SC decision could decide whether you can resell used goods (Craigslist/eBay etc.)

[D-Man]

Book em DanO

 

[3chordcharlie]

"Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the publisher's authorization is illegal,"

He broke the law, he should be punished according to the law he broke. Done.

The publisher makes the law?

This is one of the most vague warnings of this type I have ever seen.

He probably did break several (tax) laws, and is vulnerable to prosecution there. Whether his source of books was 'illegal' is not really settled.

In fact, it may not be settled even after the final decision. This is a fight that is growing over time, and likely to last several more decades.

Publishing strategies, and copyright gaming definitely come from the BOHICA playbook.

 

[3chordcharlie]

But do we really want to subsidize the different consumers of the world for the benefit of the publishers? Right now publishers are free to set American prices high enough to recoup overhead and investment, while selling to other markets at a price point high enough to cover straight manufacturing and distribution costs plus an acceptable profit. Say a publisher sells a particular textbook both domestically and abroad, that the textbook costs $50 to print and has $2,000,000 in production and overhead costs, and that distribution costs average $10/unit domestically and $30 abroad. If that publisher sells 5,000 units domestically at an average of $500 and 5,000 abroad at an average of $100, then Americans are subsidizing the book for non-Americans by picking up all of the indirect costs.

I have no problem with that sales strategy, but I do have a problem when they enlist the federal government to protect that sales strategy. And I really have a problem when they enlist the federal government to protect that sales strategy from competition with used books as well. For that matter, why not extend it internally? Certainly Vermont has a lot more money to spend on textbooks than does Arkansas. Should the federal government therefore protect the publishers' "right" to sell books for $250 in Arkansas and $500 in Vermont? Note that I have absolutely no problem with publishers choosing to sell books for $250 in Arkansas and $500 in Vermont, I just fail to see why my scarce tax dollars are best used protecting those publishers from hillbilly book runners.

Why on Earth would we band together to form a government to make sure we pay more than anyone else just because it benefits publishers?

You're not subsidizing. This is classic market differentiation, with the (partial) force of law preventing the arbitrage that is expected when an easily transported good has different prices in different places.

 

[werepossum]

You're not subsidizing. This is classic market differentiation, with the (partial) force of law preventing the arbitrage that is expected when an easily transported good has different prices in different places.

But the force of law preventing that arbitrage IS subsidization. Forcing Americans to pay a higher price allows publishers (and manufacturers) to sell to other markets at prices which would otherwise not be practical.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I have no problem with that sales strategy, but I do have a problem when they enlist the federal government to protect that sales strategy.

Agreed.

And I remain strongly opposed to the law forbidding importation of US prescription drugs from abroad.

Fern

 

[3chordcharlie]

But the force of law preventing that arbitrage IS subsidization. Forcing Americans to pay a higher price allows publishers (and manufacturers) to sell to other markets at prices which would otherwise not be practical.

No, it just means bigger paycheques...

The market for books would hardly fall apart if best-selling authors made one-million dollars on a book instead of 10-million.

It is conceivable that prices would rise outside the US, but not all that likely.

 

[Fern]

While some manufacturers sell directly to large clients (chain stores etc.), many seem to rely on approved distributors who then sell to chains and other retailers. I would think this is similar for foreign manufacturers too.

If this ruling were upheld seems to me those foreign distributors would have no right to sell those foreign manufactured products to the USA. I think we're talking about an awful lot of commerce here. Also, many years ago when I was fooling around with importing/exporting products seemed to me many foreign manufacturers used a designated "importer" in getting products here. Seems to that importer would not legally be able to sell here either if this ruling is upheld.

Anybody know if there is a similar rule for patents?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

No, it just means bigger paycheques...

The market for books would hardly fall apart if best-selling authors made one-million dollars on a book instead of 10-million.

It is conceivable that prices would rise outside the US, but not all that likely.

