Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyssa
*emphasis added by me.
Which still does not prove a monopoly.
1. The book can be purchased in paper through other stores. B&N, Books-A-Million, BiggerBooks.com to name a few.
2. The book can be borrowed from the library.
3. The author chose to use Amazon instead of some other publisher...Amazon did not "force" him to do so. He has prevented consumers from getting the e-book version from other sources.
Again, there is no proof of a monopoly. When Amazon becomes the only source for all of the items it sells, (like FPL once being the only source for electricity in the city, county, or state of Florida) then I will consider it a monopoly.
|
But now, respectfully, I feel you're moving goalposts. When you said (paraphrase) "there's no monopoly because everything I see on Amazon I can buy elsewhere", and someone shows that there are things on Amazon that you
can't buy elsewhere, saying "but the library has it!" is a goalpost movement, in my mind.
Yeah, the library has it. Because the library bought the book through Amazon. It's still the same deal: Amazon is a gatekeeper of some books. That's all.
I'm not arguing Amazon is good or bad or whatever. You made a statement about everything on Amazon being elsewhere and therefore no monopoly. I responded with some facts otherwise. Accept them or not, I have no dog in this discussion.
Also, IANAL, but monopolies are not about "forcing"
providers to do anything. Monopolies are broken to protect
customers, not providers. The fact that the author "chose" to sign an exclusive contract with Amazon for sexeh Amazon money would have ZERO bearing on a Amazon Publisher / Distributor anti-trust case.