Is it the internet killing the publishing industry, or just plain old anti-competitive practices? Take the comments of Colin Robinson of OR Books on their reasons for not selling through Amazon:

To sell our titles, Amazon would require a discount of 55% or even 60%, that’s $11 or $12 on a $20 book. Amazon would use some of this money to discount the book to its customers — that’s what gives it its edge. If, as a publisher, you try matching their reduced price, Amazon will insist your new, lower price is the basis for their discount, so they can cut their price still further. That makes it pretty much impossible for you to compete with direct sales to your customers.

In fact, it makes it impossible for any other seller to compete with Amazon. Insisting on the lowest possible price is fine – insisting on a price that’s half of the otherwise lowest price is ridiculous.

One of the fascinating thing about globalization is the cases like these which blur the line between monopoly and monopsony. Speaking of which, it is time to break up WalMart, whose success is tied, contrary to what might be thought, not primarily to egregious anti-union practices, but from globally exercising a pseudo-monopsony on purchases, and acting as a local monopsony employer hundreds of times over. Here, then, is a lesson to those starting law school: you can be on the side of the little guy and efficient markets by focusing your career on competition law.

ht to paperpools, quoting Huffington Post