当道格拉斯·普雷斯顿穿上背心时结束制裁

奥林巴斯数码相机

整个周末, 作家联合 published its latest letter in the media sideshow that seems to be accompanying the on-going and protracted negotiations between 亚马孙 and big-five publisher Hachette. While Preston’一封信(代表一千多位阿切特和非阿切特作者) 变得越来越情绪化,超现实,彻头彻尾的可笑和尴尬,《纽约时报》和美国作家联合啦啦队长大卫·斯特雷特菲尔德似乎注定要接受 主流媒体偏见 尽可能 记者可以接受。确实,杂种作家 休·豪伊 描述了斯特雷特费尔德’s latest outbursts as ‘危险而卑鄙的。’

直到八月,我对普雷斯顿和他如此愿意代表的作家团队表示同情。一世’ve respect for 即使我不愿意将自己的头顶放在栏杆上以代表其他作者的人’不同意他们的观点。只有最党派的声音才会拒绝接受 一些作者为此感到痛苦,而且他们中的许多人距离普雷斯顿享有的职位和成功只有大约一百万英里。

但是,这种同情完全以下面的最新一封信结束。 普雷斯顿声称亚马逊在与阿切特的谈判中使用作家作为典当和杠杆,普雷斯顿也允许自己成为由出版商主导和媒体主导的亚马逊战争中的步兵。这是普雷斯顿(Preston)邀请自己参加的战场,不仅取得了成功,而且财力雄厚 几周前,他为《纽约时报》上的一部104,000美元的虚荣发布广告做出了贡献,他开始为即将到来的长途之战而显得设备不良,消息不足。和我’我确信Hachette非常高兴能够继续进行下去。 

This letter has been sent to all 亚马孙 directors in a plea to resolve 亚马孙’与阿切特之争。 (我的粗体和红色评论)

