3 ms·
> Executives from PRH and Simon & Schuster argued that ... the merger would actually benefit writer pay, because it would lead to savings and allow them to spen
by a_shovel 4y ago
> Executives from PRH and Simon & Schuster argued that ... the merger would actually benefit writer pay, because it would lead to savings and allow them to spend more on books.
I snorted at that. This is the same old shtick companies trot out every time they want to do something egregiously anti-consumer--or in this case, anti-creator. That there are apparently still people that this routine works on is a touch depressing, but at least the judge wasn't one of them.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoThis was the quote that got a "are you f'ing kidding me?" from me: > Penguin Random House lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, who defeated the government in a previous merger challenge, argued during the trial that the deal would have “enormous benefits” for readers and authors alike since the imprints, or brands, owned by the two giants would continue to compete against each other. Glad to read in the next paragraph that Stephen King got to call that out as "ridiculous" in court.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> That there are apparently still people that this routine works on is a touch depressing Each time I think that, I then immediately realize that every year, there's a fresh cohort just becoming adults, who are yet to fall for all these tricks. These things works because there's an endless supply of new marks.