You may or may not have heard about
the lawsuit against Amazon and the big Publishing houses. I'm leaning towards not but that's ok because
I'm going to tell you a little about it right.
Some whack-a-doodle indie booksellers
decided to right the good fight and sue Amazon and six big publishing companies
alleging that " by signing agreements that call for the
use of DRM on e-books sold through the Kindle, the online retailer and the
publishers have combined to restrict the sale of e-books." According to Jim Milliot at Publishers Weekly
the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and stated that Amazon and the Publishers (Harper Collins, Simon &
Schuster, Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, and Macmillan) signed
contracts for the sale of ebooks with DRM that was, "specifically designed to limit the use
of digital content" to Kindle devices.
Makes sense right? Looking
at the ebook market and deals with publishers I could see how one would jump to
that conclusion. However, to go as far
as to take the matter to court they must have had indisputable proof. A Recording of a shady backroom conversation
between the big guys making deals that would screw over the independents. But apparently not.
Federal Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the claim that the Big Six
and Amazon conspired to keep independent competition from selling ebooks.
As stated in his ruling via GalleyCat:
As stated in his ruling via GalleyCat:
"The evasiveness of this allegation is remarkable. Plaintiffs do not allege an unlawful
agreement, only vague ‘oral discussions or agreements regarding the use of
restrictive DRM.’ Plaintiffs do not even
allege that any such discussions or agreements actually occurred, only that
they may have occurred. And plaintiffs
do not specify who participated in these hypothetical discussions or
agreements, only that they may have involved ‘one or more’ of the Publishers
and Amazon."
That's right. They went
to court without a shred of evidence.
Nothing. How did it even get this
far with just accusations? Seems the
judge really had no choice but to dismiss.
As an independent I'd have liked to support their efforts but when you have
no proof you lose a lot of credibility.
Maybe they had something that isn't being released or something that was
buried by the publishers. Or maybe the
judge was paid off. Probably not but might
make for a decent story.
No comments:
Post a Comment