It confuses me when I see things like this. Don't you realize public discourse like this is part of the free market trends you are talking about? This is how the free market works. A company will act in a certain way. People, especially people who are at the center of the subject, will actively speak out about it so the market is knowledgable in the first place, and then the market can react.

You are insulting people and stating they should allow the free market to decide, all because they are taking part in the exact thing that makes those free market determinations in the first place.

I get you are taking umbrage with his use of the term 'sacred ground', and I am not sure if you read the article or just the headline but his use of that term isn't really all that concerning when taken into context.

Two of the first three paragraphs should make that a little more clear:

Neil Gaiman, an unofficial spokesperson of sorts for authors, doesn’t know exactly where he falls on the Amazon divide.

On the subject of the ongoing dispute between Amazon and Hachette — the publisher of his wife, musician Amanda Palmer — Gaiman is undecided. “I’m a weird mixture right now,” he said, noting the murky information available: “Every time I try to actually read enough stuff to figure out what’s going on here, what I run into is lots of ‘We can’t say anything, but he says,’ and ‘We can’t say anything, but she says.’”

This isn't simply Gaiman coming out against Big Bad Amazon and blasting them because "books are sacred". He gave his opinion on the subject of literature and what it means to the cultures of the world.

Edit: Also, I want to point out how sensationalized the title is. Here are the actual excerpts that are included in the title:

I’m a weird mixture right now, because on the one hand, I’m obviously pissed at Amazon. I’m a Hachette author in the U.K., my wife is a Hachette author now, and I’m very aware that Hachette is the first of these publishers that negotiations are going to happen with, and that HarperCollins [Gaiman's U.S. publisher] will be coming up in six months’ time or whatever. On the other hand, I’m just as aware that what you’re seeing right now, is huge, giant-level dealings between huge corporations both under non-disclosure, and every time I try to actually read enough stuff to figure out what’s going on here, what I run into is lots of “We can’t say anything, but he says,” and “We can’t say anything, but she says.”

and

But I would point out that books are special, books are the way we talk to generations that have not turned up yet. The fact that we can actually, essentially communicate with the people in ancient Egypt, people in Rome and Greece, people in ancient Britain, people in New York in the 1920s who can communicate to us and change the way we think, and change the things that we believe.

I think that books are special. Books are sacred. And I think that when you are selling books, you have to remember that in all the profits and loss, in all of that, you are treading on sacred ground. Again, it’s complicated by the fact you’re dealing with giant multibillion-dollar book corporations.

I mean, when you are cutting up sentences from completely different parts of the interview and putting it together to make it look like he was saying something else, does that not ruin all credibility in the first place? He was saying books are sacred in the sense that they are one of the few ways we have glimpses into the cultures of the past, and in that sense he is right. He also frames these statements repeatedly with the fact that he understands this is also dealings between two large corporations and everything isn't necessarily exactly as it may seem to the public.

TL;DR: "Guys I hate to break up the circlejerk..." and then you go and "circlejerk" over information that was presented in a misleading fashion and should be more clear if the interview was actually read before voicing opinions on said statements.