As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Wiley v. Kirtsaeng] - Textbooks, Copyright, and Import

2456

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The SC seems concerned with that as well. They don't like the defendant, but they really don't like this implication.

    I suspect that the decision will be that once something is sold in the US that first sale applies, but not before.

    See, and my problem is that I think it should absolutely apply once something is imported into the US for personal use. If I buy an album in the UK while on vacation, and come home, I should be both legally allowed to bring it with me, and later give it to somebody else (whether in exchange for money or as a gift). Same for books, same for newspapers, same for the software on my GPS, same for anything else.

    I see no reason the law can't differentiate between personal use and for-profit importation, at least in most cases. And in those where it's borderline, find for the individual.

    I find this vastly preferable than the idea that (by my understanding) we will simply look at the location of physical creation, and ban resale based on that.


    Also, my hypocrisy bone is tingling more than a little, this sudden focus on the physical copy, rather than the underlying work, on the part of rightsholders.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And since this person bought product X from you to begin with, how is your copywright violated. The import ban is there to protect profits (especially on digital goods). If your physical product was priced correctly, there should be little opportunity for arbitrage to begin with.

    There doesn't really exist an equilibrium price where you can effectively profit from the product in both nations like the United States and nations like India. Or even less affluent nations. The disparity of income and wealth is such that the two just don't meet, especially since the original creator(s) are usually in a more affluent nation (so simply "make less" isn't really a viable option).

    There likely does exist an equilibrium price (accounting for transportation costs. I.E. if you were to take the price in the low country and add transportation costs you get the price in the high cost country, not literally the same price) which you can profit from in both nations. But this price won't maximize profit compared to segmenting the market.

    Alternately it would severely limit availability in the low-cost country. Because given the choice, I suspect they're going to err on the side of higher profit from developed nations, and less copies sold in developing markets (even to the point of accepting piracy there).

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The SC seems concerned with that as well. They don't like the defendant, but they really don't like this implication.

    I suspect that the decision will be that once something is sold in the US that first sale applies, but not before.

    See, and my problem is that I think it should absolutely apply once something is imported into the US for personal use. If I buy an album in the UK while on vacation, and come home, I should be both legally allowed to bring it with me, and later give it to somebody else (whether in exchange for money or as a gift). Same for books, same for newspapers, same for the software on my GPS, same for anything else.

    I see no reason the law can't differentiate between personal use and for-profit importation, at least in most cases. And in those where it's borderline, find for the individual.

    I find this vastly preferable than the idea that (by my understanding) we will simply look at the location of physical creation, and ban resale based on that.


    Also, my hypocrisy bone is tingling more than a little, this sudden focus on the physical copy, rather than the underlying work, on the part of rightsholders.

    Um... It does, actually. Read the link for 17 USC 602 in the OP.

    Edit: 17 USC 602 (3)(B):

    " importation or exportation, for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States or departing from the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage;"

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I know I'm simplifying but isn't this the downside (or upside) of globalizing that most companies have been working very hard to keep people from figuring out?

    To some extent, yes. It's basically the individual's version of "offshoring." Downside for corporations, upside for individuals.

    Guess which side you can expect the courts to fall on.....

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Hedgie:
    for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution

    You could argue that means that resale in the US, of your personal copy, still counts as distribution.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The SC seems concerned with that as well. They don't like the defendant, but they really don't like this implication.

    I suspect that the decision will be that once something is sold in the US that first sale applies, but not before.

    See, and my problem is that I think it should absolutely apply once something is imported into the US for personal use. If I buy an album in the UK while on vacation, and come home, I should be both legally allowed to bring it with me, and later give it to somebody else (whether in exchange for money or as a gift). Same for books, same for newspapers, same for the software on my GPS, same for anything else.

    I see no reason the law can't differentiate between personal use and for-profit importation, at least in most cases. And in those where it's borderline, find for the individual.

    I find this vastly preferable than the idea that (by my understanding) we will simply look at the location of physical creation, and ban resale based on that.


    Also, my hypocrisy bone is tingling more than a little, this sudden focus on the physical copy, rather than the underlying work, on the part of rightsholders.

    Um... It does, actually. Read the link for 17 USC 602 in the OP.

    Edit: 17 USC 602 (3)(B):

    " importation or exportation, for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States or departing from the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage;"

    Well then. I may have been wasting internets, my bad.

    However, and I'll admit that I did a little skimming, I didn't see any interplay between 109 (also linked) and 602. I guess that's my concern. A copy I bring from my trip to Hong Kong was not "lawfully made under blah blah blah" because it was made abroad. But it was also not imported with the permission of the rightsholder. So am I still authorized under 109 (first sale) to resell it? The importation wasn't infringing, but is the distribution?

    That's my concern. I don't care in the slightest about protecting the profits of for-profit grey market importers.

    mcdermott on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Hedgie:
    for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution

    You could argue that means that resale in the US, of your personal copy, still counts as distribution.

    Except that since 602 doesn't apply to you, you're protected by 109.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Okay, I see what's going on here. Dipshit was trying to stretch 109 to cover his violation of 602.

    Which was pretty flagrant.

    Sorry, this is actually a pretty complex issue, and I'd read a few things prior that did a horrible job explaining it.

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    *I am not a lawyer, these questions are sincere*

    Angel, you mentioned a number of issues in the other thread that would arise if defendant's argument were to carry. Specifically, that exhaustion of foreign copyright would have a number of dire consequences. Could you elaborate on that further?

