3 ms·

I covered this in other threads, basically. In truth, I was largely responding to this angle at the outset. DRM feels like a red herring that almost certainly

by taeric 3y ago

I covered this in other threads, basically. In truth, I was largely responding to this angle at the outset. DRM feels like a red herring that almost certainly exists due to demands from publishing houses. (I'll have to check to see if you can get any non-DRM files from libraries. My expectation is going to be a big no on that from any library that lends out audio books.) The odd complaint here is that the authors are upset at getting a smaller share of a smaller sell, that is in a much larger sea of sales. They acknowledge that they make more money from audio books sold at audible, even with this cut. This also does a shit job of showing the break down to the performers that are reading the book. If those are paid externally to the 40% that goes to the author, I really don't know how to take the complaints seriously other than greed on the authors that are talking about it.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
The performers get paid up-front for the performance. This typically costs the author somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K to $40K including production costs. Amazon originally paid out 70% like most other digital goods purveyors. Once they cornered the market they arbitrarily pushed it down to 25% (you only get 40% if you agree not to sell anywhere else). This means that for many authors, especially indie authors, they lose money publishing the audio version of their book.
- taeric 3y ago
  Reading online, it is looking more like there are royalty shares. And I'm not clear on how "produced by Audible" works factor in there. Seems silly that the narrator wouldn't also be entitled to a per sale value. I will also ack that I'm all for better legislation to help creators in a lot of this. I just don't know that this all is as clean a picture as you are making it. For an easy example, did audible drop their payout from 70 down to 20ish at the same time they dropped the average price that they sold at? That would change the story more than a little bit, if so. Do they also cover some of the upfront costs of production for some audio books?
  - dendriti 3y ago
    You sure do have a LOT to say about Audible, despite demonstrating here a clear lack of understanding of how the service works, its market position, how much it charges, and so on. JAQing off in defense of a monopolist is a bad look.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I'll gladly laugh and accept the jab that I'm a little too active in this thread. I don't know why this topic got me today, but it clearly did. That said, please educate me on where I'm giving a clear lack of understanding on how it works. I'm basically seeing a couple big name authors that are effectively telling me I'm a bad person for buying audio books from Audible. But, far as I can see, every alternative is complete utter shite. Except the library, from which I still gladly get audio books on CD.
      - Snarwin 3y ago
        I don't think these authors intend for you to interpret their criticism of Audible's business practices as a statement about your moral character. One of their central points is that Audible's business practices have severely limited consumer choice in the audiobook market. You can't be held morally responsible for a choice that's been taken out of your hands.
        taeric 3y ago
        May not be their intent, but at large declaiming something is bad and "enshitifying" the internet is a very transitive label? And again, there is no evidence that audible is lessoning consumer choice? There is some evidence that they lesson producer practical choice. But even that is weak? With few exceptions, mostly audible produced works, I can find all of the books I care about elsewhere.
        fatfingerd 3y ago
        The cumulative point of this thread seems to be that they are getting to work with 75% of 90% of the audible book market (you claim books are available elsewhere = 25% commission). You can call that whatever you want, but it sounds a lot like the descent to pre-Internet situations that weren't markers of stable quality and that many people who survived the 1980s don't want to see again.
eslaught 3y ago
A 40% cut makes sense in a world where Amazon pays the voice actor. My understanding is that is not how this works. The author pays the voice actor, or the publisher does. Amazon is paying for hosting an audio file, basically, and the development of the player app, and that's it. I think in the very early days, Amazon may have paid all the voice actors itself (because no one was on board with audio yet at that point), and the 40% royalty model may have made sense. But I believe that is not how it works now, and 40% royalties make a lot less sense in the world we now live in; it seems to be just purely predatory.
- taeric 3y ago
  My understanding is that it will depend on the book? I'd love to see more discussion on that whole ecosystem, honestly. Some of the first searches seem decent to read on. I just know that, even today, the audio books I purchase are far cheaper if I get them from Audible than basically anywhere else. Unless it is a book on CD I get from the library, for obviously different reasons. I also know that things are byzantine to get an audio book from a library. Largely due to the influence of publishers, not tech companies.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    I remember when audiobooks from the library were literally books on tape. You'd get a giant binder with like 20 cassettes tapes in it. I think the biggers one were also split up, so you could checkout, say, 10 hours worth at a time.
    - taeric 3y ago
      We still have a box of a lot of books on tape we found in a garage sale around here. Had to get a tape player for the kids to listen to them, as they were the kind where they had the books with them, too. Was a ton of fun, if a touch annoying to deal with rewinding the tape and such. We also still have more than a few books on CD. We don't get as many as we used to, ironically, since it is far more convenient to use audible. Nice to shift from car to bedroom for stories. I've been curious on why more "music players" weren't better at audio books. I'm guessing the ability to save mid track is just not nearly as big of a deal for most music applications?
TylerE 3y ago
The audible drm is also pretty trivially stripped if you actually care about such things. It aint exactly AACS.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  That's good. But it shouldn't be on there in the first place.