*********
尊敬的[name],
We are writing to you in your capacity as a director of 亚马孙.com, Inc. As we all know, 亚马孙 is involved in contract negotiations with several media and publishing companies, including Hachette. 关于 six months ago, to enhance its bargaining position, 亚马孙 began 制裁 阿切特人’ books. These 制裁 包括拒绝预订,延迟发货,减少折扣以及使用弹出式窗口覆盖作者’页面并将买家重定向到非阿歇特书。 [更多战争术语。我认为道格拉斯在电视上看了太多的CNN和FOX 带着(经济 还是贸易?)制裁。所有似乎都被完全遗忘的东西 这就是阿切特’s formal agreement with 亚马孙 ended months ago! 亚马孙 is no longer under any contractual obligation to even hold Hachette book stocks, let alone sell them. And, yet, with some restrictions, they continue to sell Hachette books.] 
这些制裁压制了阿歇特的作者’ sales at 亚马孙.com by at least 50 percent and in some cases as much as 90 percent. These sales drops are occurring across the board: in hardcovers, paperbacks, and e-books. Because of 亚马孙’巨大的市场份额及其专有的Kindle平台,其他零售商并未弥补差异。 Several thousand 阿切特人 have watched their 读者 decline, or, in the case of new authors, have seen their books sink out of sight without finding an adequate 读者. 这些男人和女人深深地关注这对他们未来的职业意味着什么。 [请告诉道格拉斯,成千上万的作者能够准确地衡量他们的‘readership’与销售有直接关系吗?那意味着什么 author without a book recently published or available for sale on 亚马孙 is in terminal 读者 decline? Preston has previously claimed that he has lost up to 50% in sales (and he reports some authors claiming as much as 90%). Are traditional publishers now supplying authors directly with monthly sales data? I must have missed that development! Hold on there. Someone isn’在这里做数学。如果亚马逊负责您的图书销售的一半,并且您声称损失的销售比例更高,那么您猜怎么着?这些额外的销售损失与亚马逊无关!如果普雷斯顿’销售损失超过了他在亚马逊上的销售份额,那么他可能想确切地检查谁或什么真正损害了他的销售。也许是乡亲’不要出于其他原因购买书籍,道格拉斯!]
我们敦促您在这封信的底部复查我们的姓名。迄今为止,从未有像这样多样化或杰出的作者群体聚集在一起来支持一个单一的事业。我们是文学小说家,普利策奖获奖记者和诗人;惊悚片作家,初次登台和中游作家。我们是科幻小说和旅行作家;历史学家和报纸记者;教科书作者,传记作者和神秘作家。 我们写了很多孩子’s favorite stories. Collectively, we have sold more than a billion books. 亚马孙’这种策略使我们深感痛苦和愤怒。 [For a moment I thought Douglas was suggesting 亚马孙 had given birth to children! I’ve no idea what the children of 亚马孙 directors are reading, and I don’假设道格拉斯也这么做。但它’一个很好的拉弦器。]
Russell Grandinetti of 亚马孙 has stated that the company was “由于Hachette拒绝到桌旁而被迫采取这一步骤。” 他还声称“作者是我们唯一的杠杆。” 作为世界之一’s largest corporations, 亚马孙 was not “forced”做任何事。这是显而易见的事实。 我们都有选择. 亚马孙 chose to involve 2,500 阿切特人 and their books. It could end these 制裁 tomorrow while continuing to negotiate. 亚马孙 is undermining the ability of authors to support their families, pay their mortgages, and provide for their kids’大学教育。我们’d想要强调,我们大多数人都不是哈希特(Hachette)的作者,我们的关注基于原则,而不是出于个人利益。 [道格拉斯服用Grandinetti’s statement 有点脱离上下文。这是因为 Hachette不会出现在谈判桌上,合同到期时杠杆不会一次全部出现,而是分阶段出现。 真正的蛮横杠杆作用是要提醒Hachette,它不再符合合同规定,所有头衔都将立即被除名。 Hachette可以自由地将业务转移到其他地方。亚马孙 没有与Hachette作者签订任何合同,并且当然不负责支付这些作者的抵押贷款或确保其子女’大学教育。确实,我们都有选择。正是Authors United的签约方邀请自己参加从未有过的战斗。    
We find it hard to believe that all members of the 亚马孙 board approve of these actions. We would like to ask you a question: Do you as an 亚马孙 director approve of this policy of 制裁 books? [Emotive and misleading language. 亚马孙 is not 制裁 books.]
阻止或阻止书籍销售的努力历史悠久而丑陋。您个人是否想与此相关?签名人我们强烈认为,此类行为在共同的商业争端中不存在。 亚马孙 has other negotiating tools at its disposal;它不需要对帮助它成为世界上最大的零售商之一的一些作者造成伤害。 [亚马逊并没有阻碍Hachette图书的销售。没有‘blockade’. Readers can buy Hachette titles in just about any retail outlet that sells books. Hardball tactics, standoffs, restrictions on terms are part of all commercial negotiations in any industry. The book industry is no different. Yes, 亚马孙 has got other negotiating tools—one is telling Hachette that without a contract, they know where the door is. They’尚未使用该软件。]
