That Guardian Article and the BULLSHIT THAT WILL NOT DIE.
Folks have been discussing this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/25/new-amazon-terms-book-industry-report-concessions
There are a lot of different aspects under discussion right now, but I want to concentrate on this quote: "It's generally accepted that ebooks should cost customers less than the corresponding print edition - in digital there is no printing, freight, warehousing, or returns."
Sounds reasonable, but I've talked about this before: http://barbarienne.livejournal.com/423025.html
(Go read it. It's long, but thorough. But please come back here to comment, rather than on the older post, thanks.)
In some percentage of cases, publishers are already giving the ebook consumer all that discount and then some.
But okay, let's assume there are lots books where the ebook price is still kinda high compared to the print price. (Though a quick perusal of B&N just showed me it's hard to find a title where the ebook isn't at least a little lower than the print price--and I mean sale price, not list price--and often at least 15% lower.)
Why should the readers get all the discount?
Why shouldn't the authors get a taste of that extra pie?* In that same Guardian article, The Society of Authors chief executive Nicola Solomon says, "...namely, that the author is the only 100% essential component in the creation of a book. But retailers are taking a larger chunk of any income, and publishers are taking a larger chunk of any income, so the share of income which makes its way to the author is forever shrinking."
So, you know, even if publishers did the dead-on rational thing and sold ebooks for 15% off print book list price (per my earlier blog post), they're screwing the authors. Part of the money the reader is saving is money that would otherwise go to the author (because the royalty is calculated on the price of the book).
Some authors, I understand, are successfully agitating for a higher percentage royalty on ebooks. I don't know how many are winning that fight, or what percentage they're actually getting. (I expect publishers are much more willing to give concessions to the big bestsellers, less so to midlisters--that's pretty much how it goes for all author demands.)
So the question becomes, Readers, do you really want to take ALL the savings of an ebook? Or are you willing to share a little of that with the author who wrote it and probably isn't making even minimum wage for it if calculated on an hourly basis?
*And of course publishers would like to keep it for their stockholders. But screw that. I would like to see them give better wages to their employees. Publishing traditionally pays shit, which is one of the reasons it's a bastion of white women. The only way to keep ahead of the increasing cost of living is to switch companies often, and/or get promotions.