You're right. I'm wrong. Apologies to Mr. Kohn.

He's not a bonehead either. But that is a boneheaded cartoon and he is making boneheaded arguments.

When you look at what he's doing now and who is clients are it makes perfect sense why he wants to submit an amicus brief.

As a consumer, Kohn is not looking out for my interests.

The internet makes publishing less expensive. We are getting things for free that we used to pay for. This aggravates lots of people. But technology has no moral sense. It is a means to an end. (The information in legal research databases, not to mention the dubious "copyright" status of court decisions that some "Legal Publishers" assert, are fine examples you should be familiar with. The internet does not benefit every business. Poor Lexis-Nexis. Poor Westlaw. Poor Martindale. They have to adapt and compete. What a tragedy.)

But the internet clearly benefits consumers. We get lower prices and better access to information. How is this a bad thing?

Amazon may be no angel but they have embraced the internet, openness and interoperability to a far greater degree than those who now oppose them, seeking the help of the courts to slow Amazon's progress.

Royalty rates are a matter of negotiation not actual production and distribution costs. It's interesting to see how some commenters seems to view what the publisher deems a reasonable rate as a "fixed cost".

The top post in this thread is spot on. There's nothing to stop anyone from offering low prices like Amazon. It's pretty obvious why they do not want to and why they would go so far as to suggest Amazon is breaking the law.

I don't want to see people's book collections turn into some ridiculous propreitary iTunes-like lock-in, denying people ownership or any reasonable amount of interoperability.