Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
I agree that Amazon has a right to sell/not sell what it wants, but because it is so dominant in the marketplace, it has an obligation to be clear as to what it will/will not sell.
|
This is patently absurd, and has absolutely no legal or ethical standing.
For example, as far as I can tell Amazon doesn't sell any form of "adult" (pornographic) DVD's or movies. Does that mean Amazon is "censoring" adult video?
Walmart is the largest retailer in the US. They carry some items but not others, and routinely redline content. Is it "censorship" if Walmart chooses not to carry Hustler Magazine?
If Amazon chooses not to carry a certain brand of citrus juicer, are they abusing their "monopoly" as a big retailer?
Similarly, Apple redlines a great deal of adult content from its devices, not just movies but apps as well. Is that "censorship?"
And what market share qualifies as a "monopoly?" 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? Or are you just arbitrarily deciding that because Amazon is "big" that they are obligated to a different standard?
Should Smashwords be held to the same standard? Consider their Terms of Service:
"2b. Publication at Option of Smashwords. Smashwords may decide not to Publish Author’s work or may decide to discontinue its publication of Author’s work for any reason and for no reason, and no reason need be provided." (And yes, that's the entire paragraph)
Wow, Smashwords must be a real bunch of censorious bastards, and it would be unfair for them to pull a book.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhadin
Actually, censorship like this, like Amazon's recent lending program that automatically opts everyone in and was implemented secretly during the holidays when no one was watching, are excellent reasons why everyone should buy a Kindle and make Amazon even more arrogant.
|
What on earth are you talking about? Amazon was very open about how they are basically adopting the same one-time lending option that B&N offers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhadin
In the end, the relationship between Amazon and its vendors is supposed to be governed by contractual terms that limit what each party can unilaterally do to affect the realtionship. From what I see, the terms are binding on everyone but Amazon and are so fluid at Amazon's whim that they are less contractual terms than terms of enslavement.
|
Again, this is an absurd position.
In this case, no one is forcing an author to list his or her books on Amazon. Amazon unquestionably has the legal right to drop any content they want from their self-publishing services at any time. The contract is not exclusive and the author/publisher can remove their works at any time. Referring to this as "slavery" is, to put it mildly, hyperbolic.