We're not really discussing best-selling authors; that's a highly competitive market without a huge price differential between regional markets simply because these books are sold quite near the price of printing and distribution and demand is quite sensitive to price. Practically speaking, to sell at a significantly lower price requires cheaper printing. The issue is more or less restricted to text books, where you have a limited number of suppliers, an intrinsically high cost to produce, fairly inelastic demand, and most importantly, a decoupling of buyer and specifier. University-level text books are particularly at issue because although primary school specifiers are spending tax money, it's tax money they could use for other purposes. At the university level, specifiers select the book and students pay for it, leaving very little price pressure. Combine that decoupling with the limited number of suppliers, fairly inelastic demand, and government protection of all publishers' premium pricing prerogatives and you get the extreme inflation we've seen in text books over the last few decades.

 

[3chordcharlie]

We're not really discussing best-selling authors; that's a highly competitive market without a huge price differential between regional markets simply because these books are sold quite near the price of printing and distribution and demand is quite sensitive to price. Practically speaking, to sell at a significantly lower price requires cheaper printing. The issue is more or less restricted to text books, where you have a limited number of suppliers, an intrinsically high cost to produce, fairly inelastic demand, and most importantly, a decoupling of buyer and specifier. University-level text books are particularly at issue because although primary school specifiers are spending tax money, it's tax money they could use for other purposes. At the university level, specifiers select the book and students pay for it, leaving very little price pressure. Combine that decoupling with the limited number of suppliers, fairly inelastic demand, and government protection of all publishers' premium pricing prerogatives and you get the extreme inflation we've seen in text books over the last few decades.

Fair enough.

Here's the thing - you're concerned about inflation, as is reasonable.

It's not subsidy - it's profit-taking.

 

[werepossum]

Fair enough.

Here's the thing - you're concerned about inflation, as is reasonable.

It's not subsidy - it's profit-taking.

Fair enough, but except in extraordinary circumstances profit-taking should not involve a government-protected premium extracted from the American public.

 

[bfdd]

this is bullshit and if it passes lol for all of us. the only way to enforce such a law would be an even larger police state with more infringements on our privacy. more snooping, unwarranted wiretaps etc.

bullshit suit is bullshit.

if you don't want your own product to undercut you, don't sell it to someone else for less. seems like a simple free market solution to this problem. oh well to many idiots don't want a free market because it would screw over their scheme to control everything

 

[cybrsage]

The publisher makes the law?

This is one of the most vague warnings of this type I have ever seen.

He probably did break several (tax) laws, and is vulnerable to prosecution there. Whether his source of books was 'illegal' is not really settled.

In fact, it may not be settled even after the final decision. This is a fight that is growing over time, and likely to last several more decades.

Publishing strategies, and copyright gaming definitely come from the BOHICA playbook.

He obviously also imported them without an import license.

 

[SparkyJJO]

He obviously also imported them without an import license.

Sounds to me like maybe there was a loophole he was using via way of used stuff vs new. Maybe.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But trade imbalance is not the be-all, end-all of a society. There's also living standard, and I strongly suspect ours suffers by being charged higher prices to allow manufacturers to charge other nations lower prices. In effect, we subsidize other nations.

Wat.
You don't into the economy too good.

Americans paying American prices to an American company subsidizes American wages. If you paid Chinese prices the workers would have to be paid Chinese wages. At that point we'd have equality.
Do you want to be paid Chinese wages?
And they're not going to sell overseas for a loss, so I have no idea where you'd get this "subsidy" nonsense.

 

[Agent11]

Is this lawsuit pretty much to stop things like the grey market in games that GMG uses to sell games much cheaper?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Fair enough, but except in extraordinary circumstances profit-taking should not involve a government-protected premium extracted from the American public.

You're quite right, and we are on the 'same side' of this issue. My only objection was to the word subsidy, because it makes it seem that the rest of the world is getting off easy, when in fact America is getting screwed.

 

[3chordcharlie]

He obviously also imported them without an import license.

Again, nothing legally to do with the publisher.

I'm quite certain the business was illegal; that's not remotely the issue here.