BERLIN (Authorlink News, March 24, 2009)—Random House, the world’s largest trade book publisher, is feeling the impact of the global economic crisis, as reflected today in parent company Bertelsmann’s financial report for fiscal 2008. RH reported a 6.3 percent drop in revenues to €1.7 billion (previous year: €1.8 billion), primarily due to the effects of negative exchange rate. Return on sales was 8.0 percent (previous year: 9.4 percent). Revenues, when adjusted for the exchange rates and for acquisitions, remained stable despite declining consumer confidence and flat book markets due to the global economic crisis.
Declines in North America, especially in the second half of the year, were largely offset by higher book sales and increased market shares in key European markets. Operating EBIT declined by 20.8 percent during the period under review, from €173 million to €137 million, further reflecting developments in the economy, the marketplace and currency exchange rates, as well as higher author costs.
The publishing group had slightly more employees at the end of 2008--a total of 5,779 people, compared to December 31, 2007, with 5,764 employees, totals that were no doubt reported before the publisher’s most recent restructuring in December 2008 and January 2009. To initiate significant one-time cost cutting measures in 2008, Random House realigned its divisional structure and corporate management. On June 1, 2008, Markus Dohle became Chairman and CEO of Random House. In December, five adult publishing groups were merged into three units (Crown Publishing Group, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, and Random House Publishing Group); Random House Children’s Books remained unaffected by the reorganization. The company also signed new third-party sales and distribution agreements and stepped up its digital publishing activities, including a comprehensive e-book expansion. The measures will position Random House for long-term sustainable growth. The company plans to intensify its market and customer focus while continuing to invest in publishing quality.
The year’s biggest bestseller was Christopher Paolini’s novel “Brisingr,” which in just over three months sold more than four million copies for Random House in North America, Germany and the U.K. In the U.S., Random House imprints placed 265 titles on The New York Times national bestseller lists, including 25 at number one. Among them were “The Appeal” by John Grisham, TV news icon Barbara Walters’ memoirs “Audition,” and hardcover and paperback editions of “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams from My Father” by U.S. President Barack Obama. E-book sales increased tremendously. The e-book list will be expanded to 15,000 new and backlist titles by the end of 2009. The Random House Group U.K. again placed more titles on the “Sunday Times” bestseller lists than any other publisher, and increased its market share during the period under review. In the German-speaking countries, Verlagsgruppe Random House generated record revenues, resulting in a higher market share. The year’s bestsellers included nonfiction by Helmut Schmidt and Richard David Precht and fiction by Elizabeth George and Charlotte Link.
Random House Mondadori also delivered a strong performance in the Spanish-speaking territories, including the million-copy bestselling Ken Follett fiction hardcover, “Un mundo sin fin.” During the year, Random House acquired several publishing companies, including Prestel-Verlag and the Hugendubel Verlage in Germany as well as Watson-Guptill Publications in the U.S. In South Africa, a merger of Random House South Africa and Struik Publishing created Random House Struik, an immediate market leader. Random House authors won a number of prestigious awards in 2008, including a National Book Award (Fiction) in the U.S. for “Shadow Country” by Peter Matthiessen. Nine of the “Ten Best Books of 2008” chosen by the “New York Times Book Review” were Random House, Inc. titles.
Company-wide, media giant Bertelsmann recorded a solid business performance for FY 2008. Revenues from continuing operations remained stable in a difficult economic environment; operating profit decreased year on year, but remained at a high level. Debt was reduced significantly. The fiscal year saw extensive changes to the portfolio which have brought lasting improvement to Bertelsmann’s growth profile.
Bertelsmann’s Chairman & CEO Hartmut Ostrowski declared: “Bertelsmann made good progress in 2008. We disposed of shrinking parts of the business and are in a much better
strategic position today than just twelve months ago. Bertelsmann now commands good or excellent market positions in nearly all of our businesses, and our operations are strong.
At 9.7 percent, our operating Return on Sales was good – in fact, in retrospect one of our best ever.”
In 2008, Bertelsmann sold its 50 percent stake in the music joint venture Sony BMG and parts of the direct-to-customer operations that are bundled in Direct Group. At the same
time, numerous promising businesses were launched, including the new music rights arm BMG Rights Management, the new rights trader UFA Sports and the “Deutschland Card” customer loyalty program. Bertelsmann also invested in new digital media and services and in promising businesses in the Asian territories through two venture capital funds.
Revenues from continuing operations in 2008, down just -0.5 percent at €16.1 billion, were largely stable and on par with the previous year (€16.2 billion; continuing operations only). Adjusted for portfolio and currency exchange effects, revenues increased by 1.3 percent. Earnings before Interest, Taxes and Special Items (Operating EBIT) came to €1,568 million after €1,717 million in 2007 (-8.7 percent), and reflect the economic downturn during the second half of the year.
Operating Return on Sales was high at 9.7 percent (previous year: 10.6 percent). Group net income amounted to €270 million, down from the previous year (€405 million). The main cause for this, apart from restructuring measures taken towards the end of the business year as a precaution for 2009, were write-downs of the British TV business and at Direct Group. Cash flow from operations soared to a new high in
2008.
