Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll
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. |
Who's moving goal posts?
The book is available elsewhere. A fact proven by the links provided in my post.
How in the world can you assume the library got the book from Amazon? There are multiple sources, again proven by the links provided in my post.
Based on your argument, Amazon should be in court right now, as should every other publishing house with exclusive rights, as well as every record label, movie production studio, etc. There is no antitrust issue, however, because they are not monopolies.
The fact that you are still participating in this discussion completely negates your claim of "having no dog in the discussion".