Amazon’s Book Monopoly : A Threat to Freedom of Expression?

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Now, now, when have facts mattered to the AU gang?

http://www.shelf-awareness.com/issue...ue=2675#m31183

Notice that it is now Amazon's fault when a BPH turns down a book they don't think will sell.

"We don't want someone coming along and taking more than their share."

Oh, these guys are getting together and dividing up the market? Another no-no. Don't they ever learn?

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or try the "exercise in logic" debunked here:

http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/01/24/96732/

The premise? Amazon is evil so Indies shouldn't sully their souls dealing with them. Instead, they should pay others to deal with Amazon for them. Yeah, right.

Don Quijote had better chances.

I want the minutes I spent reading this back. We should like Apple because they charge inflated prices for their electronic crap, so they will be around longer. They took time (and illegal actions) to create ibooks. This is the worst thing I have ever read. Really

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I want the minutes I spent reading this back. We should like Apple because they charge inflated prices for their electronic crap, so they will be around longer. They took time (and illegal actions) to create ibooks. This is the worst thing I have ever read. Really

I've read worse, just in the last week.

But I'll not send clicks to the Guardian for that piece of mindless drivel.
(Hint: the only way for readers to find books is B&M. Because: airport newstands!)

[Alpha o]

As long as I can get what I want from Amazon with no back talk or reading list type nonsense and Calibre converts, I'll buy books. The other half is enjoying the used Kindle I bought for the kitchen. He goes and orders what he pleases since Amazon does have a fairly decent synopsis of the book he's interested in. Amazon is saving my sanity since I'm not a mind reader.

Amazon was the only place that had "The Right Kind of Crazy" Adam Steltzner. I don't figure it to be a hot best seller - it was about engineering EDL for The Mars Rovers. But that's what I'm interested in, so I'll buy it.

As long as Amazon manages to cater to very different markets, keep prices in line, being close to a monopoly isn't the end of the world. Amazon also has quite a few craft books in digital format - you can also read these free. That's more than Kobo has. Pretty decent selection of reference books, too. I've never seen Apple's list. It's also easier to ignore Amazon's selections for you.

I haven't used B&N since I called them spammers and managed to delete my account so well, that B&N can't find the Original wifi Nook. (It does run, but how many books got limited somehow)

Google Books is still used by many. It's now included on most new cell phones - I found it on Marshmallow. (Disabled it) Windows will be getting in the act eventually, so that's another competitor. Windows is working with CyanogenMod and trying to get its apps on Android. Windows wants a piece of the pie so it will probably sell books, too.

I wish there were a few more independents. I use Baen and Double Dragon.

I don't use book clubs. I tend to off the wall books. PBS Newshour will review some books, and most are not read by the general public. I got "Spam Nation" from a review there, and a few others that aren't ebooks yet, but I'm hoping.

[Sydney's Mom]

I watch talk shows. Mahr, Colbert, Meyers. There is always someone hawking a book on these shows. Aside from trolling bestseller lists, I am usually looking for a specific book I heard about in an interview. Then Amazon shows me similar books, that may bring up something else. Or the book may have references to other books. I just read Lights Out by Ted Koppel, and that referred to One Second After. I never have a look for a book to read.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You could say Amazon is a monopoly because they are the only ones who sell KF8 and KFX eBooks.

More significantly, you could say that Amazon has:

• Deliberately used a proprietary format for which non-proprietary equivalents exist.
• Refused to allow publishers to submit content in those formats unless it was created with Amazon's own tools. (Yes, some people have gotten away with it, but I'm pretty sure that the policies say not to do so.)
• Included provisions in the terms of use for those tools that make it unlawful for publishers to sell those books in KF8/KFX format through any other site.

The combination of those rules makes Apple's behavior look tame by comparison. At least Apple doesn't require publishers to use iBooks Author....

Effectively, this means that for publishers to publish Kindle books in any other manner other than through Amazon, they must create two entirely different Kindle versions of their books—one produced with KindleGen and one produced with Calibre or some other similar tool. That's a huge amount of overhead for what is likely to be a small market (people who own Kindle devices and are willing to buy books elsewhere), so Amazon's behavior effectively means that nobody bothers to make Kindle books available outside of Amazon.

IMO, from a legal perspective, there's really no question about whether Amazon's behavior is abusive and anticompetitive. The question is whether they're close enough to a monopoly to warrant legal action against them for their abuses. Remember that you don't have to have 100% of any market to be impacted by antitrust laws. I would say that 74% of the eBook market is plenty big enough to qualify.

As for whether it is a threat to freedom of expression, I would say that it is, but only because Amazon has placed themselves in a position where they have the unique ability to seriously limit freedom of expression. This is not to say that they are doing so, nor that they plan to do so, but rather that no company should have that much power to do so, because it only takes one CEO change to seriously screw things up.

