that Amazon is in fact engaged in anti-competitive behavior, by your statement that Apple is and your argument that we give them a pass so why not Amazon, which doesn't really advance your overall argument, unless you are suggesting that we should all just turn a blind eye to Amazon's monopoly, like the DoJ.
I never once accused Apple of any wrong doing, just as Amazon has never being bought up on charges of predatory pricing nor for being a monopoly. There's a lot of accusations on here that Amazon did this and that, accusations that have not been bought to court by neither Apple, the publishers, nor the DoJ.
I went much further than saying there wasn't anyone being charged with a crime. I said there was no one even claiming to be the victim of a crime. It isn't as if Apple, who certainly isn't shy with a lawsuit, has contended that Amazon has monopoly status and that they would be unable to be competitive in the marketplace. The publishers never claimed this either. The agency model came into place because Apple wanted 30% and the publishers wanted higher e-book prices to prop up hardcover book sales. The claim that Amazon was taking losses and hurting others has been repeated but never proven nor have I even heard anyone mention any claimant.
Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?
"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."
Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?
Barnes & Noble has opposed the settlement and lawsuit on exactly those grounds. Apple and the publishers with the courage to not give in to the DoJ's bullying tactics are fighting the charges on exactly those grounds. And, although you disingenuously tried to limit the scope of your question to e-books (an entirely artificial limitation), Amazon's tactics have clearly affected Borders, in particular, as well as thousands of independent booksellers.
Aside from ignoring all cases where someone has declared that Amazon's practices monopolistic and tending toward eliminating all competition, can you find any evidence, anywhere, that supports your (baseless) assertion that Amazon wasn't exercising monopoly power in bookselling and won't revert to those practices if granted a sanctioned monopoly with government dictated term imposed on publishers?
The bottom line here is that the DoJ is handing Amazon the book industry on a silver platter.
B&N simply appears to want the agency model to still be available. They don't dispute the collusion and have in fact, benefited from it seeing how they more than two years late to the e-reader game. However their primary reason in opposing all of this is pretty clear. They endorse the old model, still profit from it and want things to be more expensive and slow down so they can catch up with the change.
Barnes & Nobile warns that such a drastic step will particularly devastate brick-and-mortar stores, relegating them to act as "free advertising and [book] showrooms" that are bound to collapse trying to compete with Amazon's wholesale pricing structure.
So you found a brick and mortar retailer who is having trouble and is showing resistance to becoming an e-tailer. That's honestly better effort than most around here show in attempting to prove your points so good half-credit job! Now have a good read on this as well and see why Uncle Charlie is full of crap. Take a note at these three in particular.
In case you're wondering how seriously the DOJ is taking this case, the evidence in the complaint includes details of when publishing CEOs called each other and for how long. Yes, the government went and got phone records.
Apple's US agency deals all took effect on April 3, 2010 with the release of the original iPad.
Every other major ebook retailer was forced into agency deals within four months, including Amazon. The key provision was Apple's "most favored nation" pricing clause — Eddy Cue told Apple exec Pete Alcorn that "any decent MFN forces the model."
Eddie Cue is mentioned throughout the DOJ complaint and clearly they have call records, emails, etc. from him on these matters.
"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."
From your link.
So Amazon can take 65% if they want.
That seems so much fairer than Apple's 30%. /s
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
It would help if you made an argument and stuck to it.
First, you claimed that Apple has 80% of the music industry. That's clearly false. You then said that they're the biggest retailer in music. That may or may not be true, but 'largest' doesn't make you a monopoly. If it did, then McDonald's would have a monopoly on fast food and Toyota would have a monopoly on transportation. Clearly, that's false. Then you changed your story and you're now claiming that Apple has 80% of digital downloads. That's largely irrelevant since "digital downloads" is not a market by itself.
So, again, what specific market do you believe Apple has monopolized?
Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.
Funny, I am an avid reader and will probably go through more books this year than you will in your lifetime(Im being generous in assuming you have picked up a book before). You do realize (most)paperbacks on amazon are buy 3 get the 4th free? So essentially there is another 25% discount, on top of the already cheaper price. What I am saying is that your using paperback books as your arguing point when the point was new release books is invalid. Instead of ignoring my other point, look up the top selling hardback fiction and compare those prices.
An lets look at these paperbacks. Be reasonable here, is there any reason I should be able to buy a new paperback book cheaper than I can buy the same ebook? There is no printing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost, no overprint costs etc. Yet, by your argument, that 9.99 for those books is completely reasonable and is a positive result of this "increased competition"? Yes, I know, they have to keep track of who purchased what and who has the right to download this and that, but that is still far cheaper than the logistics involved in printing books.
You can also get them from a library for free.