Hartmut Ostrowski added: “Our business performance and our solid financial foundation give us the necessary backing for the challenges ahead in 2009. The global economic crisis with its implications for consumer behavior and ad bookings will be a severe test for some areas of Bertelsmann, too. Our focus is currently on safeguarding our businesses, our high profitability and our liquidity. This primarily means cost discipline and restraint in our investments, but also an increased focus on gaining market share and entrepreneurial innovations. We feel well equipped with our broad business and geographic distribution and our entrepreneurial setup.”
Economic debt, which at Bertelsmann include the net financial debt, provisions for pensions, profit-participation capital, and the net present value of operating leases, was reduced by €1.1 billion to €6,627 million (previous year: €7,720 million) at the reporting date (December 31, 2008). Net financial debt alone was reduced by more than €800 million.
Bertelsmann’s Chief Financial Officer Thomas Rabe commented: “Our prudent financing policy has paid off once more: our financing is secure for the long term, and our credit rating is good. Thanks to circumspect financing transactions and available credit lines, our liquidity is already secure beyond the year 2010. Bertelsmann stands on a solid foundation.”
For 2009, Bertelsmann expects that the global economic crisis will put a strain on the economy and on the company’s business prospects. Overall, Bertelsmann expects revenues and operating profit to decline. The degree of year-on-year change will depend on the intensity and duration of the economic downturn.
Bertelsmann is an international media company encompassing television (RTL Group), book publishing (Random House), magazine publishing (Gruner + Jahr), media services (Arvato), and media clubs (Direct Group) in more than 50 countries.
.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Law Conference Examines
Google settlement
Hi Everyone,
Please stop and read this in detail. It will illuminate some of the harmful effects of the Google settlement on authors’ intellectual property.
Google Books Settlement Prompts Questions
About Effect on Readers, Libraries, Others
Reproduced with permission from Daily Report
for Executives, 50 DER B-1 (Mar. 18, 2009).
Copyright 2009 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. (800-372-1033)
Google Inc. and the American publishers and authors
that sued it two years ago have come to an agreement on how to settle
their case over Google's scanning of entire libraries of books for
full-text searches on the Internet. However, ambiguities remain
regarding how the settlement will affect non-U.S. copyright holders,
readers, libraries, researchers, and the future of books, in general.
Many of these questions were raised at a March 13 seminar hosted by
Columbia University's law school, New York, where representatives of
the settling parties, non-party publishers and authors, attorneys, and
scholars offered their first-take analysis of the massive settlement
deal.
Google's intellectual property counsel, Alexander Macgillivray, said
that in this case Google's interest “dovetails” with the interests of
casual readers as well as academic researchers.
Other participants in panel discussions wondered whether the
settlement put too much power in the hands of Google and the registry
body that the settlement parties plan to establish. Some expressed the
wish that a public body, such as the Library of Congress, were in
charge of maintaining and administering the massive program.
In particular, observers looked askance at the unique position that
Google holds as a result of the settlement. The absence of potential
competitors worried many speakers.
Settlement of Dispute Over Scanning
The settlement's origins are in the Google Print for Publishers
program, which was initiated by Google in 2004 to enter into contracts
with publishers to digitize their copyrighted works and make them
available through Google's Web site, where users could search their
contents. Google then announced the Google Print for Libraries
program—later renamed Google Book Search—in which Google contracted
with a handful of large libraries to digitize the entire contents of
their collections—including works still under copyright protection—and
make the resulting database searchable over the Internet.
In 2005, several publishers and authors sued, initiating a class
action against Google, alleging that the scanning constituted
copyright infringement. A settlement was announced in October.
Under the terms of the settlement, Google will pay $125 million to
establish a centralized royalty collection organization and to
compensate authors of scanned books. Each book stands to earn at least
$60 for the scanning. Ongoing royalties will be paid for institutional
subscriptions to Google Book Search, for paid online access to books
through Google, for printouts made at participating libraries, and for
other uses.
According to the agreement, the parties will also establish a Book
Rights Registry under the control of authors and publishers to keep
track of the use of registered works and for centralized collection of
royalties.
The settlement proposal offers authors who do not accede to the
agreement to opt out.
Will Authors Benefit?
Jan F. Constantine, general counsel for the Authors Guild, one of the
settlement parties, hailed the settlement as an “absolutely wonderful
deal for authors.” She said that she saw “no downside” for copyright
holders or end users.
Eugene Linden, author of several books, including The Winds of
Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations, said
it was an irony that, by effectively allowing anyone to self-publish
and distribute works for free, digitization will make it difficult for
authors like him to make a living from their writings.
According to Linden, past barriers to print publishing have allowed
authors and publishers to charge sufficiently high prices for use of
their works to produce enough of a royalty income for writers to live
on. With a lack of barriers for entry to the publishing business in a
digital environment, traditional print publishers and authors are
forced to cut prices. As a result, writing-based businesses—such as
journals, magazines, and newspapers—do not generate enough revenue to
support their content providers.
