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.
So you're saying that I could walk into the Chinese embassy and get their copyright for the The Hobbit movie?
Bullshit.
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.
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
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.
This is all true, but I think it's interesting that we seem to see this issue almost exclusively in terms of textbooks. This suggests to me that it's not the market segmentation allowed through copyrights that is the problem, but rather the peculiar issues at play within the textbook industry. Grey markets exist for other products, but it doesn't seem like for any other product it actually shakes the core business model quite as much as it does with the textbook industry. I've never really put much thought into looking for grey market DVDs. Even looking at books, which are (less) easily copied online (eReaders are less common than MP3 players), I don't recall ever looking to a grey market for fiction or nonfiction works outside of textbooks. Nor was I bothering to pirate them.
What this says to me is that we need to investigate some sort of regulation of the textbook industry, and not necessarily to do away with the import ban. I'm sure if we sat around and brainstormed on this, we could think of some spiffy regulations that might help. It's my understanding that some states and university systems are already trying to address this. We've probably even had a thread on this in the past.
For most other copyrighted items, there is some semblance of a competitive market, even given the artificial monopolies on individual works created, that forces prices down to something approaching a reasonable level. I can rent a movie for about a dollar. Paying $10 to watch one in a theater isn't cheap, but also isn't insane. An album generally runs less than ten bucks. A Blu-Ray disc, if I'm willing to wait a bit and/or shop sales, can often be had for nearly the same. Because most entertainment products are competing for the audience's dollar. Textbooks are a peculiar industry where the "audience" is essentially "forced" to buy the product, regardless of price. At least if they want the degree they've invested years and tens of thousands of dollars in already.
I refuse to believe that the only solution to this problem is fundamentally altering the law applying to all copyrighted materials.
Especially since this would do pretty much jack and shit to address the real problems that affect copyrighted materials in other spheres (excessive terms, etc).
It's not that it shakes textbooks to their core, it's that it shakes the obscene inflated profits textbook manufacturers reap by gaming the system to the core
Even if a hunded Kirtsaengs did this, Wiley would still have 10 figure revenues
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
Exactly, I understand the law as its written says otherwise, but that's bullshit. If I buy an object I should be able to sell an object. Software is more gray because often you're not buying it you're buying a license, but with a book it's a physical object that I own
It's not that it shakes textbooks to their core, it's that it shakes the obscene inflated profits textbook manufacturers reap by gaming the system to the core
Even if a hunded Kirtsaengs did this, Wiley would still have 10 figure revenues
But if Amazon.com did this, they may not. And if the Court rules for Kirtsaengs, that's what comes next.
Also, you'll find pretty much zero sympathy for textbook publishers from me. I just don't see this as the way to fix it.
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
Exactly, I understand the law as its written says otherwise, but that's bullshit. If I buy an object I should be able to sell an object. Software is more gray because often you're not buying it you're buying a license, but with a book it's a physical object that I own
Well, as it is you can both buy the object and sell the object, provided that the original purpose was for personal use.
This is a regulation of businesses, not individuals. Kirtsaeng was operating a business. Are we saying that we shouldn't be able to regulate businesses? If a business can buy an object* they should be able to sell an object, without any pesky rules? Because I'm pretty sure most here support regulating more than a few products when businesses get into buying and selling them. But copyrighted works are different, because most of us went to college and seriously fuck textbooks they're super expensive.
* - Noting, of course, that in this case the business isn't even allowed to buy the object. That's the point.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
It's not that it shakes textbooks to their core, it's that it shakes the obscene inflated profits textbook manufacturers reap by gaming the system to the core
Even if a hunded Kirtsaengs did this, Wiley would still have 10 figure revenues
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
Exactly, I understand the law as its written says otherwise, but that's bullshit. If I buy an object I should be able to sell an object. Software is more gray because often you're not buying it you're buying a license, but with a book it's a physical object that I own
Except that a book isn't just a physical object, it's a copyrighted work. And always has been since the Statute of Anne. And the law clearly has protections for personal, archival, and non-profit collection use, so someone casually importing a single copy for personal use is in the clear.