The point is this whole DoJ fiasco is based solely on the pricing of "Best Sellers" and the contention of whoever mysteriously raised the complaint behind the scenes, that they would cost more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging at the time.
The top three current best sellers, as decided by the New York Times are $9.99 in the iBooks store.
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.
Hey, be a mate and pop down the Apple store and buy a CD for me.
Oh that's right, Apple only sells digital music.
What percentage of the banana market does Apple hold?
Which is just as relevant as their share of the non-digital music market.
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
So Amazon is price fixing.
No. Everything has some cost associated with it. While e-book costs are no where near the cost of physical books, there are still costs in managing, hosting, transmitting them, etc. If you read carefully, you would see that under the 70% option, Amazon charges for the download but with the 35% solution, they do not.
Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.
The link you provided said that they had an 80% share of the DIGITAL DOWNLOAD market. So by providing that link, you were obviously implying that it mattered.
The link you provided said that they had an 80% share of the DIGITAL DOWNLOAD market. So by providing that link, you were obviously implying that it mattered.
Furthermore, it's not hard to get real numbers. http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/total-global-music-sales-2006-2011/comments/83e46d946d4f11e1b60f000255111976.html
Total global music sales:
Physical - $20 B
Online - $7.5 B
Live - $23 B
Publishing - $9 B
Mobile $7.5 B
So even if Apple had 80% of online sales, that's still a small fraction of total music sales - and even a modest fraction of retail music sales.
Show me where it says digital download on the site. It reads "With almost an 80% market share in the digital music industry". 3 years ago they led with 25% of all music. Sorry that was the most recent info I could find.
Try it yourself; they pay 70% up to 9.99, dropping it back to 35% at $10, which means I make no more money for a $20 book than for a $10 book, which is infuriating; Apple gives you 70%, regardless of the price
The point is this whole DoJ fiasco is based solely on the pricing of "Best Sellers" and the contention of whoever mysteriously raised the complaint behind the scenes, that they would cost more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging at the time.
The top three current best sellers, as decided by the New York Times are $9.99 in the iBooks store.
That is inescapable reality.
Really, the whole contention is only that the "Best Sellers" ebook pricing changed? If you remember, when this occurred, there was an immediate price increase on the new release(new release being key, not best sellers) ranging from 20% to 70%. This occurred when 5 publishing houses all happened stop using the wholesale model and switched to the agency model. At the same time. And all of this happened when the iPad was released, and Steve announced ibooks and the fact that they had a most favored nation clause with ibooks. So yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think there was collusion. It was all just some crazy random chance.
How could I since Apple decimated all B&M music stores, and last I checked music on CDs is in digital format making it digital music.
So mate I'd rather pop you in the mouth and call it even.
The only thing you'll pop is the veins in your neck.
Now I don't know if Neanderthals can read but the point is Apple ONLY sell digital downloads, they have zero percent of OTHER digital forms of music, your apparent lack of understanding of this fact seems to be matched only by your misunderstanding of what "monopoly" means, the word, not the Parker Brothers game.
The only thing you'll pop is the veins in your neck.
Now I don't know if Neanderthals can read but the point is Apple ONLY sell digital downloads, they have zero percent of OTHER digital forms of music, your apparent lack of understanding of this fact seems to be matched only by your misunderstanding of what "monopoly" means, the word, not the Parker Brothers game.
His comment, as usual, places the "blame" incorrectly. Before the iTMS took off B&M stores were struggling because Amazon et al. online stores were very popular for selling CDs tax free and at wholesale prices. If Apple is guilty of anything with the iTMS it's helping make digitally distributed music simple enough that less people stole their music thus helping the labels prop up a transport method they were woefully prepared for.
PS: There is no evidence that any Neanderthal society had established a writing system so technically none, as best to our knowledge, could read. However, there is also no evidence to suggest that they didn't have the mental faculties to have learned to read had that been an option.
Oh, so I picked the wrong, small and very specific part of the eBook market.
So will there be a special law put in place, only for this limited range of titles or will the laws governing how businesses price their goods be applied industry wide?
Will Apple also be forced to keep 65% of a booksellers money, like Amazon does outside this very limited category.
Will people still be able to sell their books and keep 70% as they do now under the agency model?
When will the legislation go into effect?
Will it pass through government?
Will this be an election issue, the Government reserves the right to force businesses to accept their way or the highway.
When the government enacts legislation banning the agency model, how will this affect other industries?
Comments
http://music-download-review.toptenreviews.com/itunes-review.html
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
http://music-download-review.toptenreviews.com/itunes-review.html
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.
I hardly think that music-download-review.toptenreviews.com can be considered an authoritative source for Apple's share of the digital music market, nor, even assuming an 80% share, does it indicate that Apple a) has a monopoly in digital music, or b) that they are behaving anti-competitively. In fact, record labels often cut special deals with Amazon, where Amazon is offered better terms than Apple. Are you saying that Amazon and the record labels are colluding?