“There's a huge gap between writers' importance to society and
remuneration,” however, Linden said. “Writers have produced some of
the most disruptive events,” such as Charles Darwin's On the Origin of
Species and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
“As an author, I'm happy that there's now a facility to connect out-
of-print books to those that want to find them,” he said. However, the
result is “parasitic” and “cannibalistic,” because of the diminishing
rate of return to authors. “Yes, the digital world has tremendous
possibilties. … On the other hand, writers are leaving by the
thousands, because the digital world has put out of business their
newspapers and magazines.”
Congressional Prerogatives
Marybeth Peters, the register of copyrights, led the list of
questioners. Peters said that Google's settlement with the Authors
Guild relies on authors to come forward and claim their rights in
order for them to benefit from the deal. She compared this system to
federal registration of copyrighted works. Like copyright
registration, the settlement agreement seeks to encourage those
holding copyright interests to come forward and identify themselves.
However, Peters said, even the Copyright Act, which also seeks to
create significant incentives for copyright holders to come forward in
the form of registration, has had very limited success.
“I can tell you that there are many, many works that are not
registered. … An awful lot of the works are going be in the public
domain [or] treated as public domain works,” she said. If the
copyright registration infrastructure has such limited success, Peters
said, she doubted that the parallel registration system being created
by the settlement would be any more successful in prompting a
significant proportion of copyright owners to come forward.
Peters pointed to commentary that the settlement seemed to be a kind
of legislation, stepping on congressional prerogatives. Internet
archivist Brewster Kahle, for example, said that the settlement
effectively “creates a system going forward that … creates a new
Copyright Office, creates new copyright laws … [and] all around a
single monopoly for collective access to the books of humankind.”
“The legislative process is what the Constitution had in mind with
respect to setting copyright policy,” Peters said. She warned that it
remains to be seen how Congress will react to the parties'
settlement.
Peters stressed that many affected parties—foreign copyright holders,
libraries, authors not included in the parties to the litigation, the
public—were not party to the negotiations.
“I'm not opposed to the settlement in principle,” she said. “The
question to me is the scope and the forward-looking aspects that
didn't really benefit from a broader public outlook, although many
people will be bound by this.”
Concerns Over Monopoly Power
Robert C. Darnton, director of the Harvard University library, labeled
the Google database as “the new library of Alexandria in digital
form.” However, he expressed concern that no one will be able to
compete with Google. Even if another entity has the resources to enter
into the same kind of project that Google has embarked upon, he said,
the terms of the settlement agreement include a “most favored-nation
clause,” which guarantees that the settlement parties cannot offer any
other party a deal that is better than the one that Google's getting.
This puts Google in the position of a monopoly at a time when
libraries are already facing the high costs of subscription databases.
This is a “situation in which Google can ratchet up prices” in a
manner that is “going to ruin libraries.” Darnton expressed a plea:
“Please, Google, find some mechanism that will preserve us from your
abuse of monopolistic power.”
Treatment of ‘Orphan Works.'
James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School, was among
several who expressed concern about the settlement's impact on “orphan
works,” whose authors do not come forward to claim rights.
Under the settlement, works whose authors are known or who come
forward in order to claim their rights will fall under the protection
of the registry. However, works whose authors remain unknown will be
subject to the exclusive authority of Google.
This “orphan works issue is absolutely central to the problems of the
settlement,” Grimmelmann said. Indeed, he said, these works should not
be called “orphans,” but rather “zombies”: “a shambling army under the
sole control of Google.”
Grimmelmann also warned about the concentration of power being
created, noting antitrust and monopoly power concerns. In addition, he
said that the settlement makes Google the “single dominant cultural
source” with the “power … to shape culture” by deciding what books
will be included in its database, and how to rank them in search
results.
Furthermore, he said that Google will have significant information
about users as a result of their searches and their views of data
through Google. This implicates privacy concerns. Indeed, the
settlement requires Google to monitor reader activities and report
them to the registry for royalty purposes.
Consumer rights are also implicated, Grimmelmann said. What recourse
would a reader have if a particular book was badly scanned, he asked.
He also said that the settlement constitutes a “de facto change” in
fair use rights.
Grimmelmann suggested that the Federal Trade Commission might have to
step in to ensure that Google does not abuse its market power.
“If this is a reasonable deal, it should be open to all,” he said.
“If it's not modified now, it's going to shape the digital world in
the near future and maybe the far future,” Darnton said. A key defect
in the settlement was the absence of public representation in the
administration of the deal. The public “needs to be protected against
the potential of this service—wonderful as it is—being priced out of
their range.”
There is a provision in the settlement agreement that would allow the
registry to distribute to participating rights holders royalties
collected for orphan works. In other words, members of the registry
would be taking the royalties collected on behalf of authors who had
not joined the registry.
Darnton objected to this claiming of orphan works royalties by the
authors and publishers who did not hold copyright interest in the
works being used. He said such funds should be used for the public
benefit.
Carol A. Mandel, dean of libraries at New York University, was one of
several who expressed the wish that Congress would take the settlement
as an opportunity to finally enact legislation on orphan works.