by taeric 3y ago

slowmovintarget 3y ago

The performers get paid up-front for the performance. This typically costs the author somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K to $40K including production costs. Amazon originally paid out 70% like most other digital goods purveyors. Once they cornered the market they arbitrarily pushed it down to 25% (you only get 40% if you agree not to sell anywhere else). This means that for many authors, especially indie authors, they lose money publishing the audio version of their book.

taeric 3y ago
Reading online, it is looking more like there are royalty shares. And I'm not clear on how "produced by Audible" works factor in there. Seems silly that the narrator wouldn't also be entitled to a per sale value. I will also ack that I'm all for better legislation to help creators in a lot of this. I just don't know that this all is as clean a picture as you are making it. For an easy example, did audible drop their payout from 70 down to 20ish at the same time they dropped the average price that they sold at? That would change the story more than a little bit, if so. Do they also cover some of the upfront costs of production for some audio books?
- dendriti 3y ago
  You sure do have a LOT to say about Audible, despite demonstrating here a clear lack of understanding of how the service works, its market position, how much it charges, and so on. JAQing off in defense of a monopolist is a bad look.
  - taeric 3y ago
    I'll gladly laugh and accept the jab that I'm a little too active in this thread. I don't know why this topic got me today, but it clearly did. That said, please educate me on where I'm giving a clear lack of understanding on how it works. I'm basically seeing a couple big name authors that are effectively telling me I'm a bad person for buying audio books from Audible. But, far as I can see, every alternative is complete utter shite. Except the library, from which I still gladly get audio books on CD.
    - Snarwin 3y ago
      I don't think these authors intend for you to interpret their criticism of Audible's business practices as a statement about your moral character. One of their central points is that Audible's business practices have severely limited consumer choice in the audiobook market. You can't be held morally responsible for a choice that's been taken out of your hands.
      - taeric 3y ago
        May not be their intent, but at large declaiming something is bad and "enshitifying" the internet is a very transitive label? And again, there is no evidence that audible is lessoning consumer choice? There is some evidence that they lesson producer practical choice. But even that is weak? With few exceptions, mostly audible produced works, I can find all of the books I care about elsewhere.
        fatfingerd 3y ago
        The cumulative point of this thread seems to be that they are getting to work with 75% of 90% of the audible book market (you claim books are available elsewhere = 25% commission). You can call that whatever you want, but it sounds a lot like the descent to pre-Internet situations that weren't markers of stable quality and that many people who survived the 1980s don't want to see again.

eslaught 3y ago

A 40% cut makes sense in a world where Amazon pays the voice actor. My understanding is that is not how this works. The author pays the voice actor, or the publisher does. Amazon is paying for hosting an audio file, basically, and the development of the player app, and that's it. I think in the very early days, Amazon may have paid all the voice actors itself (because no one was on board with audio yet at that point), and the 40% royalty model may have made sense. But I believe that is not how it works now, and 40% royalties make a lot less sense in the world we now live in; it seems to be just purely predatory.

taeric 3y ago
My understanding is that it will depend on the book? I'd love to see more discussion on that whole ecosystem, honestly. Some of the first searches seem decent to read on. I just know that, even today, the audio books I purchase are far cheaper if I get them from Audible than basically anywhere else. Unless it is a book on CD I get from the library, for obviously different reasons. I also know that things are byzantine to get an audio book from a library. Largely due to the influence of publishers, not tech companies.
- TylerE 3y ago
  I remember when audiobooks from the library were literally books on tape. You'd get a giant binder with like 20 cassettes tapes in it. I think the biggers one were also split up, so you could checkout, say, 10 hours worth at a time.
  - taeric 3y ago
    We still have a box of a lot of books on tape we found in a garage sale around here. Had to get a tape player for the kids to listen to them, as they were the kind where they had the books with them, too. Was a ton of fun, if a touch annoying to deal with rewinding the tape and such. We also still have more than a few books on CD. We don't get as many as we used to, ironically, since it is far more convenient to use audible. Nice to shift from car to bedroom for stories. I've been curious on why more "music players" weren't better at audio books. I'm guessing the ability to save mid track is just not nearly as big of a deal for most music applications?

TylerE 3y ago

The audible drm is also pretty trivially stripped if you actually care about such things. It aint exactly AACS.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
That's good. But it shouldn't be on there in the first place.