Edited by author 04-16-2002 11:45 AM
>TAG did more than ask writers to stop linking to Amazon, it did so through a campaign of FUD that was hardly a quiet mention of Amazon's practice. Rather, it was a damning polemic that indicted Amazon for selling used books.

Really? Where's the link to the "damning polemic"? Everything I've seem so far from TAG seemed pretty reasonably argued, and certainly did not constitute a campaign of FUD. And please show me where TAG has advocated against first sale - I would be very interested to read about this, if it exists.

>I don't argue that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, but they ARE trying to muscle Amazon out of selling used books

Nice argument - since *no one* is arguing that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, why mention it unless you are trying to make that implication? Somehow, I really doubt that a small advocacy organization like TAG has the power to "muscle Amazon" out of anything.

I noticed that the only link you provided with this story was to Jeff Bezos' email to Amazon Marketplace sellers.
Bezos: "This group [TAG}...is the same organization that from time to time has advocated charging public libraries royalties on books they loan out."

Really, Jeff? Care to provide specifics? The facts: Approx *15* years ago (that is not a misprint) TAG supported an authors' lending right. This is a minor, government-funded royalty paid to authors of books borrowed from libraries. Most first-world countries have such a right. In this scheme, government pay these royalties, which a usually a few cents per use, as part of their general funding for the arts. Lending rights royalties are not charged to libraries or to readers, as Bezos implies.

Talk about sowing FUD!