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.
So you're saying that I could walk into the Chinese embassy and get their copyright for the The Hobbit movie?
Bullshit.
What .... why would you go to the Chinese embassy? What the fuck are you talking about?
I don't think you know anything about what you are trying to comment on here.
Whoever made The Hobbit either owns the rights globally or sold it to someone else who does or sold it to multiple people in different regions. With movies, I think it's likely the parent company owns the global distribution rights.
All of which ties back to the point that this is all about the fact that copyright can have different owners in different areas and those owners rights to that IP need to be respected by the law.
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.
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
Until Wiley starts suing single moms for reselling their textbooks for tens of thousands of dollars after they win this. They're every bit as evil as the RIAA
Edit: wait what was this about brown people needing Wiley to have textbooks? I think India could write its own textbooks and suggesting otherwise is silly
Edit 2: I'm not disputing that Wiley is correct according to the letter of the law, I just don't like that they are using their stranglehold to force colleges to use their books, force students to buy new editions, and using the law as a blunt instrument to try and buy the same textbooks from overseas which are still being sold at a profit. I don't have to like that Wiley is legally correct because fuck those scumbags.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
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.
Sure, I can buy a copy, but wouldn't it affect Play Asia's ability to sell me that copy? Deciding for Wiley would make it possible for copyright holders to go after people selling things to other unintended market segments. Nintendo/Sony/Capcom/Konami/etc. would have to go after them in their home country, but I don't think that's a problem. (Or is it? Do we need to consider the effect of this ruling on other countries?) Are we looking at a future where all importing will be done from countries that are not signatories of the Berne Convention?
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.
What if Kirtsaeng set up a web store in Thailand? Heck, this operation already involved his family. Create a company in Thailand, have his family there "own" it, and outsource running it to him as an "employee" of that company. He can make the site in English, he can charge is US dollars (Thailand doesn't care what currency you accept as long as you pay the right taxes, right?) and he can have his family ship the books from Thailand to customers in the US. He was already paying for shipping to get the books from Thailand to the US anyways, so that's not really an added cost. We can talk about duties on the books, but we've already said this isn't really about import laws anyways, and I doubt it would affect the sales.
And really, what's to stop someone more enterprising from perfecting this formula? At this point, we're just discussing the details. If the result of this decision is just "make sure you're selling from the originating country" that seems like it's a weak stopgap at best. The internet allows me to set up shop anywhere, and global shipping is at the point where I can make it work with little fuss. I mean, the only reason buying the guitar was a pain was because the seller hadn't figured it out yet. If you could go to an English language website that sold the guitar in US dollars, and laid out in advance that the cost plus shipping plus duty was still less than what you had to pay in the states, and you were okay with the 2 week shipping time to get it to you, why not get it?
Until Wiley starts suing single moms for reselling their textbooks for tens of thousands of dollars after they win this. They're every bit as evil as the RIAA
Under what law? Please, point me to the slope to begin with (I don't see it from here), then explain to me why it's slippery.
Edit: wait what was this about brown people needing Wiley to have textbooks? I think India could write its own textbooks and suggesting otherwise is silly
Yeah, I mentioned this. I don't see India further developing their own textbook industry as a particularly bad thing.
Edit 2: I'm not disputing that Wiley is correct according to the letter of the law, I just don't like that they are using their stranglehold to force colleges to use their books, force students to buy new editions, and using the law as a blunt instrument to try and buy the same textbooks from overseas which are still being sold at a profit. I don't have to like that Wiley is legally correct because fuck those scumbags.
Right. Fuck those scumbags. And instead of pushing for specific regulations to address textbooks, and the stranglehold they have over their audience, let's use an unrelated portion of copyright law that applies to all works. Make fundamental changes across the entire system. Because it's more convenient.
Could this problem just be solved by requiring a "Not for sale or distribution outside of Thailand" type message on the copyright page of books printed there?
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.