But, more to the point, it's irrelevant to the discussion. What Apple is doing in music has no bearing on what Amazon is doing in books. An argument that "Apple does it too", while wrong in and of itself, a) doesn't make it ok for Amazon to do it and b) it admits that Amazon is in fact engaged in anti-competitive behavior, by your statement that Apple is and your argument that we give them a pass so why not Amazon, which doesn't really advance your overall argument, unless you are suggesting that we should all just turn a blind eye to Amazon's monopoly, like the DoJ.
It would help if you made an argument and stuck to it.
First, you claimed that Apple has 80% of the music industry. That's clearly false. You then said that they're the biggest retailer in music. That may or may not be true, but 'largest' doesn't make you a monopoly. If it did, then McDonald's would have a monopoly on fast food and Toyota would have a monopoly on transportation. Clearly, that's false. Then you changed your story and you're now claiming that Apple has 80% of digital downloads. That's largely irrelevant since "digital downloads" is not a market by itself.
So, again, what specific market do you believe Apple has monopolized?
I never once accused Apple of any wrong doing, just as Amazon has never being bought up on charges of predatory pricing nor for being a monopoly. There's a lot of accusations on here that Amazon did this and that, accusations that have not been bought to court by neither Apple, the publishers, nor the DoJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I went much further than saying there wasn't anyone being charged with a crime. I said there was no one even claiming to be the victim of a crime. It isn't as if Apple, who certainly isn't shy with a lawsuit, has contended that Amazon has monopoly status and that they would be unable to be competitive in the marketplace. The publishers never claimed this either. The agency model came into place because Apple wanted 30% and the publishers wanted higher e-book prices to prop up hardcover book sales. The claim that Amazon was taking losses and hurting others has been repeated but never proven nor have I even heard anyone mention any claimant.
Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?
I find this claim strange because Hugh Howey specifically notes that the Amazon royalty rate doubles when you get out of the $0.99 area. Of course he is self-published. Amazon's own page on this matter seems to reflect a royalty rate of 70% and shows no upper limit on price.
What does this bit mean?
"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."
From your link.
So Amazon can take 65% if they want.
That seems so much fairer than Apple's 30%. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?
Barnes & Noble has opposed the settlement and lawsuit on exactly those grounds. Apple and the publishers with the courage to not give in to the DoJ's bullying tactics are fighting the charges on exactly those grounds. And, although you disingenuously tried to limit the scope of your question to e-books (an entirely artificial limitation), Amazon's tactics have clearly affected Borders, in particular, as well as thousands of independent booksellers.
Aside from ignoring all cases where someone has declared that Amazon's practices monopolistic and tending toward eliminating all competition, can you find any evidence, anywhere, that supports your (baseless) assertion that Amazon wasn't exercising monopoly power in bookselling and won't revert to those practices if granted a sanctioned monopoly with government dictated term imposed on publishers?
The bottom line here is that the DoJ is handing Amazon the book industry on a silver platter.
Good show and I'll give you half credit for your answer.
B&N simply appears to want the agency model to still be available. They don't dispute the collusion and have in fact, benefited from it seeing how they more than two years late to the e-reader game. However their primary reason in opposing all of this is pretty clear. They endorse the old model, still profit from it and want things to be more expensive and slow down so they can catch up with the change.
Barnes & Nobile warns that such a drastic step will particularly devastate brick-and-mortar stores, relegating them to act as "free advertising and [book] showrooms" that are bound to collapse trying to compete with Amazon's wholesale pricing structure.
So you found a brick and mortar retailer who is having trouble and is showing resistance to becoming an e-tailer. That's honestly better effort than most around here show in attempting to prove your points so good half-credit job! Now have a good read on this as well and see why Uncle Charlie is full of crap. Take a note at these three in particular.
In case you're wondering how seriously the DOJ is taking this case, the evidence in the complaint includes details of when publishing CEOs called each other and for how long. Yes, the government went and got phone records.
Apple's US agency deals all took effect on April 3, 2010 with the release of the original iPad.
Every other major ebook retailer was forced into agency deals within four months, including Amazon. The key provision was Apple's "most favored nation" pricing clause — Eddy Cue told Apple exec Pete Alcorn that "any decent MFN forces the model."
Eddie Cue is mentioned throughout the DOJ complaint and clearly they have call records, emails, etc. from him on these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
What does this bit mean?
"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."
From your link.
So Amazon can take 65% if they want.
