Quote:
Originally Posted by notimp
Yes, this is one of the main arguments I have on my side.
And at least in the Spotify model, people are still allowed to know how to produce songs, or an album. On kfx final control of production (layout, final product) was already handed over to the distributer. For some entirely alien reason.
But the argument goes further. Books are not consumables. Not inherently. They also have cultural aspects, that wont be adequately managed by one (or two) monopoly distributer. Books aren't only entertainment, they also are information. Knowledge. History.
If you chose to ignore that entirely to jump after the concept your silicon valley friends were marginally successful with in other forms of media - you have successfully proven that you cant be trusted with maintaining the future of the medium.
(Even regardless of if we can agree on if it is smart to let monopolies exist in the information space - where we certainly have a difference of opinion between the american and european concept of societies.)
Of course - only if we count on eBooks being at least something like Paper Books in essence, and not "something entirely different" - which I am sure Amazons PR department would argue.
But I thought at least as much would be argued for in this community.
Amazon killed books in favour of whatever they want to call their controlled new hybrid.
If you argue, that what Gutenberg did, should be able to be reversed by Amazon, because - yeah, liberalism, then where is the liberalism for us still to be able to produce eBooks (in a current format, established by adoption).
|
Are you a member of Authors United? A special snowflake?
Please say hello to Doug Preston for me!