    Also, I think I somewhat understand the issues at play here. If I understand correctly, the defendant is claiming safe harbor, but the boat he needs to get there invalidates his case?

    Lastly, could you clarify if there is any material difference to the works besides the copyrights? Are there changes to the versions that are meaningful in any way?

    Basically it means if you own the copyright in the US, you don't actually own anything cause someone could just ship in product X from a different country and sell it to. Rendering your copyright meaningless.

    That's why the law against importing copyrighted material without authorization exists in the first place.

    And since this person bought product X from you to begin with, how is your copywright violated. The import ban is there to protect profits (especially on digital goods). If your physical product was priced correctly, there should be little opportunity for arbitrage to begin with.

    Because they didn't. They bought it from someone else who owns the copyright in a different country.

    So then why should your copyright be reapplied if the item was manufactured under their copyright?

    Because if its not then your copyright doesn't mean anything. Anyone granted copyright in another country can sell it there, and then resell it in the United States.

    You write a book and get copyright here and sell your book here. I say "Hey i can produce this for you in China if you sell me the copyright" and you say "ok, you can have the copyright in china". Then i sell books in china, buy them, and resell them in the United States, undercutting you.

    It only gets worse if we consider nations who are less than scrupulous with how they handle copyright.

    But those market limitations would be in a contract between the two manufacturers. Copyright doesn't enforce that (baring 602(a)). So yes, if you granted me unlimited copyright, then your copyright means nothing and I'll put you out of business for your mistake.

    Why should that contract bind a third party, in this case a person buying from company B and reselling in company A's market?

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    And none of this has anything to do with copying or related rights. The fact that it's rolled into copyright law is still an example of bad law. This should fall purely into trade law, plain and simple.

    This is the effect of globalization. You can't push for the ability to shave costs by moving the workforce to 3rd world companies while simultaneously preventing customers from obtaining 3rd world priced goods. It also just happens that the company in question here is among one of the sleezier industries, so yeah, fuck them and their preceived "rights". They have no "right" to profits.

    So, which is it? Are we Globalizing, or not?

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Why should that contract bind a third party, in this case a person buying from company B and reselling in company A's market?

    @ SiliconStew

    Copyright exists because we respect the right of intellectual property owners to profit from their work, without which works do not get created(as much)

    The reason we bind a third party from importing is the same reason we bind third parties from simply copying the works with copyright law.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, this is something that is simple. I don't really have a vested interest but to be fair to Kirtsaeng is making use of the free market and I suspect the company suing him would be championing in all cases where they aren't getting screwed by it.

    Kirtsaeng made $1.2M despite having those copies shipped overseas (shipping costs), I'm assuming he also lost some money since he would need to do currency conversions, IIRC Ebay takes it's fair share from sales, he probably uses a paypal account (another business cost) and he may have paid taxes on those earnings (don't really feel like digging through where he had to pay out money from this enterprise). So even if we arrive at the law being kosher, it certainly shows something is amiss because Kirtsaeng was able to make a worthwhile profit despite several avenues with his business practice eating into his over all profits.

    Still mixed on whether this law is bad or not. The way things are going, I think it's going to be antiquated with how things are going. It might not be really practical to put much stock in where things are legally manufactured and allow people to bring lawsuits because someone did what Kirtsaeng did. It's not like the guy is doing what ticket scalpers do nor is he making and distributing illegal copies.

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Why should that contract bind a third party, in this case a person buying from company B and reselling in company A's market?

    @ SiliconStew

    Copyright exists because we respect the right of intellectual property owners to profit from their work, without which works do not get created(as much)

    The reason we bind a third party from importing is the same reason we bind third parties from simply copying the works with copyright law.

    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.

    Except they aren't underpricing...for the intended markets. Like, you realize that students in Pakistan can't afford $150 for a textbook...right?

    And it's not a poor business decision, because we have this whole "law" thing that prevents mass importation from those markets to this one. It's linked in the OP. Absent that law, sure, maybe you could call it that.

    You can argue that there should be no import ban, sure. But there is an import ban, so you can't argue that pricing differently across widely different markets is a "poor business decision." Especially when you say in the same post that the point is to extract "maximum profit." Seems like that makes it a pretty fucking good business decision, especially given that the import ban is already, you know, the law.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.

    Except they aren't underpricing...for the intended markets. Like, you realize that students in Pakistan can't afford $150 for a textbook...right?

    And it's not a poor business decision, because we have this whole "law" thing that prevents mass importation from those markets to this one. It's linked in the OP. Absent that law, sure, maybe you could call it that.

    You can argue that there should be no import ban, sure. But there is an import ban, so you can't argue that pricing differently across widely different markets is a "poor business decision." Especially when you say in the same post that the point is to extract "maximum profit." Seems like that makes it a pretty fucking good business decision, especially given that the import ban is already, you know, the law.

    I'm mostly arguing that it shouldn't be a part of copyright law. Set up import tariffs or trade restrictions or something, but don't give me this bullshit about copying rights.

    Also, just to be that guy, students in the US can't afford $150 for a text book, either. We're just more comfortable with burying entire generations in suffocating debt than Pakistan is. :P

    Houn on
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.

    Except they aren't underpricing...for the intended markets. Like, you realize that students in Pakistan can't afford $150 for a textbook...right?

    And it's not a poor business decision, because we have this whole "law" thing that prevents mass importation from those markets to this one. It's linked in the OP. Absent that law, sure, maybe you could call it that.

