Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
I should perhaps have said more clearly that I was talking generally about the view that "the behaviour of the businesses I give my money to isn't my problem" (paraphrased, not quoting any poster), not specifically about KU.
The only thing I know about the business side of KU is Scalzi's blog post. Based on that, "unethical" may be too strong a word. But it looks like it's bad for many authors because of the "sharing a fixed pool of money" model, and bad for readers because it encourages authors to split up books into lots of small parts, which makes for more annoying reading.
I avoid Amazon as much as possible because I don't think it's in my interest that any single actor in the book market is as powerful as Amazon is, and also because I've read some horrifying stuff about working conditions for Amazon's employees.
 "too strong a word" looks clumsy. Is "a too strong word" better? Any suggestions for saying that in a better way? |
I have problems with the way they treat some of their employees too.
I have zero problem with their market dominance because the legacy publishers pretty much put the retailers I used to buy epubs from out of business during their collusion fiasco.
They have become one of the easier places to search through indie authors and I personally prefer to buy the bulk of my fiction from people who retain their own distribution rights. Call that one a crusade.