“Before this morning, I was most concerned with the power of the
registry,” she said. After hearing much of the discussion, “I can't
emphasize enough the importance of orphan works legislation.”
Google's Macgillivray expressed support for congressional action on
orphan works and he encouraged those interested in the issues to lobby
for it.
Registry Concerns
Regarding the registry, Tracey L. Armstrong, head of the Copyright
Clearance Center, which was established by copyright holders in 1977
to administer rights collectively, was curious as to why the CCC
wasn't chosen to administer rights under the settlement.
“The registry as it's framed out in the settlement agreement is
parallel with CCC in some ways,” she said. “One of the questions that
came up was why isn't CCC the registry? I really can't answer that
directly [because] I wasn't at the table.”
Victor S. Perlman of the American Society of Media Photographers also
expressed disappointment that photographic works were not encompassed
by the settlement.
“There's nothing inherent about visual materials that suggest that
they should not have been included,” Perlman said.
By Anandashankar Mazumdar
Copyright © 2009, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Please stop and read this in detail. It will illuminate some of the harmful effects of the Google settlement on authors’ intellectual property.
Google Books Settlement Prompts Questions
About Effect on Readers, Libraries, Others
Reproduced with permission from Daily Report
for Executives, 50 DER B-1 (Mar. 18, 2009).
Copyright 2009 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. (800-372-1033)
Google Inc. and the American publishers and authors
that sued it two years ago have come to an agreement on how to settle
their case over Google's scanning of entire libraries of books for
full-text searches on the Internet. However, ambiguities remain
regarding how the settlement will affect non-U.S. copyright holders,
readers, libraries, researchers, and the future of books, in general.
Many of these questions were raised at a March 13 seminar hosted by
Columbia University's law school, New York, where representatives of
the settling parties, non-party publishers and authors, attorneys, and
scholars offered their first-take analysis of the massive settlement
deal.
Google's intellectual property counsel, Alexander Macgillivray, said
that in this case Google's interest “dovetails” with the interests of
casual readers as well as academic researchers.
Other participants in panel discussions wondered whether the
settlement put too much power in the hands of Google and the registry
body that the settlement parties plan to establish. Some expressed the
wish that a public body, such as the Library of Congress, were in
charge of maintaining and administering the massive program.
In particular, observers looked askance at the unique position that
Google holds as a result of the settlement. The absence of potential
competitors worried many speakers.
Settlement of Dispute Over Scanning
The settlement's origins are in the Google Print for Publishers
program, which was initiated by Google in 2004 to enter into contracts
with publishers to digitize their copyrighted works and make them
available through Google's Web site, where users could search their
contents. Google then announced the Google Print for Libraries
program—later renamed Google Book Search—in which Google contracted
with a handful of large libraries to digitize the entire contents of
their collections—including works still under copyright protection—and
make the resulting database searchable over the Internet.
In 2005, several publishers and authors sued, initiating a class
action against Google, alleging that the scanning constituted
copyright infringement. A settlement was announced in October.
Under the terms of the settlement, Google will pay $125 million to
establish a centralized royalty collection organization and to
compensate authors of scanned books. Each book stands to earn at least
$60 for the scanning. Ongoing royalties will be paid for institutional
subscriptions to Google Book Search, for paid online access to books
through Google, for printouts made at participating libraries, and for
other uses.
According to the agreement, the parties will also establish a Book
Rights Registry under the control of authors and publishers to keep
track of the use of registered works and for centralized collection of
royalties.
The settlement proposal offers authors who do not accede to the
agreement to opt out.
Will Authors Benefit?
Jan F. Constantine, general counsel for the Authors Guild, one of the
settlement parties, hailed the settlement as an “absolutely wonderful
deal for authors.” She said that she saw “no downside” for copyright
holders or end users.
Eugene Linden, author of several books, including The Winds of
Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations, said
it was an irony that, by effectively allowing anyone to self-publish
and distribute works for free, digitization will make it difficult for
authors like him to make a living from their writings.
According to Linden, past barriers to print publishing have allowed
authors and publishers to charge sufficiently high prices for use of
their works to produce enough of a royalty income for writers to live
on. With a lack of barriers for entry to the publishing business in a
digital environment, traditional print publishers and authors are
forced to cut prices. As a result, writing-based businesses—such as
journals, magazines, and newspapers—do not generate enough revenue to
support their content providers.
“There's a huge gap between writers' importance to society and
remuneration,” however, Linden said. “Writers have produced some of
the most disruptive events,” such as Charles Darwin's On the Origin of
Species and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
“As an author, I'm happy that there's now a facility to connect out-
of-print books to those that want to find them,” he said. However, the
result is “parasitic” and “cannibalistic,” because of the diminishing
rate of return to authors. “Yes, the digital world has tremendous
possibilties. … On the other hand, writers are leaving by the
thousands, because the digital world has put out of business their
newspapers and magazines.”
Congressional Prerogatives
Marybeth Peters, the register of copyrights, led the list of
questioners. Peters said that Google's settlement with the Authors
Guild relies on authors to come forward and claim their rights in
order for them to benefit from the deal. She compared this system to
federal registration of copyrighted works. Like copyright
registration, the settlement agreement seeks to encourage those
holding copyright interests to come forward and identify themselves.