    You can argue that there should be no import ban, sure. But there is an import ban, so you can't argue that pricing differently across widely different markets is a "poor business decision." Especially when you say in the same post that the point is to extract "maximum profit." Seems like that makes it a pretty fucking good business decision, especially given that the import ban is already, you know, the law.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear. Add "assuming 602(a) didn't exist" where you see fit. I haven't been arguing what the law is I'm asking what the law should be.

    Who's forcing you to sell your books in Pakistan to begin with?
    Let's say you make/market/distribute a US made book for $50, sell in US for $150
    Pakistanis can't afford $150 or even $50 so you make/market/distribute a Pakistani made book for $1, sell in Pakistan for $3
    I come along and buy the Pakistani book at $3, ship it to the US so it costs $10, and sell it for $40, profit $30.
    Do you complain that you're losing $10 by having to compete and sell books at $40 in the US
    or do you get smart and buy your own Pakistani book at cost of $1 and sell in the US for $32 profit? Or get even smarter and undercut me with my extra $2 cost?
    Or do you get really clever and enact a law so only you can import your $1 Pakistani book and make $142 profit in the US.

    If instead you are dumping books in Pakistan for less than cost+margin, should there be an market manipulating import ban to protect you from the consequences of your own market manipulations?

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.
    @SiliconStew

    The result of this is that more people get books. If the books were priced so that there was no arbitrage possible then people in Pakistan would not get textbooks

    In light if your last post. I am not sure you understand what you're arguing. Lets be simple.

    Generally we give content creators copyright over their product in order to ensure that their work has value. This is because content creation is a fixed cost, competitive market pricing works on marginal costs (which are roughly zero) and "competitors" selling the same book will not have to pay the fixed costs associated with creating content. Thus, in a competitive/free market anyone who creates content simply eats the fixed cost and gives the content to the world for free. Obviously if this were the case, very few people would be artists of any kind, since they could not even be compensated for their original work.

    The copyright allows the creator monopoly power over their creation, for first sale, such that competitors cannot exist. I.E. we must have monopoly in order so that books get written. Insomuch as we are concerned about competition, banning competition is the point.

    The counterpoint to this is the "first sale doctrine" which basically says that, in a given market, a copyright holder only gets the first sale, once he has sold it its no longer his to control. Generally this is even good for the copyright holder, since resale value is marginal value to purchasers which means more people will be willing to pay more for the books.

    Things get dicey when you talk about other countries. This is largely a result of the way in which markets for monopolies work. Ideally monopolies want to segment markets, that is they want to sell to each market at its profit maximizing cost. Think of it like this. Imagine that a company was selling books and could price the book differently for each individual person, and imagine that they knew the highest price that person would be willing to pay. In this situation they can sell to everyone, though the value all goes to the monopolist.

    When we talk about countries something similar is happening, except that rather than pricing for every person we are pricing for every market. In this case, the segmenting of markets actually increases the welfare of the monopolist AND the welfare of purchases (since purchasers can only be segmented into markets and not individuals).

    When arbitrage happens, like one guy buying a bunch of books in India and selling them in the United States, it breaks this market segmentation. If the monopolist wants to make money he has to stop supplying to those people who would buy the book for $10 but not for $11 or be forced to sell at the price of $10 for people willing to pay $150.

    This situation, in which the copyright holder cannot segment the markets is actually strictly bad for the total amount of welfare in the system, and in general the people who lose are the author and the less wealthy people.

    In addition to this economic efficiency there is a matter of separate copyright law in different countries. The United States is protecting its copyright holders because without such a law, other countries which may not protect those rights may produce books, if those books can be re-sold in the U.S. its just as if there was no copyright law in the U.S.

    Another way to think of it like this. If you're making a first purchase with the express intent to resell then first sale has not been relinquished. This doesn't matter in the same market, since you can't buy a new book then resell it as second hand and make money, but it does matter if you want to ship it to other markets, in order to profit off the fact that you don't have fixed costs.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I shift all my production to Pakistan and close my US printing facilities. Since any printing done in the US has just become unprofitable, or the 3rd world doesn't get any textbooks anymore.

    Also remember the copy right holders purchase that right from the author, who may partition it how they choose. If company A buys the US rights figuring a $150 sale price, and the author sells the Pakistan copy rights to company B and they figure a $10 sale price. What's to stop company B from selling the copies at cost to a cut out company, and then importing them to Sell.
    Companies would need to buy world wide publishing rights and consumers just get to hope that then the publisher decides its worth printing a copy for your country, and if the author thinks it'd do really well in some other country, they are SOL on getting it printed there if the publisher disagrees.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Houn wrote: »
    And none of this has anything to do with copying or related rights. The fact that it's rolled into copyright law is still an example of bad law. This should fall purely into trade law, plain and simple.

    This is the effect of globalization. You can't push for the ability to shave costs by moving the workforce to 3rd world companies while simultaneously preventing customers from obtaining 3rd world priced goods. It also just happens that the company in question here is among one of the sleezier industries, so yeah, fuck them and their preceived "rights". They have no "right" to profits.

    So, which is it? Are we Globalizing, or not?

    This.

    This whole case reeks of large media producers strongarming national and international laws for their benifit. They want to exploit the disparities between first and third world for their own gain, but it's suddenly an egregious violation of principle when others try to balance the act. Manufacture and sell copies for $10 in Asia while still turning a profit? Don't act surprised when Americans realize their $150 pricetag is horseshit. Take the stance that your product truly represents a 150 USD value? Then maybe you have a luxury good that can't be sold elsewhere. The only reason these two pricing schemes can coexist is because media conglomerates have convinced the appropriate governments to arbitraily enforce this paradox.

