"Amazon Must Be Stopped," by the editor of The New Republic

[tubemonkey]

...that article is full of politics; it'll corrupt my mind.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...that article is full of politics; it'll corrupt my mind.

Which one? Foers?

[taustin]

I've never noted that New Republic shows any evidence of sharing the same reality with most of humanity. A quick scan of the headlines on their home page does not convince me otherwise. They seem to be hell bent on making their living making people afraid, but afraid of the right bogeymen, which is to say, Republicans.

[fjtorres]

Konrath and Eisler take on Patterson's call for boycott and encapsulate the last week or so:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/1...son-again.html

Things can get hot there. (Konrath is ex-Hachette. He had to sue to get free.)

Writers signed a contract with Hachette because they valued Hachette as a business partner, and one of Hachette's most valuable attributes is its ability to distribute books. When Hachette isn't able to come to terms with the largest bookseller on the planet, and sales are falling as a result, Hachette is failing its authors.

In a previous comment on my blog, former attorney John Ellsworth said:

"Implied in the publishing contract is the requirement of acting in good faith. Right now, it could be argued that publishers appear to be hurting their own authors by representing their own interests (higher profits) ahead of authors' interests (sales platform) by failing to contract with Amazon. This could support a claim for bad faith by author v. publisher, which could result in damages and could result in a breach being declared such that the author can then take steps to acquire what is called "cover" for oneself, which is law talk for mitigation of damages. Mitigation could take the form of self-publishing."

It seems obvious the guilty party here is Hachette. And I hope some Hachette authors hire an attorney and pursue a bad faith claim.

But rather than address that very real issue, Patterson et al keep flapping their gums about the evils of Amazon. They use fear words. Absurd arguments. Propaganda. Nonsensical appeals to emotion. Ineffectively use the media. They avoid the actual problem, and its possible solutions. But their whining isn't working. In fact, many are calling it out as the nonsense it is.

Amazon needs to be stopped? Check out this Washington Post article by David Post which shows otherwise. (It's literally a post in the Post by Post).

Amazon is a monopoly? No, it isn’t, writes Maxwell S. Kennerley, Esquire, on the Litigation & Trial website.

Amazon plays rough? So what? writes Joe Nocera in a New York Times op-ed piece.

Amazon is what's wrong with American capitalism? Actually, it’s what’s right, writes Reihan Salam in Slate.

Is Jeff Bezos really the bad guy in this dispute? Alex Beam of the Boston Globe says no.

The media coverage of Amazon/Hachetter is fairly balanced? Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of the New York times, thinks not.

It certainly wasn't.
But then came Foer...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Which one? Foers?

Yep; but then, it's the New Republic

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Yep; but then, it's the New Republic

You can always read the fiskings instead.
Barry Eisler practically went line by line with a blow-torch.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You can always read the fiskings instead.
Barry Eisler practically went line by line with a blow-torch.

I'll read it later today; but I have to be careful when I comment. Don't wanna get accused of being political again

Ya know, Eisler looks like one of those male sex toys off the cover of a steamy romance novel

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You can always read the fiskings instead.
Barry Eisler practically went line by line with a blow-torch.

I don't know a lot about Barry, but i did enjoy his take down.

That said, I think both sides are talking to their respective choirs. Most readers (somewhere in excess of 50%) aren't listening and don't care. They'll continue to buy the books they want, paper or ebook, with little thought to either side's arguments.

[Barcey]

Patterson should demand that his name be removed from his books on Amazon and replaced with the names of the authors that actually wrote them. That would teach Amazon a lesson.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Patterson should demand that his name be removed from his books on Amazon and replaced with the names of the authors that actually wrote them. That would teach Amazon a lesson.

He can't hate Amazon too bad. He does business with them as an affiliate. He has Amazon affiliate links for his books on his website.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

He can't hate Amazon too bad. He does business with them as an affiliate. He has Amazon affiliate links for his books on his website.

I usually strip links before making purchases at Amazon

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by taustin

I've never noted that New Republic shows any evidence of sharing the same reality with most of humanity. A quick scan of the headlines on their home page does not convince me otherwise. They seem to be hell bent on making their living making people afraid, but afraid of the right bogeymen, which is to say, Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans are carved from the same pond scum.

But why would the New Republic attack Bezos? He's not Republican. And, by the way, I don't disagree with your assessment of the New Republic. They seem to be screech-o-matics about everything.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

He can't hate Amazon too bad. He does business with them as an affiliate. He has Amazon affiliate links for his books on his website.

He does hate Amazon.
He just loves the money they make him more.

It's just that being rich gives him the right to talk one way and act another.
Rich people are different, remember?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

He does hate Amazon.
He just loves the money they make him more.

It's just that being rich gives him the right to talk one way and act another.
Rich people are different, remember?

Are you sure it's not a nargle infestation?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Democrats and Republicans are carved from the same pond scum.

Oh, I agree. I really can't tell them apart without a score card any more. They all want the same thing - to go through our pockets for loose change they missed last time - but they use distinctively different rhetoric in their propaganda.

Originally Posted by rcentros

But why would the New Republic attack Bezos? He's not Republican. And, by the way, I don't disagree with your assessment of the New Republic. They seem to be screech-o-matics about everything.

He's "Big Business" of the biggest kind, and therefore, must be sympathetic to Republicans. That's what passes for thought among some lefties. (Yes, there's virtually identical examples from the other side, only with different color bows on top.) Especially those publishing incoherent screeds on the internet, in order to sell advertising.

As for New Republic, I didn't look in any depth, just scanned the headlines on their home page, which seems to have a leftie bent. But, as you note, there's no difference between the left and the right. They're all liars, they're all hypocrites, and they're all fools. The only real complaint any of them seem to have is "somebody else is making a lot of money and not sharing it with us." Yawn.