However, Peters said, even the Copyright Act, which also seeks to
create significant incentives for copyright holders to come forward in
the form of registration, has had very limited success.
“I can tell you that there are many, many works that are not
registered. … An awful lot of the works are going be in the public
domain [or] treated as public domain works,” she said. If the
copyright registration infrastructure has such limited success, Peters
said, she doubted that the parallel registration system being created
by the settlement would be any more successful in prompting a
significant proportion of copyright owners to come forward.
Peters pointed to commentary that the settlement seemed to be a kind
of legislation, stepping on congressional prerogatives. Internet
archivist Brewster Kahle, for example, said that the settlement
effectively “creates a system going forward that … creates a new
Copyright Office, creates new copyright laws … [and] all around a
single monopoly for collective access to the books of humankind.”
“The legislative process is what the Constitution had in mind with
respect to setting copyright policy,” Peters said. She warned that it
remains to be seen how Congress will react to the parties'
settlement.
Peters stressed that many affected parties—foreign copyright holders,
libraries, authors not included in the parties to the litigation, the
public—were not party to the negotiations.
“I'm not opposed to the settlement in principle,” she said. “The
question to me is the scope and the forward-looking aspects that
didn't really benefit from a broader public outlook, although many
people will be bound by this.”
Concerns Over Monopoly Power
Robert C. Darnton, director of the Harvard University library, labeled
the Google database as “the new library of Alexandria in digital
form.” However, he expressed concern that no one will be able to
compete with Google. Even if another entity has the resources to enter
into the same kind of project that Google has embarked upon, he said,
the terms of the settlement agreement include a “most favored-nation
clause,” which guarantees that the settlement parties cannot offer any
other party a deal that is better than the one that Google's getting.
This puts Google in the position of a monopoly at a time when
libraries are already facing the high costs of subscription databases.
This is a “situation in which Google can ratchet up prices” in a
manner that is “going to ruin libraries.” Darnton expressed a plea:
“Please, Google, find some mechanism that will preserve us from your
abuse of monopolistic power.”
Treatment of ‘Orphan Works.'
James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School, was among
several who expressed concern about the settlement's impact on “orphan
works,” whose authors do not come forward to claim rights.
Under the settlement, works whose authors are known or who come
forward in order to claim their rights will fall under the protection
of the registry. However, works whose authors remain unknown will be
subject to the exclusive authority of Google.
This “orphan works issue is absolutely central to the problems of the
settlement,” Grimmelmann said. Indeed, he said, these works should not
be called “orphans,” but rather “zombies”: “a shambling army under the
sole control of Google.”
Grimmelmann also warned about the concentration of power being
created, noting antitrust and monopoly power concerns. In addition, he
said that the settlement makes Google the “single dominant cultural
source” with the “power … to shape culture” by deciding what books
will be included in its database, and how to rank them in search
results.
Furthermore, he said that Google will have significant information
about users as a result of their searches and their views of data
through Google. This implicates privacy concerns. Indeed, the
settlement requires Google to monitor reader activities and report
them to the registry for royalty purposes.
Consumer rights are also implicated, Grimmelmann said. What recourse
would a reader have if a particular book was badly scanned, he asked.
He also said that the settlement constitutes a “de facto change” in
fair use rights.
Grimmelmann suggested that the Federal Trade Commission might have to
step in to ensure that Google does not abuse its market power.
“If this is a reasonable deal, it should be open to all,” he said.
“If it's not modified now, it's going to shape the digital world in
the near future and maybe the far future,” Darnton said. A key defect
in the settlement was the absence of public representation in the
administration of the deal. The public “needs to be protected against
the potential of this service—wonderful as it is—being priced out of
their range.”
There is a provision in the settlement agreement that would allow the
registry to distribute to participating rights holders royalties
collected for orphan works. In other words, members of the registry
would be taking the royalties collected on behalf of authors who had
not joined the registry.
Darnton objected to this claiming of orphan works royalties by the
authors and publishers who did not hold copyright interest in the
works being used. He said such funds should be used for the public
benefit.
Carol A. Mandel, dean of libraries at New York University, was one of
several who expressed the wish that Congress would take the settlement
as an opportunity to finally enact legislation on orphan works.
“Before this morning, I was most concerned with the power of the
registry,” she said. After hearing much of the discussion, “I can't
emphasize enough the importance of orphan works legislation.”
Google's Macgillivray expressed support for congressional action on
orphan works and he encouraged those interested in the issues to lobby
for it.
Registry Concerns
Regarding the registry, Tracey L. Armstrong, head of the Copyright
Clearance Center, which was established by copyright holders in 1977
to administer rights collectively, was curious as to why the CCC
wasn't chosen to administer rights under the settlement.
“The registry as it's framed out in the settlement agreement is
parallel with CCC in some ways,” she said. “One of the questions that
came up was why isn't CCC the registry? I really can't answer that
directly [because] I wasn't at the table.”
