The main problem with all arguments for keeping the prices of books (and other information sources, for that matter) high is that they are bullshit. If we look at the history, the price of books were never depending on their _contents_; instead, it were always determined by their _production_. Hardcover books, on high quality paper and with colour illustrations, always were priced higher than low-quality prints with b/w images (or without any) -- and the price was never significantly affected by the popularity, a paperback copy of "Harry Potter" or "50 Shades of Gray" costs essentially the same as a unknown author's book. And the price of books was always affected only by technology improvements -- Guttenberg's press, linotype, print-on-demand etc -- and not by anything the authors wrote about.<p>With digital revolution, the book production costs drop essentially to zero. Also, most of the elements that used to be necessary to bring a book from an author to their readers -- agents, typesetters, printers, bookshops and especially publishers -- are becoming redundant; authors can easily market themselves to a worldwide audience, distributing e-books directly to the readers and even directly accepting payments. The only thing preventing this is the publishers who push against it and try to keep as much of the status quo as possible, as Hachette is doing now.<p>That being said, Amazon is not without their own part of the guilt, as they're trying to become the central place for locating and distributing books, and so far they're succeeding; but that is a whole different issue.