This is a distinct usecase from only offering it through, for example, Barnes and Noble. The former (sharing exclusively among friends) is not necessarily harmful, the latter (only selling through one vendor) is.

I think his point is that if you create an audiobook and then limit how you sell it, you are creating more choice then if you didn't create the audiobook at all. You're saying it's different but you aren't saying how. How does creating additional choice harm the consumer?

I'm not making an argument either way, just trying to clarify positions.

The real answer is, very few authors say “oh I have a great idea for a book that I’m only going to sell through Audible!” They have an idea for a book that they want to sell, and then through licensing deals and marketing it becomes an Audible exclusive.

So the choice is created when the author decides to write a book. The choice is restricted when the author or publisher decides to offer it only on Audible. Writing a book is “creating more choice”, offering that book exclusively through one reseller is limiting that choice.

You might make the argument that this is just capitalism and the free market doing its job, but to keep healthy competition alive capitalism is generally regulated to keep the biggest players from dominating the entire market. Amazon and B&N might have the money to fight over exclusive rights to a book, but smaller bookstores don’t. This creates a barrier to entry for any new or smaller stores who want to compete in the book market. The reason regulators watch for this kind of stuff is because Amazon has the money and the audience to completely lock out any competitors they want, singe-handedly destroying the free market.

Amazon doesn’t need an exclusive deal in order to sell books. They need exclusive deals in order to put their competitors out of business.

I wholly support this answer.

I will add a caveat - I'm mostly OK if Audible is proactively paying the author (and the voice actor(s), director, sound engineer, et.al.) to create a work that would not normally exist.

There's no indication that this is the case with most of these exclusives.

The way I read that, the problem isn’t exclusive deals. It’s Amazon signing exclusive deals.

What do you think about this: authors can sign exclusive with non-monopolistic entities?

Just my opinion but I would say that’s fair. That’s such a bad idea if you care about profits and wide exposure that there’s almost no economic incentive to sell a book but exclude selling it on Amazon or B&N, you’re just throwing away money. Which, in a free market, you should be able to do at your own discretion.

The problem only comes if the biggest players in the space use their power and influence (read: money) to keep smaller competitors from having a chance.

Now please apply the same logic to piracy.

Yes, because your friends have access to information which may benefit them in ways that are deprived to me without the same information.

I’m not saying this should be legal / illegal / “right” / “wrong” - just that at a fundamental philosophical level if you create something and restrict its distribution, you are changing the world (the pool of total content / information) in a way that by definition harms some people.

This could be true in many ways. If you only produce printed copies, you’re harming blind people. If you only produce English copies, you’re harming speakers of other languages. If you only produce DRM’d copies through an exclusive distributor, you’re harming all parties that can’t access that channel of distribution.

Whether it’s ok to perpetrate this harm, as well as when and how and who should foot the bill for wider distribution, are very hard problems of the philosophy of population ethics.