    I give exactly zero fucks if this type of activity makes it harder for multinationals to exploit third world disparities.

    rndmhero on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    And none of this has anything to do with copying or related rights. The fact that it's rolled into copyright law is still an example of bad law. This should fall purely into trade law, plain and simple.

    No, this is purely about copyright law. Because copyright law is not universal. You can own the rights in one country and not in another. That's why the ban exists.

    It's purely about maintaining copyright across international boundaries where copyright may be held by different individuals.

    This is the effect of globalization. You can't push for the ability to shave costs by moving the workforce to 3rd world companies while simultaneously preventing customers from obtaining 3rd world priced goods. It also just happens that the company in question here is among one of the sleezier industries, so yeah, fuck them and their preceived "rights". They have no "right" to profits.

    So, which is it? Are we Globalizing, or not?

    This isn't about globilization, it's about the fact that copyright isn't global.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    Sorry if that wasn't clear. Add "assuming 602(a) didn't exist" where you see fit. I haven't been arguing what the law is I'm asking what the law should be.

    Who's forcing you to sell your books in Pakistan to begin with?

    Nobody. But let's assume (as goum pointed out) that we want Pakistanis to, you know, have books.

    Let's say you make/market/distribute a US made book for $50, sell in US for $150
    Pakistanis can't afford $150 or even $50 so you make/market/distribute a Pakistani made book for $1, sell in Pakistan for $3

    As goum pointed out, copyrighted materials don't work on marginal cost to produce, because it's generally pretty tiny. Even a nicely bound textbook, with glossy pages and color printing, doesn't cost that much to create a copy of. This is also where I note (again) that the international editions are nearly always physically inferior (cheaper binding, paper, black-and-white, etc).

    I come along and buy the Pakistani book at $3, ship it to the US so it costs $10, and sell it for $40, profit $30.
    Do you complain that you're losing $10 by having to compete and sell books at $40 in the US
    or do you get smart and buy your own Pakistani book at cost of $1 and sell in the US for $32 profit? Or get even smarter and undercut me with my extra $2 cost?

    Speaking from experience, I regretted every last international edition I bought for subjects within my major (I wound up replacing them all with used US editions eventually). I really don't want to see a race to the bottom on textbook printing quality. But in my field I actually use my textbooks. Like, still. That's more of an aside.

    The point (as goum also pointed out) is that it isn't about making a profit on the cost of printing the physical book. That's why your "make a huge margin on cheap Pakistani copies" argument falls flat. It's about the value of the intellectual property. Which, to the US market, they value at $150 (less the $50 to print, or $100 profit). You've now reduced that by...two thirds, or so. If it was about the margin on printing the books, record companies wouldn't have given much of a shit about Napster, now would they?

    And I'm repeating a lot of what goum said because maybe I can put it in a slightly different way that gets through to you, because you really don't seem to be "getting it."

    Or do you get really clever and enact a law so only you can import your $1 Pakistani book and make $142 profit in the US.

    Students won't* pay $150 for Pakistani copies, due to the inferior physical quality. They might pay $50 or $60.

    If instead you are dumping books in Pakistan for less than cost+margin, should there be an market manipulating import ban to protect you from the consequences of your own market manipulations?

    Copyrights are, at their core, about manipulating markets. So get over that. And why do you keep calling it "dumping" books? They're providing books, as a service to Pakistanis at prices they can afford (and that are above the cost to print). This is a "good thing."


    * - Unless forced to for a course, obviously. But eventually competition from other textbooks that are of higher physical quality will likely win out because professors like glossy pages and hardcovers too.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    I'll also point out that with textbooks (and I really wish the conversation wasn't so hung up on textbooks in particular) there is another option...Wiley and the rest pull out of developing markets, and those countries/markets develop their own books. There's no reason some professor in India can't write a Chemistry book. In fact, that Indian publisher can now take that Chemistry book, and attempt to market it in the US at a lower price point...introducing valuable competition. And if students import the cheap versions from India, no big deal...because the writers, editors, and such were all paid in India anyway. I'm assuming, and I may be wrong, that even with the disparity of income that I know exists in developing nations that this is still substantially cheaper than it would cost in the U.S. to get the book written.

    It's an option. I'm not sure it's a great one, though...seems a bit of a waste of academic resources. Not that reordering homework questions and resplicing chapters for the "new edition" is a great use either.

    It's purely about maintaining copyright across international boundaries where copyright may be held by different individuals.

    Or by nobody at all. IIRC there are quite a few popular works that are public domain elsewhere but not in the U.S. I remember Australia being a nation that had some works hit public domain (Lovecraft, perhaps? Or perhaps the Sherlock Holmes stories?) such that they're actually available on the Australian version of Project Gutenberg. But not technically legal to distribute in the U.S., because those rights are still owned here.

    mcdermott on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    No, they are dumping books, they create new editions of the book every year with almost the exact same content. They are in such a rush to create new editions that they rarely manage to have the things properly edited. They take advantage of 3rd world economies for cheap labour and lax environmental laws to mass produce the things for even more savings due to economy of scale. Then they keep prices artificially inflated in their core markets by abusing copyright law.

    Fuck them, hard.

    If they want to outsource their production without tarriffs due to free trade, then we had better be able to outsource our purchases.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    No, they are dumping books, they create new editions of the book every year with almost the exact same content. They are in such a rush to create new editions that they rarely manage to have the things properly edited.

    The quoted bit says "dumping books for less than cost plus margin."