[HarryT]

I'm curious what law you think is being broken if someone sells a KF8 book on a site other than Amazon. It may be a violation of Amazon's T&Cs, but unlawful? Seriously?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

More significantly, you could say that Amazon has:

• Deliberately used a proprietary format for which non-proprietary equivalents exist.
• Refused to allow publishers to submit content in those formats unless it was created with Amazon's own tools. (Yes, some people have gotten away with it, but I'm pretty sure that the policies say not to do so.)
• Included provisions in the terms of use for those tools that make it unlawful for publishers to sell those books in KF8/KFX format through any other site.

.

While those things might offend your sensibilities, nothing there--singly or collectively--breaks any laws anwhere on the planet and is no different than anything done by Nintendo and Sony for decades or, more recently Apple and Microsoft. Amazon did nothing with Kindle that Rocketbook and Sony didn't do first. They just executed better.

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

If all the time spent bad-mouthing Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other tech giants were spent looking after consumer needs, maybe there would be more options to choose from.

[Sydney's Mom]

The issue isn't whether it is hard to compete, but whether it is possible to compete. Given the large share of epubs, I don't think you could say Amazon's proprietary format harms the market. Given the fact that one of my online libraries only offers epub or Axis 360, leads me to think that competition is alive and well.

Remember Betamax? They didn't argue Sony was a monopoly, just came up with a better system.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

As for whether it is a threat to freedom of expression, I would say that it is, but only because Amazon has placed themselves in a position where they have the unique ability to seriously limit freedom of expression. This is not to say that they are doing so, nor that they plan to do so, but rather that no company should have that much power to do so, because it only takes one CEO change to seriously screw things up.

I have nothing good to say about any of the points you raised in the part of your post I have not quoted. Others have dealt with these and there is little I can add.

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. The result is more ideas, more diversity, more freedom of expression and at prices so much more affordable. Technological advances have made this wide freedom of expression possible, and Amazon has embraced this technology more than any other company. 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? 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. Buyers would purchase elsewhere, me amongst them. 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!

Amazon is not perfect. Nor is democracy nor market economies. It seems to me that many of the criticisms of Amazon have become increasingly generic attacks on corporations and the market economy generally, often by people who seem to scorn both whilst enjoying their benefits.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm curious what law you think is being broken if someone sells a KF8 book on a site other than Amazon. It may be a violation of Amazon's T&Cs, but unlawful? Seriously?

Civil law, not criminal law.

[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.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

T
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.

Perhaps they should just shut down?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

Civil law, not criminal law.

In all honesty I don't think that violating the terms and conditions of a service is a matter for the law, either criminal or civil. The worst that can happen is that Amazon will stop selling the books involved.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

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.

But Amazon isn't either.
The US publishing world is much much bigger than ebooks, and much bigger tgan trade publishing.

Amazon's total share of the total publishing market distribution channel is barely 15-20%. ($4-5B vs $27B).

That is hardly near-monopoly numbers.

And when it comes to free speech, the arenas where Amazon doesn't play (Textbooks, journals, newspapers, online...) are all more important to free speech than how many adult coloring books Amazon ships out to stressed-out customers.

Back when Penguin and Random House announced they were shacking up there was some squeaking from agents about how the merger would harm "free speech" by reducing the number of deep pocket bidders for titles. The feds laughed and rubber-stamped the deal because even though, combined, the randy penguin started out with nearly half of the trade publishing sector, the *relevant market* for antitrust purposes is the entirety of US publishing, not the narrow segment that relies on retailers and airport newstands.
And the number of publishers active is way too big for any single publisher (or distributor) *acting alone* to harm consumer interests. (Conspiracies are a different matter.)

As to pornography and other material Amazon refuses to distribute (how-to guides for bomb makers) there is no shortage of sources for any of that material so Amazon's refusal isn't hurting anybody.

People in publishing have this quaint idea that Amazon has some sort of obligation to carry their products, at Amazon expense, under *their* terms as if they were some public utility or a broadcaster utilizing public airwaves. They need to disabuse themselves of that silliness.

First of all, the freedom of speech debate is about *government* using its monopoly on force to stifle speech. Amazon is no government agency nor do they, to my knowledge, command an army any more than Apple, Microsoft, or any tech giant. Until they start sending out hit squads to kneecap Lee Child or Douglas Preston or beat up on LeGuin they won't even begin to be a threat to free speech. The mere fact that they continue to honor their contracts and carry even the titles of those three fools is ample evidence that Amazon has no interest in stifling "dissent".

One. More. Time: censorship is about government institutions.

Not about commerce.
Companies engaged in commerce have every right, even an obligation, to limit what they distribute. They are entitled to be as arbitrary as they choose to be and customers and suppliers are totally free to take their business elsewhere.