Victor S. Perlman of the American Society of Media Photographers also
expressed disappointment that photographic works were not encompassed
by the settlement.
“There's nothing inherent about visual materials that suggest that
they should not have been included,” Perlman said.
By Anandashankar Mazumdar
Copyright © 2009, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Barnes & Noble Sales Drop
Barnes & Noble reported a drop in annual sales this morning. But company executives said they would continue to invest in growth areas--namely its newly acquired Fictionwise.com site.
Here's the report:
B&N Reports 2.8%
Annual Sales Drop
New York, NY (Authorlink News, March 19, 2009)—Barnes & Noble, Inc., the world’s largest bookseller, today reported that sales fell by 4.8% for the quarter and 2.7% for the full year, compared to fiscal 2007. Store sales were $1,439 million for the quarter and $4,525 million for the full year, ended January 31, 2009. Comparable store sales decreased 7.3% for the quarter and 5.4% for the year, in-line with guidance.
Overall, Barnes & Noble.com sales were $157 million for the quarter and $466 million for the full year. Barnes & Noble.com comparable sales decreased 10.4% for the quarter and 1.3% for the full year as compared to the same periods in fiscal 2007.
Consolidated sales decreased 6% to $1,632 million for the quarter and decreased 3% to $5,122 million for the full year, as compared to the prior year periods.
The fourth quarter decline was partly attributed to severance costs of eliminating corporate positions and an after-tax charge of $2.5 million.
Net earnings were $81.2 million, or $1.46 per share for the fourth quarter, and $75.9 million, or $1.32 per share for the full year. Excluding the two charges noted above, net earnings were $93.3 million, or $1.67 per share for the fourth quarter, and $88.1 million, or $1.54 per share for the full year, in-line with guidance issued on November 20, 2008.
“While 2008 proved to be the most challenging year that the company and the industry have ever experienced, we are proud of our financial results in light of the macro retail environment,” said Steve Riggio, chief executive officer of Barnes & Noble, Inc. “Despite a sales decrease of 3%, gross margins improved by 50 basis points, inventory levels were reduced by 11%, and our focus on expense control and capital expenditures enabled us to generate operating free cash flow of $150 million, exceeding our expectations. As we look to 2009, we expect the challenging environment to continue. Sales forecasts have been planned accordingly and expenses have been cut. The strength of our balance sheet remains a top priority. And, while we are reducing overall expense levels where appropriate, we will continue to invest in the growth areas of the business, as evidenced in our recent acquisition of Fictionwise.”
Looking ahead, the company gave a tentative forecast, based on current trends. B& N store sales are expected to decrease by 6% to 9%, and full-year comparable store sales are also expected to decrease in a range of 4% to 6%.
As of January 31, 2009, the company operated 726 Barnes & Noble stores and 52 B. Dalton stores. During the fourth quarter, five Barnes & Noble stores were opened and seven were closed. Nineteen B. Dalton stores were closed during the quarter.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. will report first quarter earnings on or about May 21, 2009.
Here's the report:
B&N Reports 2.8%
Annual Sales Drop
New York, NY (Authorlink News, March 19, 2009)—Barnes & Noble, Inc., the world’s largest bookseller, today reported that sales fell by 4.8% for the quarter and 2.7% for the full year, compared to fiscal 2007. Store sales were $1,439 million for the quarter and $4,525 million for the full year, ended January 31, 2009. Comparable store sales decreased 7.3% for the quarter and 5.4% for the year, in-line with guidance.
Overall, Barnes & Noble.com sales were $157 million for the quarter and $466 million for the full year. Barnes & Noble.com comparable sales decreased 10.4% for the quarter and 1.3% for the full year as compared to the same periods in fiscal 2007.
Consolidated sales decreased 6% to $1,632 million for the quarter and decreased 3% to $5,122 million for the full year, as compared to the prior year periods.
The fourth quarter decline was partly attributed to severance costs of eliminating corporate positions and an after-tax charge of $2.5 million.
Net earnings were $81.2 million, or $1.46 per share for the fourth quarter, and $75.9 million, or $1.32 per share for the full year. Excluding the two charges noted above, net earnings were $93.3 million, or $1.67 per share for the fourth quarter, and $88.1 million, or $1.54 per share for the full year, in-line with guidance issued on November 20, 2008.
“While 2008 proved to be the most challenging year that the company and the industry have ever experienced, we are proud of our financial results in light of the macro retail environment,” said Steve Riggio, chief executive officer of Barnes & Noble, Inc. “Despite a sales decrease of 3%, gross margins improved by 50 basis points, inventory levels were reduced by 11%, and our focus on expense control and capital expenditures enabled us to generate operating free cash flow of $150 million, exceeding our expectations. As we look to 2009, we expect the challenging environment to continue. Sales forecasts have been planned accordingly and expenses have been cut. The strength of our balance sheet remains a top priority. And, while we are reducing overall expense levels where appropriate, we will continue to invest in the growth areas of the business, as evidenced in our recent acquisition of Fictionwise.”
