Much ado about Apple

Is the US Department of Justice making a fuss over nothing?

The perilous future of publishers was highlighted yet again by yesterday’s news that the US Department of Justice is suing Apple, Macmillan and Penguin for conspiring to fix the price of e-books.

The fuss centres on the move these companies have made on the agency model of selling, (where the publishers set the price of the e-book and the retailers take a 30 per cent cut); retailers, unsurprisingly, favour a model where they buy the e-book from the publisher at wholesale price and sell it for however much they want.

Such a model, it’s said, increases healthy competition between retailers which in turn leads to variety and greater customer choice. And according to papers filed in New York’s Southern District Court on Wednesday morning, the collusion of these publishing giants with the world’s most valuable firm (the lawsuit was launched the day after Apple’s worth surpassed $600bn), is a deeply unfair attempt to crush the freedom – and therefore prosperity – of e-book retailers who, after all, need to carve out a living for themselves too.

But this moral and legal outrage needs to be tempered a little. Two things to bear in mind: first, where is this diversity and healthy retail competition that the agency model – which is not illegal, incidentally – supposedly threatens? In every direction you turn, Amazon lurks, offering consumers e-books and books at prices that most other retailers – including high street giants such as Waterstone’s – cannot compete with. Indeed, an adoption of the agency model for e-books is essentially a digital return to the net book agreement, which publishers relinquished in 1997. Waterstone’s, supermarkets and Amazon must have been rubbing their hands with glee when that happened, as the three of them they went on to dominate the market, squashing smaller outlets in the process. What variety!

Second, though the agency model is legal, price fixing obviously is not. No doubt there will be a fair amount of legal hair-splitting over what exactly the publishing CEOs have been up to, but at the moment the circumstantial evidence is pretty thin on the ground.

The PDF document released by the DOJ reports that in late 2008, the Penguin Group and Macmillan CEOs, along with a few other heavyweights, had dinner together and ‘business matters’ were discussed. You’re kidding, right? They were at it again in January 2009, this time discussing the future of e-books and Amazon’s role in that future.

With their future looking increasingly treacherous, it’s no wonder publishing bosses have a lot to talk about at the moment. The agency model might be their only chance to survive in the cut throat world of e-book and book sales

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Raising e-book prices: justified? Getty images.

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Getty
Show Hide image

Copeland must be Labour's final warning

Unison's general secretary says Jeremy Corbyn is a friend - but must also take responsibility for turning the party's prospects around. 

No one objective could argue that last night’s by-election results were good for Labour.

Whilst it was undoubtedly pleasing to see serial fibber Paul Nuttall and his Trumpian politics put in their place in Stoke, this was never a seat where the result should have been in doubt. 

But to lose Copeland – held by Labour for 83 years – to a party that has inflicted seven years of painful spending cuts on our country, and is damaging the NHS, is disastrous.

Last autumn, I said that Labour had never been farther from government in my lifetime. Five months on the party hasn’t moved an inch closer to Downing Street.

These results do not imply a party headed for victory. Copeland is indicative of a party sliding towards irrelevance. Worse still, Labour faces an irrelevance felt most keenly by those it was founded to represent.

There will be those who seek to place sole blame for this calamity at the door of Jeremy Corbyn. They would be wrong to do so. 

The problems that Labour has in working-class communities across the country did not start with Corbyn’s leadership. They have existed for decades, with successive governments failing to support them or even hear their calls for change. Now these communities are increasingly finding outlets for their understandable discontent.

During the 2015 election, I knocked on doors on a large council estate in Edmonton – similar to the one I grew up on. Most people were surprised to see us. The last time they’d seen Labour canvassers was back in 1997. Perhaps less surprisingly, the most common response was why would any of them bother voting Labour.

As a party we have forgotten our roots, and have arrogantly assumed that our core support would stay loyal because it has nowhere else to go. The party is now paying the price for that complacency. It can no longer ignore what it’s being told on the doorstep, in workplaces, at ballot boxes and in opinion polls.

Unison backed Corbyn in two successive leadership elections because our members believed – and I believe – he can offer a meaningful and positive change in our politics, challenging the austerity that has ravaged our public services. He is a friend of mine, and a friend of our union. He has our support, because his agenda is our agenda.

Yet friendship and support should never stand in the way of candour. True friends don’t let friends lose lifelong Labour seats and pretend everything is OK. Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party, so while he should not be held solely responsible for Labour’s downturn, he must now take responsibility for turning things around.

That means working with the best talents from across the party to rebuild Labour in our communities and in Parliament. That means striving for real unity – not just the absence of open dissent. That means less debate about rule changes and more action on real changes in our economy and our society.

Our public servants and public services need an end to spending cuts, a change that can only be delivered by a Labour government. 

For too many in the Labour party the aim is to win the debate and seize the perceived moral high ground – none of which appears to be winning the party public support. 

But elections aren’t won by telling people they’re ignorant, muddle-headed or naive. Those at the sharp end – in particular the millions of public service employees losing their jobs or facing repeated real-terms pay cuts – cannot afford for the party to be so aloof.

Because if you’re a homecare worker earning less than the minimum wage with no respite in sight, you need an end to austerity and a Labour government.

If you’re a nurse working in a hospital that’s constantly trying to do more with less, you need an end to austerity and a Labour government.

And if you’re a teaching assistant, social worker or local government administrator you desperately need an end to austerity, and an end to this divisive government.

That can only happen through a Labour party that’s winning elections. That has always been the position of the union movement, and the Labour party as its parliamentary wing. 

While there are many ways in which we can change society and our communities for the better, the only way to make lasting change is to win elections, and seize power for working people.

That is, and must always be, the Labour party’s cause. Let Copeland be our final warning, not the latest signpost on the road to decline.

Dave Prentis is Unison's general secretary.