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

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by taustin

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.

Hardly anyone engaging in civil disobedience fails to try for acquittal in court, except when the penalty is trivial.

If price maintenance rules, whether those of publishers or European governments, are evil, as JSWolf seems to maintain in #53, then Amazon has an obligation to resist. Amazon, and its lawyers, should then do everything practical to avoid being penalized. My only problem would be that price maintenance is not evil, but morally neutral.

If www.amazon.cn stocks literature critical of the ruling party, as it should, and gets penalized for it, I will be all for their whining.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Hardly anyone engaging in civil disobedience fails to try for acquittal in court, except when the penalty is trivial.

And if they want to be taken seriously, they do it without whining.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If price maintenance rules, whether those of publishers or European governments, are evil, as JSWolf seems to maintain in #53, then Amazon has an obligation to resist.

Not that I can see. As noted before, they do have a legal obligation to their shareholders. Moral, too, for that matter. Most of the money in the stock market is middle class retirement funds. Seems immoral for Amazon to do things that will cost people their retirement.

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If price maintenance rules, whether those of publishers or European governments, are evil, as JSWolf seems to maintain in #53, then Amazon has an obligation to resist.

Why?

Any external entity setting prices, provided it affects all sellers equally, will favour Amazon in locales where it has operations.