    They are not doing this. He seems to be using a different meaning for "dumping" than you are here. If you want to talk about edition shenanigans, I'll agree. That's why I hate that this is so hung up on textbooks in particular, because there's plenty to hate about the textbook market. But I don't see this as part of it, because deep down I'm sure that if they had to choose between losing the entire developing market and losing their $rape margins in developed nations, they're going with the former. That's not an improvement.

    They take advantage of 3rd world economies for cheap labour and lax environmental laws to mass produce the things for even more savings due to economy of scale.

    Hardly unique to textbooks, or even copyrighted items. I will note, again and again, that international editions are nearly always inferior though...softcover, cheap paper, black and white, etc. The content is often exactly the same, but the physical container is generally cheaper (because otherwise the local prices would indeed dip below marginal cost).

    Then they keep prices artificially inflated in their core markets by abusing copyright law.

    No, they keep prices artificially inflated by abusing a captive audience. Which is why this isn't nearly as big of an issue with anything other than textbooks.

    Fuck them, hard.

    If they want to outsource their production without tarriffs due to free trade, then we had better be able to outsource our purchases.

    Meh. I understand the sentiment, but meh.

  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    If we ignore the marginal differences in printing costs, quality, etc, why are companies allowed to decide that their intellectual property has N number of values, where N is whatever number allows them to game differences in national laws to their maximum effect? If we argue that an intellectual property has an inherent value (which I don't dispute), then that figure should represent a fair valuation of the product produced. The worth of the product doesn't change because the reader is white or brown or French.

    What Kirtsaeng is doing is what trade has consisted of since the dawn of time. He bought up a product in an abundant, cheap market and sold it in a scarce, high-value one. The only difference is that the two markets did not evolve organically due to geography or conflict. They were artifically created because the corporations in play lobbied the respective governments to divide the global market in a manner which best suits them. It's an artificial wall in which the seller is allowed to divy the markets as they see fit, but buyers are not permitted access the different markets created.

    rndmhero on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    If we ignore the marginal differences in printing costs, quality, etc, why are companies allowed to decide that their intellectual property has N number of values, where N is whatever number allows them to game differences in national laws to their maximum effect? If we argue that an intellectual property has an inherent value (which I don't dispute), then that figure should represent a fair valuation of the product produced. The worth of the product doesn't change because the reader is white or brown or French.

    Right. Once upon a time brown people just didn't get to have things, because they couldn't afford them.

    I think market segmentation is superior to this.

    What Kirtsaeng is doing is what trade has consisted of since the dawn of time. He bought up a product in an abundant, cheap market and sold it in a scarce, high-value one. The only difference is that the two markets did not evolve organically due to geography or conflict. They were artifically created because the corporations in play lobbied the respective governments to divide the global market in a manner which best suits them. It's an artificial wall in which the seller is allowed to divy the markets as they see fit, but buyers are not permitted access the different markets created.

    Also, I'm not sure market segmentation is such a new thing. The Berne Convention came about back in the 19th century because prior to that, the markets were already segmented but in ways that weren't necessarily compatible. Each country already had its own copyright laws. This is an issue because unlike toothpaste or buggy whips, intellectual property by necessity already requires extensive government interference in the market to realistically maintain any value. Even more so today, given easy digital redistribution.

    Like, you can yell about artificial walls in the market until you're blue in the face, and nobody who isn't a copyleftist should give a shit. Because you're talking about a market that is already artificially created in its entirety by government action, and would not exist otherwise. That there might exist walls at national borders as well should be surprising to precisely no-one.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The only difference is that the two markets did not evolve organically due to geography or conflict. They were artifically created because the corporations in play lobbied the respective governments...

    We'll just quote this again, for emphasis.

    This applies to the entirety of copyright as a concept.

  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    If we ignore the marginal differences in printing costs, quality, etc, why are companies allowed to decide that their intellectual property has N number of values, where N is whatever number allows them to game differences in national laws to their maximum effect? If we argue that an intellectual property has an inherent value (which I don't dispute), then that figure should represent a fair valuation of the product produced. The worth of the product doesn't change because the reader is white or brown or French.

    Right. Once upon a time brown people just didn't get to have things, because they couldn't afford them.

    I think market segmentation is superior to this.

    The argument isn't that brown people shouldn't get nice things. It's that if intellectual property X is able to be sold at $brownpeople for a profit, I do not see how the same producer can turn around and say it's simultaneously inherently worth the $whitepeople they charge in other markets. The intellectual property itself, apart from materials and such, has to have some true value. The fact that that value is determined solely by those who profit from it and varies so wildly leads me to suspect that their unchecked estimations may not be the best standard to go on.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The only difference is that the two markets did not evolve organically due to geography or conflict. They were artifically created because the corporations in play lobbied the respective governments...

    We'll just quote this again, for emphasis.

    This applies to the entirety of copyright as a concept.

    And?

    I'm not misunderstanding the copyright law here. I personally think that Kirtsaeng ran afoul of US law here, and I fully expect the court to rule in Wiley's favor. I just think this case highlights the absurdity of modern copyright practices. I think that many aspects of current copyright framework have long surpassed what is necessary to ensure intellectual creation happens and have instead been constructed to maximize the profits of publishing corporations at the expense of the public. I see this as suboptimal.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    If we ignore the marginal differences in printing costs, quality, etc, why are companies allowed to decide that their intellectual property has N number of values, where N is whatever number allows them to game differences in national laws to their maximum effect? If we argue that an intellectual property has an inherent value (which I don't dispute), then that figure should represent a fair valuation of the product produced. The worth of the product doesn't change because the reader is white or brown or French.