That seems so much fairer than Apple's 30%. /s
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs
Funny, I am an avid reader and will probably go through more books this year than you will in your lifetime(Im being generous in assuming you have picked up a book before). You do realize (most)paperbacks on amazon are buy 3 get the 4th free? So essentially there is another 25% discount, on top of the already cheaper price. What I am saying is that your using paperback books as your arguing point when the point was new release books is invalid. Instead of ignoring my other point, look up the top selling hardback fiction and compare those prices.
An lets look at these paperbacks. Be reasonable here, is there any reason I should be able to buy a new paperback book cheaper than I can buy the same ebook? There is no printing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost, no overprint costs etc. Yet, by your argument, that 9.99 for those books is completely reasonable and is a positive result of this "increased competition"? Yes, I know, they have to keep track of who purchased what and who has the right to download this and that, but that is still far cheaper than the logistics involved in printing books.
You can also get them from a library for free.
The point is this whole DoJ fiasco is based solely on the pricing of "Best Sellers" and the contention of whoever mysteriously raised the complaint behind the scenes, that they would cost more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging at the time.
The top three current best sellers, as decided by the New York Times are $9.99 in the iBooks store.
That is inescapable reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
So Amazon is price fixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.
Hey, be a mate and pop down the Apple store and buy a CD for me.
Oh that's right, Apple only sells digital music.
What percentage of the banana market does Apple hold?
Which is just as relevant as their share of the non-digital music market.
How could I since Apple decimated all B&M music stores, and last I checked music on CDs is in digital format making it digital music.
So mate I'd rather pop you in the mouth and call it even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.
So Amazon is price fixing.
No. Everything has some cost associated with it. While e-book costs are no where near the cost of physical books, there are still costs in managing, hosting, transmitting them, etc. If you read carefully, you would see that under the 70% option, Amazon charges for the download but with the 35% solution, they do not.
The link you provided said that they had an 80% share of the DIGITAL DOWNLOAD market. So by providing that link, you were obviously implying that it mattered.
Furthermore, it's not hard to get real numbers.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/total-global-music-sales-2006-2011/comments/83e46d946d4f11e1b60f000255111976.html
Total global music sales:
Physical - $20 B
Online - $7.5 B
Live - $23 B
Publishing - $9 B
Mobile $7.5 B
So even if Apple had 80% of online sales, that's still a small fraction of total music sales - and even a modest fraction of retail music sales.
Show me where it says digital download on the site. It reads "With almost an 80% market share in the digital music industry". 3 years ago they led with 25% of all music. Sorry that was the most recent info I could find.
Try it yourself; they pay 70% up to 9.99, dropping it back to 35% at $10, which means I make no more money for a $20 book than for a $10 book, which is infuriating; Apple gives you 70%, regardless of the price
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You can also get them from a library for free.
The point is this whole DoJ fiasco is based solely on the pricing of "Best Sellers" and the contention of whoever mysteriously raised the complaint behind the scenes, that they would cost more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging at the time.
The top three current best sellers, as decided by the New York Times are $9.99 in the iBooks store.
That is inescapable reality.
Really, the whole contention is only that the "Best Sellers" ebook pricing changed? If you remember, when this occurred, there was an immediate price increase on the new release(new release being key, not best sellers) ranging from 20% to 70%. This occurred when 5 publishing houses all happened stop using the wholesale model and switched to the agency model. At the same time. And all of this happened when the iPad was released, and Steve announced ibooks and the fact that they had a most favored nation clause with ibooks. So yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think there was collusion. It was all just some crazy random chance.
The only thing you'll pop is the veins in your neck.
Now I don't know if Neanderthals can read but the point is Apple ONLY sell digital downloads, they have zero percent of OTHER digital forms of music, your apparent lack of understanding of this fact seems to be matched only by your misunderstanding of what "monopoly" means, the word, not the Parker Brothers game.
His comment, as usual, places the "blame" incorrectly. Before the iTMS took off B&M stores were struggling because Amazon et al. online stores were very popular for selling CDs tax free and at wholesale prices. If Apple is guilty of anything with the iTMS it's helping make digitally distributed music simple enough that less people stole their music thus helping the labels prop up a transport method they were woefully prepared for.
PS: There is no evidence that any Neanderthal society had established a writing system so technically none, as best to our knowledge, could read. However, there is also no evidence to suggest that they didn't have the mental faculties to have learned to read had that been an option.
Oh, so I picked the wrong, small and very specific part of the eBook market.
So will there be a special law put in place, only for this limited range of titles or will the laws governing how businesses price their goods be applied industry wide?
Will Apple also be forced to keep 65% of a booksellers money, like Amazon does outside this very limited category.
Will people still be able to sell their books and keep 70% as they do now under the agency model?
When will the legislation go into effect?
Will it pass through government?
Will this be an election issue, the Government reserves the right to force businesses to accept their way or the highway.
When the government enacts legislation banning the agency model, how will this affect other industries?