Looking ahead, the company gave a tentative forecast, based on current trends. B& N store sales are expected to decrease by 6% to 9%, and full-year comparable store sales are also expected to decrease in a range of 4% to 6%.
As of January 31, 2009, the company operated 726 Barnes & Noble stores and 52 B. Dalton stores. During the fourth quarter, five Barnes & Noble stores were opened and seven were closed. Nineteen B. Dalton stores were closed during the quarter.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. will report first quarter earnings on or about May 21, 2009.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Columbia Law School To Probe
Impact of Google Settlement
Hi Everyone,
This conference affects every author and publisher on the earth. We'll be reporting on the results at www.authorlink.com. Stay tuned.
New York, March 6, 2009 — The recent Google books class action settlement is the subject of a full-day conference, March 13, 2009, at Columbia Law School. Lawyers, librarians, authors and publishers will examine the potential long-term implications of the Google settlement for the parties, for other stakeholders whose works are not included in the settlement (e.g., photographers and illustrators), and for the public interest.
If approved by the court, the settlement will provide new opportunities for authors and publishers to market their works. It will also enhance the public’s ability to search for books and to get partial text displays (and, in the case of many older works, full text displays) at home, at school, and in libraries. At the same time, the settlement may have significant implications for copyright law, competition, research, and scholarship.
WHAT: The Google Books Settlement: What Will It Mean for the Long Term?
WHEN: March 13, 2009, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (breakfast: 8:30 a.m.)
WHERE: Columbia Law School, Jerome Greene Hall, Room 106 Amsterdam at West 116 Street; Via subway: #1 train to 116 Street (Broadway)/Columbia University.
WHO: Hosted by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, the introductory speakers will be Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, on “Legislating Through the Settlement,” and Professor Randal C. Picker, University of Chicago Law School on “Competition Issues.”
June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center at Columbia Law School, will moderate “The Future of Books.” Jane C. Ginsburg, the Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at Columbia, will moderate “Authors and Incentives.” Mary Rasenberger, counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will moderate “The Public Interest.”
Link here for the program, and a full list of the panelists: http://kernochancenter.org/Googlebookssettlement.htm
The program is sponsored by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts; The Horace S. Manges Lecture and Conference Fund; The Copyright Society of the U.S.A.; Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Columbia's Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts was established to contribute to a broader understanding of the legal aspects of creative works of authorship, including their dissemination and use. The Center has encouraged the development of instruction at the Law School in topics such as intellectual property, copyright, trademarks, the regulation of electronic media, and problems arising from new technologies.
Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, and environmental law.
This conference affects every author and publisher on the earth. We'll be reporting on the results at www.authorlink.com. Stay tuned.
New York, March 6, 2009 — The recent Google books class action settlement is the subject of a full-day conference, March 13, 2009, at Columbia Law School. Lawyers, librarians, authors and publishers will examine the potential long-term implications of the Google settlement for the parties, for other stakeholders whose works are not included in the settlement (e.g., photographers and illustrators), and for the public interest.
If approved by the court, the settlement will provide new opportunities for authors and publishers to market their works. It will also enhance the public’s ability to search for books and to get partial text displays (and, in the case of many older works, full text displays) at home, at school, and in libraries. At the same time, the settlement may have significant implications for copyright law, competition, research, and scholarship.
WHAT: The Google Books Settlement: What Will It Mean for the Long Term?
WHEN: March 13, 2009, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (breakfast: 8:30 a.m.)
WHERE: Columbia Law School, Jerome Greene Hall, Room 106 Amsterdam at West 116 Street; Via subway: #1 train to 116 Street (Broadway)/Columbia University.
WHO: Hosted by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, the introductory speakers will be Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, on “Legislating Through the Settlement,” and Professor Randal C. Picker, University of Chicago Law School on “Competition Issues.”
June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center at Columbia Law School, will moderate “The Future of Books.” Jane C. Ginsburg, the Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at Columbia, will moderate “Authors and Incentives.” Mary Rasenberger, counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will moderate “The Public Interest.”
Link here for the program, and a full list of the panelists: http://kernochancenter.org/Googlebookssettlement.htm
The program is sponsored by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts; The Horace S. Manges Lecture and Conference Fund; The Copyright Society of the U.S.A.; Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Columbia's Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts was established to contribute to a broader understanding of the legal aspects of creative works of authorship, including their dissemination and use. The Center has encouraged the development of instruction at the Law School in topics such as intellectual property, copyright, trademarks, the regulation of electronic media, and problems arising from new technologies.
Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, and environmental law.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Borders Books Eliminates
742 Positions Nationwide
Hi Everyone,
Well, publishing news is breaking everywhere this week. Sadly, Borders Books just announced major job layoffs.
Borders Books Eliminates
742 Positions Nationwide
ANN ARBOR, Mich.(Authorlink News, March 5, 2009)--Borders Group announced the elimination of 742 positions throughout its 516 Borders superstores and in a number of its 385 Waldenbooks Specialty Retail locations nationwide, effective today. This represents less than 3% of the company's total workforce.
