Justin Hampton at The Bookloft

Well, apparently, the publisher of Ziff-Davis says he’s never gonna buy a book again. His Kindle’s taken care of that.

“At first, my transition to digital book consumption was gradual. I’d often be reading (and buying) hard copy books at the same time I was getting used to the experience of the digital platforms. [But] six months ago, I cut the cord for good. I love my Kindle.”

The good news, he relates anecdotally, is that these eBook readers really do get people to read more. But who’s gonna bring the book TO you in the future? Later in the article, homeboy speaks rather presumptuously for all independent booksellers, declaring there will certainly be a future for them, don’t worry – as Amazon affiliates.

“Bookstores could devise an on-site customer digital download path where the store can extract a negotiated fee for all sales it drives to Amazon. I certainly would do what I could to help the store get credit (and payment) for the service they provided me.”

This floors me. Had I written an op-ed piece blithely suggesting Ziff-Davis could eke out an existence in the future sharing his profits with O’Reilly Media or some other competitor, he’d either respond with laughter or anger.

Right now, in case you haven’t been paying attention, an extraordinary battle is taking place about the future of literature. The recent deletion of Orwell books from the Kindle reader underlines the urgency (and irony) of one company controlling all that you read. The Google/Authors Guild settlement, which has (thankfully) come up against roadblocks from the DoJ and Japanese authors, represents the other side of increasing online centralization from for-profit companies looking to monetize monopolies on information for their own purposes.

My argument, in this case, is not against people trying to make a buck in a society where that’s the name of the game. It’s about diversification and localization, because that’s what nurtures dialogue and original voices. This should also include non-profits acting in the public good, such as the Internet Archives, who have also been embarking on a similar project of the world’s forgotten texts and argue for the same exemptions allowed for Google. As they’re not a company designed to maximize returns for shareholders, I tend to trust them a bit more with these texts than the boys in Mountain View.

The recent economic meltdown has taught American citizens, if not their leaders, a lot about the dangers of institutions deemed too big to fail. So we should be mindful of new media concerns that are too big and ambitious for the culture’s own good.

For more on the Google antitrust suit, here’s a fascinating interview with Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, aired on Democracy Now! last April.