[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

There is nothing illegal about proprietary systems. Nor about large market shares earned through legal means.

True, but when you have a large market share, you're under a microscope. Anything you do that prevents competition becomes potentially problematic.

In this case, three things that Amazon has done, each of which is, when examined on its own, perfectly legal, conspire to make it essentially impossible to distribute the exact same book through other stores that you distribute through Amazon, simply because you can't use their tools to generate a MOBI for other stores, and you can't use anybody else's tools to generate a MOBI for Amazon's store.

So I would argue that the resulting combination of those policies effectively creates an exclusivity clause in Amazon's relationships with its vendors. Those are legal under many circumstances, but if you are a monopoly or a near-monopoly, they aren't. And the fact that you can sell a different product to other distributors (e.g. in EPUB format instead of MOBI) doesn't negate that.

Mind you, this isn't an open-and-shut antitrust violation, but it is enough of a grey area that Amazon should probably change their policies to stay well clear of the line.

Originally Posted by darryl

However, to actually seriously argue that Amazon is a threat to freedom of expression and culture is a most impressive exercise in mental gymnastics. Traditional publishing rejects 99% of works submitted. Amazon, on the other hand, will let an author publish just about anything.

Right now.

Originally Posted by darryl

Amazon is a threat because they allegedly have the power to limit freedom of expression, even though even your argument seems to acknowledge that their is no indication that they would attempt to exercise this power even if they did possess it?

Actually, Amazon already limits freedom of expression. They ban pornography, for example. The only thing standing between them and other limits on free expression is that their current management believes in free expression to some degree. But that can turn on a dime. Just look at SCO for a great example of how a management change can turn a tech pioneer into a lawsuit engine, and you'll understand why it is important that no single company be responsible for three-quarters of all eBook sales.

Originally Posted by darryl

But they do not. There are many places to buy books other than Amazon. If Amazon did start to threaten free speech, rejected authors would find other places to help them publish.

Sure. The problem is that most censorship tends to be subtle and gradual. As long as there are only a few new people complaining about censorship every year, it is likely that no one would pay them much attention—"First, they came for the Socialists" and all that.

Originally Posted by darryl

But it is a travesty to seek to portray a business which has done and is still doing so much for freedom of expression, culture and diversity as an enemy of free expression!

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that they're an enemy of free expression. I'm saying that the existence of any near-monopoly, no matter how benevolent it might be, is inherently a threat to free expression.