    Right. Once upon a time brown people just didn't get to have things, because they couldn't afford them.

    I think market segmentation is superior to this.

    The argument isn't that brown people shouldn't get nice things. It's that if intellectual property X is able to be sold at $brownpeople for a profit, I do not see how the same producer can turn around and say it's simultaneously inherently worth the $whitepeople they charge in other markets. The intellectual property itself, apart from materials and such, has to have some true value. The fact that that value is determined solely by those who profit from it and varies so wildly leads me to suspect that their unchecked estimations may not be the best standard to go on.

    The development of a work has a fixed, up-front cost. It is entirely possible, conceptually, that they are able to sell it at $brownpeople only because they've already recouped that cost (and moved into profitability) by selling copies in other markets at $whitepeople. I can't speak to the specifics of Wiley, or Geffen, or Warner, or any other producer of intellectual property. But I suspect that if forced to sell in the U.S. at a price that customers in Pakistan could afford (due to competition from grey market imports), they would not be profitable.

    Also, the fact that the value is determined by the seller (and based almost entirely on what the buyer will pay, given that there's almost no marginal cost) is at the center of the unique nature of copyrighted material. Complaining about this is a complaint about copyright as a concept, not import restrictions. It's a government-granted monopoly. It's not supposed to follow normal market forces. This is, of course, a good argument for reining in copyright protections a bit (shortening terms and such)...but not really against import restrictions.

    mcdermott wrote: »
    The only difference is that the two markets did not evolve organically due to geography or conflict. They were artifically created because the corporations in play lobbied the respective governments...

    We'll just quote this again, for emphasis.

    This applies to the entirety of copyright as a concept.

    And?

    I'm not misunderstanding the copyright law here. I personally think that Kirtsaeng ran afoul of US law here, and I fully expect the court to rule in Wiley's favor. I just think this case highlights the absurdity of modern copyright practices. I think that many aspects of current copyright framework have long surpassed what is necessary to ensure intellectual creation happens and have instead been constructed to maximize the profits of publishing corporations at the expense of the public. I see this as suboptimal.

    I can think of a million better things to argue about that import restrictions. This case highlights nothing, and in a copyright system that was otherwise sensible* import restrictions would still make sense as a way to allow authors and publishers to share their works in diverse markets while still maintaining revenues in affluent markets.

    * - Which is to say that for several other reasons I think our current copyright system is indeed absurd.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    For clarity, I'm strongly opposed to current copyright law. I think anything longer than a decade or two of protection from personal-use copying is absurd. I can see longer for derivative works, but not the current terms which (given human life spans) essentially make any works created in my lifetime copyrighted "forever." I think fair use needs to be strengthened, such that mere legal threats aren't enough to stifle it. I think the DMCA is, for the most part, ludicrous. I could go on.

    But import restrictions? These make perfect sense. Copyright is a government granted monopoly, allowing the creator to set their own price. Allowing them to set market-specific prices to maximize the number of people able to enjoy the work (while still making decent profits) isn't absurd. It's absolutely sensible, and leads to the optimal outcome; audiences in each market get to enjoy the arts at a price they can afford, and rightsholders make as much money as those audiences are willing to pay over the life of the copyright.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I have zero sympathy for the textbook industry because they seem quite content to fuck people over. IIRC they did get they're asses handed to them a few years back for bundling shit with the new textbooks to drive up prices and this was shit that most people rarely used. There's also the fact the ones is Texas don't have the balls to tell the Texas State School Board to kindly fuck off and enjoy their Biology and History texts that offend derpy conservatives by faithfully reporting inconvenient truths and scientific theories.

    I'm not convinced we'll see a race to the bottom if this law ceased to matter. Most people don't give a shit if the international version of the textbook is of lesser quality because they get the book for a course that is one or two semesters and then never bother to use it again. The industry also pulls lots of bullshit to make sure that a professor can't get many uses out of an edition and not all of them are willing to keep track of where the relevant text is in each edition that isn't obsolete.

    As someone who has gone to college and is looking at possibly picking up another degree in the future (if funds and time allow), I'm quite alright with getting an inferior textbook for courses where I'm not going to be referencing the material that often (I'll feel like I'm not getting screwed over). In cases, where I'd want to keep the book as a reference because it's quite relevant to my career and/or hobbies, I'd be willing to dish out more money (within reason) for something more durable. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with these thoughts.

  • ValernosValernos Registered User regular
    So, I have to admit, this discussion put me a lot closer to the Wiley side of the argument than I would have otherwise thought possible. Good food for thought.

    Here's the thing I've been thinking about. Wouldn't finding for Wiley essentially destroy our ability to import video games? Places like Play Asia sell "Asian" releases of games as cheap alternatives, but it seems like it would affect my ability to buy any foreign games.

    Also, as a tangent, what's the difference between what Kirtsaeng did, and someone setting up a web store in Thailand and selling the textbooks from there? Seems like there's no fundamental difference, and there's tons of places on the web that do similar things. Like, we're getting past the point where market segmentation is a realistic possibility.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Valernos wrote: »
    So, I have to admit, this discussion put me a lot closer to the Wiley side of the argument than I would have otherwise thought possible. Good food for thought.

    Here's the thing I've been thinking about. Wouldn't finding for Wiley essentially destroy our ability to import video games? Places like Play Asia sell "Asian" releases of games as cheap alternatives, but it seems like it would affect my ability to buy any foreign games.

