If the accused is in Russia, and can access the data from there, then why would the US have a problem with it? The warrant applies to Microsoft, not the data.

"My name is Mr. Cash Purchase. I do not have a fixed address. I do not have a telephone."

If that's what shareholder care about, then that's what's in the shareholders' interests. There are examples in the real world of companies that put such things in their corporate charters.

The problem is when a company has been around for a while, and thousands of people have invested in it, knowing (from years of financial reports), and it suddenly changes the way it operates in a way that really trashes stock values. That's what lawsuits are made of, and rightly so. Even if the ones who object to losing their investment are a small minority. It's like everybody else in the homeowners' association deciding they want a swimming pool, and your fees triple even though you don't swim. Even the minority has rights.

And money is the only objective measure possible, so it's the only one the courts can rule on.

Whether their data is cooked or not, their model is impossible, even if the big publishers weren't idiotic dinosaurs. They advocate an even split between authors and publishers, which completely ignores the cost of publishing. What they advocate is for every publisher other than Amazon go out of business, so that Amazon can rule the world.

The publishers, of course, advocate that Amazon go out of business, so that things can go back to the way they were.

That's the difference between the old guard and the young guns.

"Make more money is not a simple concept to even define, much less implement. One could honestly believe that more money could be made in the long run by self publishing, but if that involves an immediate drop in income sufficient to make one homeless, then it's a bad idea. And that's a changer - from traditional publishing to self publishing - that's very like any other change in profession. He'd go from being one of the most successful writers in the genre market - very few fiction writers make more than $100k/year - to being a complete neophyte, until he learned the ropes. In a profession new enough that there really isn't an established model to learn from yet. He's conservative in his approach, and with a family to feed, that's not surprising. Whether or not he's correct, only the future can tell.

That depends on what services the middle man provides. Those who have made it big self publishing, at least those who have commented on how they did so, universally say they spend at least as much time marketing as they do writing, and generally rather more. Most jump at the change to sign a contract with a big publisher, once they have the bargaining power to get a decent one. They all say that lets them spend twice as much writing.

You seem to be assuming that the "middle man" provides no service whatsoever. Most professional writers universally disagree with you, and I find them far more credible than you.

Not 100% sure about Doctorow, but Egan and Stross both have made their careers by publishing through traditional publishers. Stross, in particular, has written quite a bit about the value of having a publisher perform publishers' duties. He may release "large swathes" of his work online for free, but he makes his living selling his books to one of the biggest publishers in the world. Everything else is PR, hoping to promote that income.

Doctorow appears to be, at least, in part, part of the new breed who are actively trying to figure out how to make a living in the new market that is emerging, and he clearly does not consider money to be the only form of payment for his work. In other words, he's got ideals, and he's willing to take a hit on income to be seen pursuing them. Which is entirely consistent with what I said. He sides with the side that he's been successful at, which is mostly Corey Doctorow.

No. Morality and/or integrity usually - almost always - are a very effective tool for self interest. They are good for business, because they induce employees to work harder, they induce customers to buy more and more often, and they keep management happier as human beings (at least, those who are sociopaths, and most are not).

Exactly true. Blaming either side - any side - for the current conflict is just demonstrating a lack of understanding of how markets work, and how businesses are run.

Amazon wants lower retails because they believe that Amazon will make more money that way. What effect that has on publisher or on authors is of concern to them only in how it affect how much money Amazon makes.

The publishers want higher retails because they believe that the publishers will make more money that way. What effect that has on Amazon or on authors is of concern to them only in how it affect how much money the publishers make.

The authors side with whichever side they believe will make the authors more money, and that is mixed. Those who are well established in the traditional industry, like Scalzi, quite naturally side with the traditional industry. Those who have done well self publishing through Amazon quite naturally side with Amazon. Neither side, by and large, really care how well the publishers or Amazon does, except in how it affect how much money the authors make.

This is called "engaging in business," and it hasn't change in hundreds of years.

Scalzi is right that (entertainment) books are not necessarily interchangeable. If one wants the latest Stephen King novel, and it is too expensive, one may very well not be willing to substitute another author.

HIs error is in thinking (or at least implying, I think he knows this) that no other form of entertainment will substitute equally well for a book. If I can't afford the latest King novel, maybe I'll watch TV instead, and spend the $9.99 on some beer.

People who have enough of a passion for books to become professionals in the industry often do not understand just how little they mean to most of their customers, when it really comes down to it. Books may not be fungible by author, but entertainment overall is.

People who actually work in the industry, including award winning authors will point out that as much work goes in to turning a manuscript in to a book as goes in to writing the manuscript. That's today, with the crappy level of editing and proofreading.

What you want is no editing, no proofreading, and overall shit quality. You can get, literally, millions of books like that for free all over the internet. Enjoy.

The most profitable part of a book release is the hardcover phase for a new book. The profit margin on hardcovers is higher than on paperbacks, mass market or trade. If you undercut your own prices on the hardcovers with your ebooks, you lose the more profitable sales.

It's an outdated business model, and one that doesn't work with ebooks very well at all, but it's the one that has run the publishing industry for a century and more, and it's not going down without a fight.

Scalzi whines (and he's a very good whiner) that Amazon is acting out of pure self interest, with any benefit to anyone else being coincidence, but I note that Scalzi, by his own accounting, makes a six figure income from the traditional publishing industry, so by his own logic, every single word out of his mouth (or keyboard) must necessarily be assumed to be for his own pure self interest, with any benefit to anyone else, including us, the readers, being coincidence.

The bottom line is that the entire publishing industry is very, very broken, desperately trying to cling to a centuries old, thoroughly outdated business model. Amazon is the new, disruptive innovation, forcing change whether their competition, or the market, is ready for it or not. That is pretty much the only difference. Both sides are huge, publicly traded companies required by law to care more about profits than anything else, both sides are doing whatever they can to protect their shareholder's interests and CEO's egos. With the technology changes in the last 20 years, the conflict is inevitable. It cannot be avoided. The winner will be whoever is best at creating the new business model, and history says that will very likely be Amazon. For publishers, it's adapt or die.

Thing is, pretty much all that is true of authors, too. They, too, are businessmen who are out to protect their own interests. The professionals - the real professionals, like Scalzi, who make their living off writing - are not about to let the fans' interests get in the way of their mortgage payments. Those who are part of the traditional industry, like Scalzi, will naturally see the logic of their publisher's arguments. The growing handful of those who have made it big self publishing through Amazon will naturally see the logic of Amazon's arguments. And us, the buyers of books, will naturally see whatever propaganda is packed up in the skimpiest bikini with the biggest boobs.

If you don't have proof that you canceled the service, it's he said/she said, and they will send the unpaid bill to collections.

If you have to do it by phone, record the call (they give you permission to do so when their computer tells you the call may be recorded for "quality assurance"). Better, however, is to do it in person (and get a receipt that says the service is cancelled), or by registered mail. Then any unpaid (and unowed) bill that is sent to collection is a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation, and they know it.

Every cable company office I've ever been in - every single one - all the employees are behind bullet proof glass that would make a bank teller envious.

How certain are you that it actually from the state collection agency? It fits the pattern of a common form of fraud.