Apple, publishers agree to settle EU e-book price-fixing inquiry

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member


    I have seen allegations that exactly this sort of scenario in the music industry was the real reason why Kim Dotcom was raided in NZ.  Apparently he had plans to set up a mechanism for artists to distribute and sell their work directly, bypassing the traditional music industry leeches.


     


    Authors don't need publishers any more now that e-books seem to be outselling physical ones.  Many authors now have their own sites and blogs and are just about doing their own promotion as well.  I don't think the agency model is necessarily in the long term interests of authors.

     

  • Reply 22 of 29
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


     


    After they've effectively killed off their competition?


     


    Good on 'em!  /sarcasm


     


    :shakeshead:



     


    What are you basing that on? Did they act too slow against Apple and the publishers?

  • Reply 23 of 29
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    russell wrote: »
    One more thing,...since Apple and publishers have agreed to settle, that means they were guilty.

    No, it doesn't. Not even close.

    When did "guilty until proven innocent" become the standard?
  • Reply 24 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,997member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    When did "guilty until proven innocent" become the standard?


    When it's Google being discussed? ;)


     


    Or perhaps when you claim Amazon is illegally using predatory pricing?

  • Reply 25 of 29

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    When it's Google being discussed? ;)


     


    Or perhaps when you claim Amazon is illegally using predatory pricing?



     


    Google has been proven guilty, many times over, of violating the law. Just because they used their money and influence to get, in most cases, settlements where they didn't have to admit wrongdoing, doesn't mean they haven't been proven guilty.


     


    On the other hand, equating this case with, for example, Google's illegal drug ads, or theft of copyrighted materials, is more than a little disingenuous since the nature of the cases is entirely different. I know you are paid to obscure the truth, but it's a stretch too far, even for you.

  • Reply 26 of 29
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    When it's Google being discussed? ;)

    Or perhaps when you claim Amazon is illegally using predatory pricing?

    Oh, look. Google guy is back with his usual misrepresentations.

    Where did I say that Amazon illegally used predatory pricing? I did state that they COULD - which is an obvious fact. I did not say that they were doing it.

    It's a shame that you didn't work on accuracy in your posts when you were in hiding.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,997member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Oh, look. Google guy is back with his usual misrepresentations.

    Where did I say that Amazon illegally used predatory pricing? I did state that they COULD - which is an obvious fact. I did not say that they were doing it.

    It's a shame that you didn't work on accuracy in your posts when you were in hiding.


    Wrong again Joe. You said it here:


    They publicly admit that they were selling an entire category of products at below their cost. That's predatory pricing.


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150167/briefly-simon-schuster-settles-9m-galaxy-s-iii-preorders-10-1-kindle-fire#post_2112458


     


    and here:


    So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150097/judge-denies-apple-publishers-motion-to-dismiss-e-book-civil-suit#post_2111162


     


    and here, the most clear-cut accusation you made in my three minute search:


    So why are you attacking Apple rather than Amazon which was clearly guilty of illegal predatory pricing?


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150074/court-documents-reveal-steve-jobs-email-pushing-e-book-agency-model#post_2110203


     


    I can find more. Rather than blurting out stuff about me "misrepresenting" what you've written, perhaps you'd be more accurate by spending a few minutes to check what you've actually said. If you really believe the things you post it shouldn't be difficult to tell whether you would have likely said something along those lines, and only takes a minute or two to confirm whether you did or not with a forum search.


     


    Now with that said, your admonishment to "Russell" about assuming someone "guilty until proven innocent" seems a bit misplaced doesn't it (pot, kettle and all that)?

  • Reply 28 of 29
    The difference between your reply to jragosta and your signature is...I don't know, strange (not touching the issue of your or his post here)
  • Reply 29 of 29

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    No, it doesn't. Not even close.

    When did "guilty until proven innocent" become the standard?


     


    Apple and publishers are settling now because they don't want to go to trial. They are not confident they will be proven innocent.

Sign In or Register to comment.