我们的立场一直是一致的。 我们已作出很大的努力,不退缩. We are not against 亚马孙. We appreciate that 亚马孙 sells half the books in the United States. But 亚马孙 has repeatedly tried to dismiss us as “rich”提倡更高电子书价格的畅销作家-这是一种虚假和不公平的描述,因为我们大多数人实际上都是中产阶级作家在努力谋生。 And we have not made any statements whatsoever on book pricing. Our point is simple: we believe it is unacceptable for 亚马孙 to impede or block the sale of any books as a negotiating tactic. [我不’不能看到Authors United游说并写信给Hachette主任回到那里并进行谈判。在《纽约时报》上刊登整页广告,费用为104,000美元 is the single greatest act of vanity publishing I have every witnessed. You have used mainstream print and TV networks at every opportunity to misrepresent the realities of a commercial negotiation you are not fully privy to and continue to paint 亚马孙 as the bogeyman.] 
亚马孙 has every right to refuse to sell consumer goods in response to a pricing disagreement with a wholesaler. We all appreciate discounted razor blades and cheaper shoes. 但是书不是消费品。 不能便宜地写书,也不能将作者外包给中国。书不是烤面包机或电视。 每本书都是独特的,古怪的创作,它是一个人的孤独,激烈且通常是昂贵的斗争,一个人的生活取决于他或她的书来寻找读者。 This is the process 亚马孙 is obstructing. [Douglas, this is possibly the idiotic crescendo of your entire letter. Frankly, you may be doing well if most of the 亚马孙 directors even bother reading beyond the utter whimsical nonsense in this paragraph. Go tell struggling independent retailers and authors who cannot afford to write full-time that books are not consumer goods. Better still, Douglas, why not start to give all your books away for free? Every writer might be unique, but be assured, a look at the 每个商店的书架都会告诉你很多 书籍绝非独一无二。您可能想告诉 这些中国人 writers 他们不是’从以美国为中心的文学世界观开始。也许他们应该放弃担任作家的工作,而去建造烤面包机和电视?而且您想知道为什么某些人将Authors United描绘成特权和丰富的作家吗?] 
互联网上有很多关于像Hachette这样的传统发行商的话题“dinosaurs”捍卫垂死的商业模式。 There have been claims that 亚马孙 is leading the way to a new publishing paradigm, one that pays authors higher royalties, allows anyone to publish, and cuts out the elitist gatekeepers. We agree that 亚马孙 has spurred important innovations in publishing, including a wonderful self-publishing model that has given many new 作家 a voice. [像您在上面说的那样,道格拉斯… “We all have choices.”] 
But what these commentators and 亚马孙 itself may not realize is that 传统出版社 perform a vital role in our society. 出版商为创意提供风险投资。 他们将钱预支给作家,使他们有时间和自由来写书。 对于非小说作家来说,该系统尤为重要,因为非小说作家经常必须出差进行研究。每年有数千次 出版商抓住了未知作者的机会,仅根据一个想法就向他们预支了款项。 通过承担风险,发布者可以期望并获得财务回报。 What will 亚马孙 replace this process with? How, in the 亚马孙 model, will a young author get funding to pursue a promising idea? And what about the role of editors, copy editors, and other publishing staff who ensure that what ultimately ends up on the shelf is both worthy and accurate? [对话 传统出版社’在社会中的角色变得越来越浪漫和谦卑。许多作家写书没有进步,而你创造了自己的自由。发行人唐’不能将其授予作者。我想你会发现那些负担得起的人 for a book based on 仅一个想法在少数族裔中就占多数。亚马逊主要是零售商。我没有’不知道出版业已经承担了任务 Amazon replacing the publishing process. 亚马孙 publishing is simply one model of publishing, not a replacement! Any author or publisher is free to outsource the services of publishing professionals.]  
We are confident that you, as an 亚马孙 board member, prize books and 和我们一样多的言论自由. Since its founding, 亚马孙 has been a highly regarded and progressive brand. But if this is how 亚马孙 continues to treat the literary community, how long will the company’最后的声誉好吗?我们以希望和善意呼吁您行使治理,并结束对书籍的制裁,这是我们文化和民主的基础。 [Knee-deep in sanctimonious platitudes again, Douglas. You must be starting to believe 亚马孙 is owned by the Russians and society is bordering on complete collapse. I think you will find that books play their part in culture and democracy, but there’比这还多一点!] 
真诚的
[下面列出的我们每个人都已经阅读,批准并签署了这封信]
********* 

米克·鲁尼(Mick Rooney)–发布顾问
如果您认为这篇评论或文章对您有所帮助,但是您仍在寻找合适的自我发布提供商,以满足您作为作者的需求,那么我可以为您提供帮助。作为出版顾问和编辑 这本杂志,如上所述,我已经详细审查和检查了全球150多家提供商。作为一本自出版的传统出版著作,着有9本书,我了解您在出版之路及以后的需求。因此,在花费成百上千的时间之前,为什么不预订我今天量身定制且价格合理的咨询课程之一? 点击这里 更多细节。
 
如果您想对一个星期以上的文章发表评论,请使用Blogger评论工具,而不是Facebook评论应用程序,因为我们不会定期监视FB评论。

*

最佳