    Also, as a tangent, what's the difference between what Kirtsaeng did, and someone setting up a web store in Thailand and selling the textbooks from there? Seems like there's no fundamental difference, and there's tons of places on the web that do similar things. Like, we're getting past the point where market segmentation is a realistic possibility.

    Per 17 USC 602 (linked in the OP) you'd still be able to import games from Asia or elsewhere, for personal use. As long as it is not with intent to distribute, and it's only one copy of a given work at a time.

    There's also not necessarily a functional difference between what Kirtsaeng did and a web store selling from Thailand from the end user's perspective. Except that by shipping from the U.S., charging in dollars, and ensuring that the end user doesn't have to deal with any customs/duty issue (since it's already within the U.S.), he is offering a much more convenient storefront to the end-user. Which is probably part of why this is prohibited...because right now navigating foreign websites, dealing with currency exchange, customs, etc. forms a barrier to individual importation that is just enough to maintain the market segmentation.

    Again, this is something I was dealing with when looking to buy a guitar that wasn't available in the U.S. It's actually a real pain in the dick.

    Whereas when I was buying international textbooks, it was from U.S. websites, and it was super-simple.

  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Seems to me that the import ban is about protecting maximum profit, not simply allowing to profit as is copyright's intention. In my opinion, if you've sold/contracted your manufacturing license(s) for below value and/or underpriced your product, then the resulting 3rd party competitors are of your own making. I don't think we should be rewarding poor business decisions by banning competition.
    @SiliconStew

    The result of this is that more people get books. If the books were priced so that there was no arbitrage possible then people in Pakistan would not get textbooks

    In light if your last post. I am not sure you understand what you're arguing. Lets be simple.

    Generally we give content creators copyright over their product in order to ensure that their work has value. This is because content creation is a fixed cost, competitive market pricing works on marginal costs (which are roughly zero) and "competitors" selling the same book will not have to pay the fixed costs associated with creating content. Thus, in a competitive/free market anyone who creates content simply eats the fixed cost and gives the content to the world for free. Obviously if this were the case, very few people would be artists of any kind, since they could not even be compensated for their original work.

    The copyright allows the creator monopoly power over their creation, for first sale, such that competitors cannot exist. I.E. we must have monopoly in order so that books get written. Insomuch as we are concerned about competition, banning competition is the point.

    The counterpoint to this is the "first sale doctrine" which basically says that, in a given market, a copyright holder only gets the first sale, once he has sold it its no longer his to control. Generally this is even good for the copyright holder, since resale value is marginal value to purchasers which means more people will be willing to pay more for the books.

    Things get dicey when you talk about other countries. This is largely a result of the way in which markets for monopolies work. Ideally monopolies want to segment markets, that is they want to sell to each market at its profit maximizing cost. Think of it like this. Imagine that a company was selling books and could price the book differently for each individual person, and imagine that they knew the highest price that person would be willing to pay. In this situation they can sell to everyone, though the value all goes to the monopolist.

    When we talk about countries something similar is happening, except that rather than pricing for every person we are pricing for every market. In this case, the segmenting of markets actually increases the welfare of the monopolist AND the welfare of purchases (since purchasers can only be segmented into markets and not individuals).

    When arbitrage happens, like one guy buying a bunch of books in India and selling them in the United States, it breaks this market segmentation. If the monopolist wants to make money he has to stop supplying to those people who would buy the book for $10 but not for $11 or be forced to sell at the price of $10 for people willing to pay $150.

    This situation, in which the copyright holder cannot segment the markets is actually strictly bad for the total amount of welfare in the system, and in general the people who lose are the author and the less wealthy people.

    In addition to this economic efficiency there is a matter of separate copyright law in different countries. The United States is protecting its copyright holders because without such a law, other countries which may not protect those rights may produce books, if those books can be re-sold in the U.S. its just as if there was no copyright law in the U.S.

    Another way to think of it like this. If you're making a first purchase with the express intent to resell then first sale has not been relinquished. This doesn't matter in the same market, since you can't buy a new book then resell it as second hand and make money, but it does matter if you want to ship it to other markets, in order to profit off the fact that you don't have fixed costs.

    The bolded parts are where you start to lose me, and I start looking for my citation needed sign. You are expecting us to believe that coerced price discrimination through monopoly granted by law and that shoveling consumer surplus into the producers' mouths is clearly a good thing. I am not seeing why that is anything but a very ambiguous and situational thing, where it will clearly benefit some players in the market at the expense of some others.

    In the case of textbooks in India, by granting the textbook makers a hard market segmentation enforced by copyright law, the winners are the students in India (whose local equilibrium will be at a lower price than a global price) and the textbook manufacturer as they can set prices to capture more consumer surplus and maximize profits better, and the losers will be the students in the United States who will be forced to pay a higher profit maximizing price in the US which is above the global equilibrium price. You want to tell me that this is fine and dandy from an overall welfare standpoint as more Indians will be able to buy textbooks than before, which they will, but you are sweeping under the rug the loss of welfare from the high price market segment: the US students.

    You are going have to do some good explaining for me to believe this is anything but ambiguous. If you isolate this particular it from the standpoint of the United States and US law, then it looks like in this case you are heavily subsidizing the foreign players in the equation, and the entirety of the expense comes from players who are almost all local (only foreign exchange students in the US for schooling would get dinged). The only local players getting any benefits are the textbook companies, and based on the globalization of capital, they could easily be far less than wholly locally owned businesses. Perhaps enforcing this sort of a regime in general creates benefits for Americans as a whole, but the math in this particular case it looks like it will clearly screw over the American consumer looking for textbooks. There's no free lunch, and they are the ones paying.

