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

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I think you are splitting hairs a bit too finely here.

Baen sell through their own site and Amazon and Kobo, selling mobi, epub, kf8 and kepub, as long as someone can read the book with the same words I don't think they care if the file is exactly the same or not.

Classifying a book sold in one format as exclusive when it is available elsewhere in equivalent formats is going to politician levels of stretching the facts.

But that is exactly what this campaign is: a political exercise.
Hachette CEO Nouri announced last year the intent to try to get government action in the US to legalize and mandate price fixing of books.

That is why the "free speech" lynching party was held in DC and not in NY.
Its just a PR campaign to provide cover for politician action.

[cvkemp]

Paper books are out selling ebooks again or have you not noticed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cvkemp

Paper books are out selling ebooks again or have you not noticed.

Again? I wasn't aware they had ever not done so, overall.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

The exclusivity I was talking about has nothing to do with KDP Select. I was talking about the fact that it is impossible to ship the exact same Kindle book via Amazon's store and any third-party store because of a combination of Amazon's policy that submissions have to be produced with kindlegen and their policy that you can't use kindlegen to produce content for sale outside of Amazon's store.

In effect, the combination of those two policies means that the Kindle version of your book, as sold on Amazon, must be an Amazon exclusive, which in a monopoly or near monopoly situation is legally problematic at best.





I'm just reading Amazon's policies. I have no opinion on what is or is not pornography, nor on whether it should or should not be sold. I'm merely pointing out that it is, in fact, a limitation of speech, albeit one that most people are okay with.

Hmmm.
So you are attempting to tell me that if the inside is the same then the outside should be exactly the same.
Are you aware that everyone has their own brand be it book formats or can labels?

Can you sell the contents of the book even if it is in a slightly different package.

Now for ease and simplicity, I will use green peas as an example.
If I am a green pea cannery, I must have at least 10 different labels as to distinguish who is selling it.
Example, yes I can find Libby's and Green Giant at all the stores. However, I can only find Great Value at one store, Everyday Essentials at another and so one.
But hey once I take it out of the package, it is impossible to tell which brand.
Same with an ebook, once I open it, the words (the important part) are the same, whether I read it on Kindle, Kobo or any other reader.

Now I also can't buy adult stuff at Walmart. So what? If I want it, I know where to find it.

If a company doesn't want to sell a product, they don't have too.
If one doesn't like that a company excludes or includes a product, they do not have to shop there.

You know I have never seen Great Value products sold anywhere except Walmart.
Is that a monopoly?
The answer is no. It is called their brand.
Nothing illegal, immoral or fattening about that. It is called running a business.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Again? I wasn't aware they had ever not done so, overall.

Quite right.
Publishers, though, are quite happy to push the fairly pointless (not to mention faulty) concept that Print is somehow "making a comeback" (as if ebooks had ever overtaken print).

They like pretending that they've stemmed the evil tide of ebooks. "The war is won. Huzzah!"

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But ebooks and print books *are* fungible.

To some degree, they are, but not fully so:

• If you don't have a computer, tablet, smartphone, or eBook reader, you can't do anything with an eBook.
• If you need to carry a bunch of books around, e.g. for school, there's a huge difference between carrying six electronic books on a tablet and carrying six textbooks.
• If you're running a library, there's a huge difference between a hardcover book and a paperback.

So these products, though somewhat fungible, aren't entirely fungible in all circumstances. That makes it a somewhat more complex issue than I think you're giving it credit for being.

It is anybody's guess how the courts would actually rule on the subject if pressed to do so, but in United States v. Apple, the court did allow "trade eBooks in the United States" to be considered a market. Neither party contested that market definition, and if they had, it is possible that the courts would have rejected that definition, but the fact that the U.S. District Court in NYC did not reject it at least lends strong support to my assertion that it is, in fact, legally a separate market from print publishing.

With that said, Amazon has 65% of online print book sales, which is still a staggering percentage, and I would argue that online print book sales are the only ones that are relevant in discussions of freedom of expression, because there's no way that an author is going to get books into brick-and-mortar stores without a significant publishing house backing them, statistically speaking, and they represent a serious gatekeeping factor.

