Ethically, the question is whether publishers like Macmillion have the right to force retailers such as Amazon to sell their products at a certain price. Under Locke’s natural law of property, it would appear that such a request would be ethical. Considering that publishers labor into their e-books by translating it from print sources and making it compatible with certain devices, publishers certainly have private property rights to their e-books and can use them when conducting exchange. Then by extension, when both parties enter an agreement and the publisher exchanges money, what Locke considers as labor value, for retailer’s labor of selling their products, it would make sense that the price of sale goes under this agreement. Thus, under Locke's idea of money and labor value, it would seems that Amazon should either oblige to the publisher’s demands or otherwise or break off the agreement. While we’ve discussed the tacit agreement of money as labor value, it would interesting to see how Locke would define a legal agreement and the elements that would make it fair and ethical.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Locke in the news
On January 30, the New York Times released an article regarding the dispute between Amazon.com and Macmillion books. Amazon.com began to temporarily remove Macmillian printed books and e-books from their online store due to disputes over the pricing of e-books on the site. It appears that tension between publishers and Amazon have been brewing for months as publishers have been withholding certain e-book editions after the release of printed editions. Macmillion, one of America’s six largest publishers, states that it had been planning to set higher consumer prices for e-books like other publishers and asked Amazon to raise the price of e-books to around $15 from $9.99. Amazon argues that this type of pricing puts them at a disadvantage because it has strategically sold e-books at the $9.99 price point in hopes that it would supplement the sales of their Kindle devices. Publishers argue that leaving e-books at the $9.99 severely devalues their product. It seems that with the introduction of the Apple’s iPad tablet, which has agreed with publishers to set e-books at a similar price on their iBookstore, Amazon will even more competition in the market of e-books.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that Locke would side with the publisher. According to Locke, the publisher has a right to increase the prices listed on Amazon so that it reflect the labor that was put to make the e-book. But like many products, the prices that a company lists are probably overpriced. Companies want to make a profit so they increase the price of the product so that it is higher than the price it took to make that product. However, with amazon and the publisher, they are each looking out for their own self-interest so it may take a bit of negotiation for them to agree on an appropriate price that caters to both and that adequately represents the e-books labor value.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree , I believe that Locke would side with Amazon, at the point of exchange the books are now the property of Amazon simply because they have placed all of their labor into the sale of these e-books. Yes, the publishers created the product, but that business is extremely competitive and in order for the bottom line to be met you have to find new and innovative ways to instill labor. I believe Locke would agree with innovation.
ReplyDeleteI too would agree...I think that it's pretty unfair to the publisher, as they set out publishing the book with the assumption that they would make back the full value of the book, and this devaluation of their product clearly prevents that. Once this happens the authors will no doubt be hurt as well, as the publishers will not have money to pay them royalties.
ReplyDeleteI understand the idea of having a competitively priced product, especially in the eBook market, but this is incredibly unfair to almost everyone involved. I have no doubt that Locke would side with Amazon as well, because the true labor in question is that of Amazon.