> So you concede that TAG's statement is *not* the "damning
> polemic" of your original characterization?

No, just the reverse. It's damning polemic. It baselessly accuses Amazon of harming writers and publishers when just the reverse is true.

> Perhaps you might provide support for your assertions that TAG's
> statements are lies and hysteria...I surely don't see any. You
> may not agree with TAG's POV, but you haven't offered any
> evidence to the contrary.

You might ask the same of them -- they're making the assertion (x is true) without offering evidence.

But I have offered evidence, as it turns out. Powell's. Borderlands. Bakka. Bookstores I've worked in and frequented, which intershelve new and used books and increase sales of new books thereby. One of them is the biggest bookstore in the world.

> Yes, TAG advocated a lending right - 15 years ago! And it
> hasn't surfaced since -- until Jeffie needed a strawman to knock
> over in his own quest to sow FUD amongst the used book sellers
> and consumers.

Who cares how long it's been? They advocated it. They never recanted.
> I really doubt that TAG thinks it can harm Amazon's sales;
> rather, I believe that TAG is asking its members to make a
> symbolic gesture to show lack of support to a system that may
> cause them harm. Of course, if they don't agree, they don't
> have to comply. TAG is *not* a union, and has no power to
> enforce anything.
>
> Where is the TAG anti-first sale evidence? Moribund (15 year
> ago!) advocacy of a lending right that was (1) to be paid by the
> government, not the libraries, and (2) which was never seriously
> pursued by the organization? If that's the best you can do, I
> feel vindicated.
>

Glad you feel that way.

You're wrong.

They advocated the policy.

It abridges first sale (or do you think that who pays the lending right changes the underlying principle that rights-holder should be able to control post-sale uses of their works?).

They never said they thought they were wrong.