So even if you expanded the market definition to include all online book sales, Amazon still has such complete dominance over that market compared with the next largest player that the courts would probably consider it to be in a monopoly-ish position.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Classifying a book sold in one format as exclusive when it is available elsewhere in equivalent formats is going to politician levels of stretching the facts.

Not at all. They aren't equivalent formats. If I own a Kindle reader (except for the Fire), then no format is equivalent to Kindle format. I can't just buy an EPUB and use it on a Kindle reader. Advanced users can download kindlegen (or Kindle Previewer), install a Java runtime, and convert the EPUB, but most users will struggle just getting to that point.

Also, unless the EPUB is very, very minimal in its formatting, the result is unlikely to be acceptable. We have to do significant work on the source EPUB to make kindlegen put out something that is usable on all those old devices, much less something that looks good, and the resulting EPUB can't pass epubcheck, so we can't sell it as the official EPUB version. An average user isn't going to be able to fix HTML problems inside an EPUB so that the kindlegen output will look good, so a Kindle user buying an EPUB will get a substantially degraded experience compared with a Kindle user buying it in the MOBI/KF8 format.

This isn't remotely like peas, where the only difference is the packaging, because the "packaging" plays a critical functional role in how you can use the product. And that's why Amazon's use of a proprietary format is so critical to the discussion.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now I also can't buy adult stuff at Walmart. So what? If I want it, I know where to find it.

Wal-Mart isn't even remotely a monopoly, either, making that rather moot, but if it were, the legal problem would be one of discoverability. You know where to find adult goods because you know that adult goods exist. That's easy in a brick-and-mortar world.

Now jump fifty or a hundred years into the future. Print is dead. There's one search engine, and it blocks adult sites. One bookseller has 95% of the market, and it blocks adult books. Do your great grandkids still know where to find their porn? Do they even still know that porn exists?

And even that isn't a fully adequate example, because institutional knowledge keeps reminding us that porn exists. People don't forget things very quickly. But what about new ideas that challenge the status quo? If you're in a situation where the major search system and the major bookseller both decide to block some new, up-and-coming idea, they would effectively prevent anyone from discovering it in the first place.

Any serious discussion of freedom of expression must consider not just the known controversial subjects, but also any unknown controversial subjects that might come up in the future. That's why allowing any company to have too much control over a market—any market—is fundamentally a concern even if that company's current leadership has zero intent to abuse that position right now.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

Wal-Mart isn't even remotely a monopoly, either, making that rather moot, but if it were, the legal problem would be one of discoverability. You know where to find adult goods because you know that adult goods exist. That's easy in a brick-and-mortar world.

Now jump fifty or a hundred years into the future. Print is dead. There's one search engine, and it blocks adult sites. One bookseller has 95% of the market, and it blocks adult books. Do your great grandkids still know where to find their porn? Do they even still know that porn exists?

And even that isn't a fully adequate example, because institutional knowledge keeps reminding us that porn exists. People don't forget things very quickly. But what about new ideas that challenge the status quo? If you're in a situation where the major search system and the major bookseller both decide to block some new, up-and-coming idea, they would effectively prevent anyone from discovering it in the first place.

Any serious discussion of freedom of expression must consider not just the known controversial subjects, but also any unknown controversial subjects that might come up in the future. That's why allowing any company to have too much control over a market—any market—is fundamentally a concern even if that company's current leadership has zero intent to abuse that position right now.

Begging your pardon sir, I have never bought adult stuff in a B&M store.
I always bought through either a catalog or online. This is not due to embarrassment but cost. Catalog and online is nearly always cheaper than a B&M store in this case.

Oh and I used Walmart because I have heard the Same Exact stuff that you are saying Amazon does. Different products but same exact wording.
E-book, book, peas are all marketed exactly the same. Brand is all it is.
Oh and on libraries, there are really only 3 factors, which will people likely borrow, the cost to get the books and storage. Cost being the most important of the three.

