Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
I don't know if the Chicago Public Library lets you reserve eBooks before the release date, but many do.
Now, what if they were to only let you pre-order eBooks from publishers who contribute to the library? An outrageous comparison? But is it really worse to pay a kickback to Chicago's government than to Amazon's stockholders? Obviously I don't think so. Since Amazon probably has a higher eBook market penetration, in Chicago, than the library, I could argue that it's worse when Amazon tries to engineer the best-seller list than if the library did it.
It seems to me that when you have a two-thirds market share in eBooks, you have a social responsibility to avoid pre-selecting literary winners and losers. Those advance buy buttons do seem to have an effect on which books will be winners, and Amazon is going too far by expecting a sweetheart contract unavailable to other booksellers, and a kickback on top of that.
I clicked on a New York Public Library advance reserve button a few weeks ago for a Hachette title released this Tuesday, and I finished the book yesterday. The library paid for the book. But Hachette didn't try to engineer when I was able to click.
Both Amazon and Hachette, to some degree, balance concern with profit and the public interest. But from where I sit, and read, Hachette does it in a less harmful way.
What about book stores that specialize in mystery books? Are they also trying to engineer the best seller list? Answer is no, because their small market share makes it implausible. But once you get to a majority market share -- more than either Borders or B&N ever had -- I think you start getting to have an actual responsible to something approaching net neutrality for books.
|
But see, I would bet that Overdrive (and thus, the libraries) have some sort of a contract with Hachette (and other publishers) so that they can guarantee that the book will be available upon publication. Amazon doesn't have that with Hachette.
Shari