I don't see this as a moral issue at all.
Simply put, now that we are releasing this title as an ebook ourselves, no publisher (for now at least) will ever agree to print it.....
It's not that we don't want to offer the book for everyone (although we strongly support the benefits of an ebook release), but the terms we would have to agree are untenable...
There's a fair bit of spin here, eliding several separate arguments into one.
If Goodkind's primary concern was offering the book to everyone, a traditional publishing deal would suffice. A clearer version would be: "untenable
while self-publishing and thus securing a larger share of the profits than under a traditional deal".
Within that narrower constraint, he still could set up his own publishing house, pay to have his book professionally typeset & printed, and take on the responsibility for marketing and distributing it (and/or hire others to do it). He doesn't NEED a major publishing house to do it for him. A friend of mine has done exactly this. It's a larger financial risk, time-consuming, erodes profit margins, and is not for everyone. Goodkind is also quite correct that it is a definite uphill battle getting books into traditional bookshops under this model, due to the greater financial/marketing muscle of the large publishers and the deals they strike with bookshops. Whether you call this effect collusion or not is another issue; I personally would not go that far, but I suppose it's open to debate. In some respects, I actually think it might be harder for a best-selling author to do it than a less well known author. I also think it's probably harder for a fiction author compared to a non-fiction author.
Regardless, the most unspun version of his statement would be to say that it is "untenable
while self-publishing and thus securing a larger slice of the income than under a traditional deal AND without having to take on greater financial risk and the responsibility of a traditional publishing house myself".
To be clear, I have zero objection to an author taking a risk with his own money and self-publishing for the greater autonomy and profit that route potentially brings. In fact, I strongly applaud that capitalist attitude even though I'm too lazy/busy to do it myself (hell, I had to be heavily cajoled into writing anything at all and believe me when I say that my sales - on a highly technical subject - languish in a completely different universe to someone like Goodkind, or indeed most authors!)
But I still feel that giving his position a moral foundation is misplaced. This strikes me as a simple business decision regarding what he believes he should receive and the cost-benefit implications of different publishing arrangements. No need to justify it any other way, it sounds plausibly-made, and good luck to the man.
(disclaimer: I haven't read anything by him and don't give two hoots what his philosophical leanings are).
