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

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. Those larger chain-stores. Like Borders, Barnes & Noble, and B. Dalton, and Walden Books? The ones that ran most Mom & Pop book-stores out of business (before Amazon entered the picture) and had everyone up in arms, saying "they needed to be stopped?" Those the ones you're feel sorry for and are missing?

Hi ho.

Rofl! Point taken. Our chains weren't those, though. We didn't have B&N here, nor Dalton, or Walden. We had Angus and Robertson (which began as a Mum and Dad thing) and Borders which came from somewhere and swallowed up A&R, and Collins' which are still going but as a much smaller concern. Our population is a mere fraction of the rest of the world, we dont have enough to sustain many bookstores and certainly not many chains. But, the existence of online purchasing began tolling the bells for the few we had, and because they were too slow to get on board (and the prices, when they did, were outrageous) they lost out.

Here they are. My favourite

[murg]

.....

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If Kobo gains a majority eBook market share, and keeps it year after year, we'll eventually find out. Until then, it is indeed hypothetical.

I think that Tamblyn's identification of a commonality of interests between big publishers and self-publishers is spot-on. However, his linking of Amazon with the Nazis ("First they came for the big New York publishers, but I wasn’t published by a big New York Publisher") was tasteless.

Isn't comparing to the Nazis the ultimate loser argument? It completely destroys any supposedly reasoned argument.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

Isn't comparing to the Nazis the ultimate loser argument? It completely destroys any supposedly reasoned argument.

Godwin's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." If the person or organization under discussion hasn't actually murdered millions of people, then "playing the Hitler card" means you automatically lose the argument.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

Isn't comparing to the Nazis the ultimate loser argument? It completely destroys any supposedly reasoned argument.

Ah yes... Goodwin's Law and it's corollary:

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by TimW

Godwin's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." If the person or organization under discussion hasn't actually murdered millions of people, then "playing the Hitler card" means you automatically lose the argument.

Thanks to you and jgaiser for reminding me about Godwin's Law. I couldn't remember what it was called.

Does that mean we can close all the "Amazon is evil" threads now?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

Does that mean we can close all the "Amazon is evil" threads now?

Yep; Amazon wins ...yay

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

Thanks to you and jgaiser or reminding me about Godwin's Law. I couldn't remember what it was called.

Does that mean we can close all the "Amazon is evil" threads now?

Amazon never was evil in this case. It was Hatchette that was being evil. If Amazon gave in to Hatchette, Hatchette would not be beck to agency pricing. That is evil, not Amazon trying to stop agency (predatory) pricing.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If Amazon gave in to Hatchette, Hatchette would not be beck to agency pricing. That is evil, not Amazon trying to stop agency (predatory) pricing.

Amazon hasn't given into Hachette, but they have given in to French, and German, government price maintenance requirements. If it's evil when 43 quai de Grenelle orders it, it's also evil to do it on orders from Berlin.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon hasn't given into Hachette, but they have given in to French, and German, government price maintenance requirements. If it's evil when 43 quai de Grenelle, orders it, it's also evil to do it on orders from Berlin.

You do not give in to government price maintenance requirements, you follow the law.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

You do not give in to government price maintenance requirements, you follow the law.

Only if you respect the law, or think the law's wrongness is slight to moderate, or are unsure you are right to consider the law very bad, or you are unprincipled. If you are sure the law is evil, it should not be obeyed.

One might forgive obedience to an evil law if your family will otherwise starve. That's hardly the case here.

Amazon does not have a moral obligation to make a profit. I think Jeff Bezos and I would agree on that. They have no business obeying evil laws.

Of course, I don't think price maintenance is evil.

[dickloraine]

I can't follow your reasoning. There is a fundamental difference between business negotiations and laws. We are not talking about civil right movements here.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Only if you respect the law, or think the law's wrongness is slight to moderate, or are unsure you are right to consider the law very bad, or you are unprincipled. If you are sure the law is evil, it should not be obeyed.

It's called civil disobedience, and it has a long and proud tradition in the United States. Such actions have changed the world.

The first rule, however, is that you accept the consequences of breaking the law, and you do so without whining about unfair it all is. You accept the possibility of ruinous civil judgments, and even the possibility of prison time, depending on what law you are disobeying. Without. Whining. You do your time proudly, as an example to others. To do otherwise hurts the cause.

[QUOTE=SteveEisenberg;2953295]Amazon does not have a moral obligation to make a profit.[QUOTE=SteveEisenberg;2953295]

Being a publicly traded company, however, they do have a legal obligation to do so. Or, rather than "make a profit," to "protect shareholder value," however that is collectively defined by Bezos, his executive staff, and their shareholders. So far, that's been "build market share across every market they can think of."

CEOs have gone to prison for ignoring that obligation.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think Jeff Bezos and I would agree on that.

I'm sure Bezos, and his army of lawyers, would agree that the legal obligation comes first.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

They have no business obeying evil laws.

Business is exactly what they have.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I can't follow your reasoning. There is a fundamental difference between business negotiations and laws.

Actually, all business negotiations are based on law, specifically, contract law, as constrained by other laws such as anti-trust laws and copyright laws.

Originally Posted by dickloraine

We are not talking about civil right movements here.

In fact, some people are. And while I sympathize with their principles - the whole "knowledge wants to be free" thing, and the right to educate oneself, and the idea that culture can't be owned - their approach to their cause is childish and unrealistic. And their goals would be far more damaging to culture than the current situation. So it's hard to take them seriously.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by taustin

Actually, all business negotiations are based on law, specifically, contract law, as constrained by other laws such as anti-trust laws and copyright laws.

Yes, and that is the reason why they are totally different. Laws set the boundaries of such negotiations, but them can't influence laws. They are on different levels. So comparing obeying a law and giving in in a negotiation is invalid.

To your second point: I was just talking about this specific comparison, regarding the german price fixing law. That's the reason why I can not see any similarities to a civil rights movement. And even if somebody does so, the point still stands, that even then fighting a law and fighting in a business negotiation is very different.