Excuse me but adult books are for sale at Amazon. The category is EROTICA. And as of a search yesterday, there are 239,000 in that category. Which is down about 50,000 or so since Amazon changed its borrow rate.
Now Amazon does block certain types but that is entirely their choice. Other places will sell those types of books.
Not that hard to find if you know what to look for.
Oh and on the search engine blocking, that is the ad part blocking not the search engine.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Begging your pardon sir, I have never bought adult stuff in a B&M store.
I always bought through either a catalog or online. This is not due to embarrassment but cost. Catalog and online is nearly always cheaper than a B&M store in this case.

Fair enough, but the existence of B&M stores creates an awareness of the existence of the product category. That was my point.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh and I used Walmart because I have heard the Same Exact stuff that you are saying Amazon does. Different products but same exact wording.

Sure. And I've used them as an example myself. In some geographical markets (e.g. very small towns), they actually are potentially a monopoly on certain types of products, so I guess I was being overly broad with my dismissal of that example. My apologies.

The point I was trying to make there was that most of the time, in most markets, for most products, Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly, so they can get away with things that Amazon can't because it is basically a monopoly within many of its markets, in spite of Wal-Mart, B&N, and others making their best attempts at creating competing marketplaces.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh and on libraries, there are really only 3 factors, which will people likely borrow, the cost to get the books and storage. Cost being the most important of the three.

It depends on why they're buying the book. All the libraries I know prefer to get hardcover copies because they last a lot longer. But if they're buying multiple copies of some new title that they expect to be in high demand, they will buy only one or two hardcover copies that will last long-term, and buy the rest as paperback, knowing that they'll just be selling those additional copies in a used book sale after demand dies down.

But I suppose it depends on the library. Some of them buy paperback books and rebind them, too, particularly if that is cheaper.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

Fair enough, but the existence of B&M stores creates an awareness of the existence of the product category. That was my point.




Sure. And I've used them as an example myself. In some geographical markets (e.g. very small towns), they actually are potentially a monopoly on certain types of products, so I guess I was being overly broad with my dismissal of that example. My apologies.

The point I was trying to make there was that most of the time, in most markets, for most products, Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly, so they can get away with things that Amazon can't because it is basically a monopoly within many of its markets, in spite of Wal-Mart, B&N, and others making their best attempts at creating competing marketplaces.




It depends on why they're buying the book. All the libraries I know prefer to get hardcover copies because they last a lot longer. But if they're buying multiple copies of some new title that they expect to be in high demand, they will buy only one or two hardcover copies that will last long-term, and buy the rest as paperback, knowing that they'll just be selling those additional copies in a used book sale after demand dies down.

But I suppose it depends on the library. Some of them buy paperback books and rebind them, too, particularly if that is cheaper.

Where I lived had no B&M adult book stores so I did not learn about them there. Matter of fact out of all the towns I have lived in, I only know of 4 that had adult book stores and 2 of them were military towns. That is exactly half. And anymore, they are advertised on cable TV.

[dickloraine]

Adult stores aren't there because we know of them. They are there, because there is a demand for that type of products. And demand does not just vanish, because amazon does not carry these products.

[emellaich]

So,

I must say I don't understand this entire issue. I am truly open to new information, but let me state my belief so someone can point out where I am wrong.

1. As I said earlier, I don't see where Amazon's actions are censorship or restrictions on my freedom of speech. There are many other places, like here on mobileread where I can 'speak' and due to the openness if the Internet I can always start up my own outlet.

2. Free Speech aside, the next question is whether Amazon is a monopoly. Because of the issues above I don't feel that it is. In its short history the computing and the internet has taught us the difficulty of sustaining over the long run. We have seen the ascendance (and to some extant fall) of IBM, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Excite, AltaVista, Yahoo, MySpace, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etcetera. For example, Google is probably with us for the long haul just like IBM and Microsoft; however with the increase of mobile usage their core business of search engine advertising is threatened. I am not convinced Google will be as dominate 10 years from now. and I never know where its next competitor will come from. Similarly, who knows about Amazon. They are undoubtedly strong, but unlike a true monopoly there are few barriers (regulatory or scarce resources) to keep new competition away.