    Overall, I am very very skeptical of "globalization for me, but not for thee" arguments, and this is clearly one of those. There needs to be a good affirmative argument for why there should not be a trade barrier for capital (ability to license out and/or sell copyright and then set up manufacturing wherever in the world) but one for the consumers with restrictive copyright limitations. And no, "this is how global copyright works" doesn't meet that criteria, because those laws aren't divinely inspired and can be changed.

    (As an aside, I notice that Aussies on the board often complain about them having to pay so much for games and software and such. This sort of dynamic is why. They charge you more because your market can afford to pay more in general, and then they try to lock down your ability to go through other channels legally.)

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Its also assuming that students in India wont be just as well served by having the same textbook 1 or 2 editions behind. (Which would be the alternative to market segmentation by price, it would be market segmentation by available edition).

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    And none of this has anything to do with copying or related rights. The fact that it's rolled into copyright law is still an example of bad law. This should fall purely into trade law, plain and simple.

    No, this is purely about copyright law. Because copyright law is not universal. You can own the rights in one country and not in another. That's why the ban exists.

    It's purely about maintaining copyright across international boundaries where copyright may be held by different individuals.

    This is the effect of globalization. You can't push for the ability to shave costs by moving the workforce to 3rd world companies while simultaneously preventing customers from obtaining 3rd world priced goods. It also just happens that the company in question here is among one of the sleezier industries, so yeah, fuck them and their preceived "rights". They have no "right" to profits.

    So, which is it? Are we Globalizing, or not?

    This isn't about globilization, it's about the fact that copyright isn't global.

    It is about globalization, although perhaps indirectly. The other factors of the markets of the countries in question are facing globalization pressures, which will affect the supply and demand for copyrighted goods. The cost to construct a factory and the labor to run the factory, and the cost of shipping should all be taken into account by a business who wants to set up a factory to create textbooks for whatever target markets. Globalization will affect the other portions of the economy and the trade situation of a country, which will in turn affect the demand for all sorts of goods, including textbooks. Not to mention the quality of various education and research systems for determining where to draw authors from in order the to write those textbooks in the first place.

    If copyright is steadfastly held to be provincial and dependent on each jurisdiction going forward, then copyrighted goods will have special trade barriers when other things will be losing them. Perhaps maintaining those provincial barriers for copyright will be for the best, but I wouldn't say that is necessarily a given. Especially considering that there is so much movement where the power players lately are trying to set up copyright treaties to make things less balkanized in favor of the large content holders, though I'm not sure if those are on topic or not.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    The whole argument breaks down, in essence(as others have pointed out) to industry being allowed to profit from globalization and outsourcing, while attempting to prevent consumers from circumventing their artificial pricing schemes and benefiting from the same globalization through legislation.

    Copyright law is just the vehicle they've chosen in this particular case to enforce their power to price discriminate, while retaining the cost cutting factors of globalization they're trying to deny to consumers.

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    The whole argument breaks down, in essence(as others have pointed out) to industry being allowed to profit from globalization and outsourcing, while attempting to prevent consumers from circumventing their artificial pricing schemes and benefiting from the same globalization through legislation.

    Copyright law is just the vehicle they've chosen in this particular case to enforce their power to price discriminate, while retaining the cost cutting factors of globalization they're trying to deny to consumers.

    "Well when I get double-taxed it's different."

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I kind of want the court to side with Kirtsaeng because at some point copyright holders and nations are going to have to come to terms with the idea that globalization is a two way street and by the way we have this thing called the internet that makes it even easier to access foreign markets and view even more copyright material. I guess this has the potential of getting an endgame going in regards to reforming copyright to be consistent with reality because it's all sorts of fucked up.

    I mean what's the industry going to do when we have multiple digital copies floating around and someone realizes the ones not in English, being sold by the publisher to markets in India are 25% of the cost of the English versions. So some programmer comes out with a program called FU Textbook Industry that can translate these textbooks reasonably well. This in turn results in people downloading the program and saving money by just buying the cheaper digital copies that are available in foreign markets. I'd be willing to bet that will be quite the amusing scenario since I suspect such a program and it's creator would be protected from liability (translation software doesn't exactly scream blatant piracy), while some authors would embrace the potential that has for giving them access to new markets without having to invest in translating their works for such markets.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    *I am not a lawyer, these questions are sincere*

    Angel, you mentioned a number of issues in the other thread that would arise if defendant's argument were to carry. Specifically, that exhaustion of foreign copyright would have a number of dire consequences. Could you elaborate on that further?

    Also, I think I somewhat understand the issues at play here. If I understand correctly, the defendant is claiming safe harbor, but the boat he needs to get there invalidates his case?

    Lastly, could you clarify if there is any material difference to the works besides the copyrights? Are there changes to the versions that are meaningful in any way?

    Basically it means if you own the copyright in the US, you don't actually own anything cause someone could just ship in product X from a different country and sell it to. Rendering your copyright meaningless.

    That's why the law against importing copyrighted material without authorization exists in the first place.

    And since this person bought product X from you to begin with, how is your copywright violated. The import ban is there to protect profits (especially on digital goods). If your physical product was priced correctly, there should be little opportunity for arbitrage to begin with.

    Because they didn't. They bought it from someone else who owns the copyright in a different country.

    But that someone is likely a wholly-owned subsidiary of your parent company, so fuck it, I'm not impressed by this legal fiction

Sign In or Register to comment.