At Borders superstores, 679 jobs were eliminated, as the company focused on reducing the number of manager and supervisor positions in its superstores. No changes were made at the general manager level -- the top position in each store -- but in the majority of Borders locations, one or two other leadership positions, such as sales managers, inventory managers, training supervisors and merchandise supervisors, were eliminated as the company resets its superstore management structure to correspond to sales volume on a store-by-store basis.
In addition to the changes at Borders superstores, the company also eliminated 63 jobs within its Waldenbooks Specialty Retail segment. Again, all store managers remain in place, but a variety of other manager and supervisor positions, as well as additional roles in approximately 47 stores within the mall-based chain, were eliminated.
Borders Group will offer transition pay and severance to all affected employees.
"Every retailer operating today must manage their business prudently, including staffing stores to maintain strong customer service levels while also making sure that payroll investments align with the reality of sales," said Borders Group Chief Executive Officer Ron Marshall. "As we've said in the past, no one likes to eliminate jobs, but reducing the number of leadership positions in our stores was a necessary step as we streamline and focus our payroll investment on the sales floor, where we actively engage with customers and meet their needs -- that's what our business is all about."
Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE: BGP) is a leading retailer of books, music and movies with approximately 27,000 employees. Through its subsidiaries, the company operates more than 1,000 stores primarily under the Borders(R) and Waldenbooks(R) brand names and offers online shopping through Borders.com.
Well, publishing news is breaking everywhere this week. Sadly, Borders Books just announced major job layoffs.
Borders Books Eliminates
742 Positions Nationwide
ANN ARBOR, Mich.(Authorlink News, March 5, 2009)--Borders Group announced the elimination of 742 positions throughout its 516 Borders superstores and in a number of its 385 Waldenbooks Specialty Retail locations nationwide, effective today. This represents less than 3% of the company's total workforce.
At Borders superstores, 679 jobs were eliminated, as the company focused on reducing the number of manager and supervisor positions in its superstores. No changes were made at the general manager level -- the top position in each store -- but in the majority of Borders locations, one or two other leadership positions, such as sales managers, inventory managers, training supervisors and merchandise supervisors, were eliminated as the company resets its superstore management structure to correspond to sales volume on a store-by-store basis.
In addition to the changes at Borders superstores, the company also eliminated 63 jobs within its Waldenbooks Specialty Retail segment. Again, all store managers remain in place, but a variety of other manager and supervisor positions, as well as additional roles in approximately 47 stores within the mall-based chain, were eliminated.
Borders Group will offer transition pay and severance to all affected employees.
"Every retailer operating today must manage their business prudently, including staffing stores to maintain strong customer service levels while also making sure that payroll investments align with the reality of sales," said Borders Group Chief Executive Officer Ron Marshall. "As we've said in the past, no one likes to eliminate jobs, but reducing the number of leadership positions in our stores was a necessary step as we streamline and focus our payroll investment on the sales floor, where we actively engage with customers and meet their needs -- that's what our business is all about."
Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE: BGP) is a leading retailer of books, music and movies with approximately 27,000 employees. Through its subsidiaries, the company operates more than 1,000 stores primarily under the Borders(R) and Waldenbooks(R) brand names and offers online shopping through Borders.com.
Barnes & Noble Buys Fictionwise
Hi Everyone,
This just in from Barnes & Noble. It does appear the world of publishing is going all digital. Here's the scoop.
Barnes & Noble Acquires Fictionwise
New York, New York - March 5, 2009 -- Barnes & Noble, Inc., the world's largest bookseller, announced today that it has acquired Fictionwise, a leader in the e-book marketplace, for $15.7 million in cash. Barnes & Noble said it plans to use Fictionwise as part of its overall digital strategy, which includes the launch of an e-Bookstore later this year. In addition to the closing purchase price, Fictionwise may receive earn out payments for achieving certain performance targets over the next two years.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Fictionwise was founded in 2000 by Steve and Scott Pendergrast. Barnes & Noble intends to keep Fictionwise as a separate business unit and the founders will continue to operate the business.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS), the world's largest bookseller and a Fortune 500 company, operates 799 bookstores in 50 states. Barnes & Noble conducts its online business through Barnes & Noble.com (www.bn.com), one of the Web's largest e-commerce sites.
This just in from Barnes & Noble. It does appear the world of publishing is going all digital. Here's the scoop.
Barnes & Noble Acquires Fictionwise
New York, New York - March 5, 2009 -- Barnes & Noble, Inc., the world's largest bookseller, announced today that it has acquired Fictionwise, a leader in the e-book marketplace, for $15.7 million in cash. Barnes & Noble said it plans to use Fictionwise as part of its overall digital strategy, which includes the launch of an e-Bookstore later this year. In addition to the closing purchase price, Fictionwise may receive earn out payments for achieving certain performance targets over the next two years.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Fictionwise was founded in 2000 by Steve and Scott Pendergrast. Barnes & Noble intends to keep Fictionwise as a separate business unit and the founders will continue to operate the business.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS), the world's largest bookseller and a Fortune 500 company, operates 799 bookstores in 50 states. Barnes & Noble conducts its online business through Barnes & Noble.com (www.bn.com), one of the Web's largest e-commerce sites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