Note: Over the short run the popularity of the Kindle does give Amazon the possibility of exerting unfair market power. However, consumer devices are relatively short-lived and it would be easy to switch to an alternative. Which leads me to point three.

3. There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It's legal and there is nothing bad about it. What is wrong is when monopolies abuse their power and are unfair. Even if you think Amazon is a monopoly, has it been unfair? Here are what I believe are the facts (I would welcome any contrary thoughts):
- They do not pick and choose authors. They accept virtually all books.
- They are much less restrictive to authors than publishing houses were since more people can now be published.
- The rates they offer authors (70/30 split?) are much better than historical rates.
- Authors set their own prices, not Amazon.
- To the consumer, not only has choice increased, but prices are lower than in the world without Amazon.
- In fact, since market forces have come into stronger play, you can get many books for free as authors try to attract new readers.

So anyway. I don't believe Amazon restricts speech. I don't believe Amazon is a monopoly. Even if Amazon is a monopoly, I don't see where they are abusing their market power.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by emellaich

So,

I must say I don't understand this entire issue. I am truly open to new information, but let me state my belief so someone can point out where I am wrong.

1. As I said earlier, I don't see where Amazon's actions are censorship or restrictions on my freedom of speech. There are many other places, like here on mobileread where I can 'speak' and due to the openness if the Internet I can always start up my own outlet.

2. Free Speech aside, the next question is whether Amazon is a monopoly. Because of the issues above I don't feel that it is. In its short history the computing and the internet has taught us the difficulty of sustaining over the long run. We have seen the ascendance (and to some extant fall) of IBM, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Excite, AltaVista, Yahoo, MySpace, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etcetera. For example, Google is probably with us for the long haul just like IBM and Microsoft; however with the increase of mobile usage their core business of search engine advertising is threatened. I am not convinced Google will be as dominate 10 years from now. and I never know where its next competitor will come from. Similarly, who knows about Amazon. They are undoubtedly strong, but unlike a true monopoly there are few barriers (regulatory or scarce resources) to keep new competition away.

Note: Over the short run the popularity of the Kindle does give Amazon the possibility of exerting unfair market power. However, consumer devices are relatively short-lived and it would be easy to switch to an alternative. Which leads me to point three.

3. There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It's legal and there is nothing bad about it. What is wrong is when monopolies abuse their power and are unfair. Even if you think Amazon is a monopoly, has it been unfair? Here are what I believe are the facts (I would welcome any contrary thoughts):
- They do not pick and choose authors. They accept virtually all books.
- They are much less restrictive to authors than publishing houses were since more people can now be published.
- The rates they offer authors (70/30 split?) are much better than historical rates.
- Authors set their own prices, not Amazon.
- To the consumer, not only has choice increased, but prices are lower than in the world without Amazon.
- In fact, since market forces have come into stronger play, you can get many books for free as authors try to attract new readers.

So anyway. I don't believe Amazon restricts speech. I don't believe Amazon is a monopoly. Even if Amazon is a monopoly, I don't see where they are abusing their market power.

1.You just hit the nail squarely on the head.
2. You are completely right.
3. Great post.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by emellaich

So anyway. I don't believe Amazon restricts speech. I don't believe Amazon is a monopoly. Even if Amazon is a monopoly, I don't see where they are abusing their market power.

Correct on all counts.

As I said, their crime is that, unlike the other ebookstores (and most non-used book stores) they aren't beholden to the corporate publishers and their "bestseller" business model. Amazon will just as happily sell you five Indie ebooks at $2.99 as one BPH ebook for $15, if that is what you want.

Amazon promotes books they think we might want to read, not the publishers' flavor of the week. The proof was there for all to see during the launch of GO SET A WATCHMAN.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Correct on all counts.

As I said, their crime is that, unlike the other ebookstores (and most non-used book stores) they aren't beholden to the corporate publishers and their "bestseller" business model. Amazon will just as happily sell you five Indie ebooks at $2.99 as one BPH ebook for $15, if that is what you want.

Amazon promotes books they think we might want to read, not the publishers' flavor of the week. The proof was there for all to see during the launch of GO SET A WATCHMAN.

Or 15 books at 99 cents.