This is all true, but I think it's interesting that we seem to see this issue almost exclusively in terms of textbooks. This suggests to me that it's not the market segmentation allowed through copyrights that is the problem, but rather the peculiar issues at play within the textbook industry. Grey markets exist for other products, but it doesn't seem like for any other product it actually shakes the core business model quite as much as it does with the textbook industry. I've never really put much thought into looking for grey market DVDs. Even looking at books, which are (less) easily copied online (eReaders are less common than MP3 players), I don't recall ever looking to a grey market for fiction or nonfiction works outside of textbooks. Nor was I bothering to pirate them.
What this says to me is that we need to investigate some sort of regulation of the textbook industry, and not necessarily to do away with the import ban. I'm sure if we sat around and brainstormed on this, we could think of some spiffy regulations that might help. It's my understanding that some states and university systems are already trying to address this. We've probably even had a thread on this in the past.
For most other copyrighted items, there is some semblance of a competitive market, even given the artificial monopolies on individual works created, that forces prices down to something approaching a reasonable level. I can rent a movie for about a dollar. Paying $10 to watch one in a theater isn't cheap, but also isn't insane. An album generally runs less than ten bucks. A Blu-Ray disc, if I'm willing to wait a bit and/or shop sales, can often be had for nearly the same. Because most entertainment products are competing for the audience's dollar. Textbooks are a peculiar industry where the "audience" is essentially "forced" to buy the product, regardless of price. At least if they want the degree they've invested years and tens of thousands of dollars in already.
I refuse to believe that the only solution to this problem is fundamentally altering the law applying to all copyrighted materials.
Especially since this would do pretty much jack and shit to address the real problems that affect copyrighted materials in other spheres (excessive terms, etc).
See, I would propose the exact opposite. You said you never really looked for a grey market for DVD's or non-textbook books, because they were generally reasonably priced. Thus, allowing a grey market for these things probably wouldn't have much effect one way or another (in the US). It seems like, rather than trying to legislate each individual industry that we believe is behaving unfairly, this is an area that the free market can actually correct on its own.
I also don't see why worries about a foreign manufacturer pricing you out of your own market once you grant them the use of you copyright couldn't be solved via existing contract law, rather than bruteforcing a solution via copyright law. Your Chinese printer sells directly to American customers, you sue them for breach of contract.
Sure, I can buy a copy, but wouldn't it affect Play Asia's ability to sell me that copy? Deciding for Wiley would make it possible for copyright holders to go after people selling things to other unintended market segments. Nintendo/Sony/Capcom/Konami/etc. would have to go after them in their home country, but I don't think that's a problem. (Or is it? Do we need to consider the effect of this ruling on other countries?) Are we looking at a future where all importing will be done from countries that are not signatories of the Berne Convention?
Only the importer OR exporter need be importing/exporting for personal use. U.S. law would not allow Capcom to go after Play Asia. Now, the law in whatever country you're buying from may prevent export, but it's not like we can affect that from the U.S. anyway (which is the affect this ruling will have on other countries...none). On your end, which is to say the U.S. end, you are allowed to purchase a copy for personal use from abroad and Capcom (or Wiley) can sit and spin.
What if Kirtsaeng set up a web store in Thailand? Heck, this operation already involved his family. Create a company in Thailand, have his family there "own" it, and outsource running it to him as an "employee" of that company. He can make the site in English, he can charge is US dollars (Thailand doesn't care what currency you accept as long as you pay the right taxes, right?) and he can have his family ship the books from Thailand to customers in the US. He was already paying for shipping to get the books from Thailand to the US anyways, so that's not really an added cost. We can talk about duties on the books, but we've already said this isn't really about import laws anyways, and I doubt it would affect the sales.
I think having to worry about import duties on the books would indeed affect sales. As would the risk of your textbooks getting held up in customs. The fact that he had a U.S.-based web storefront was part of what made him as successful as he was.
Also, if he creates his company in Thailand, Thailand may well decide to regulate him. Possibly due to pressure from U.S. interests, or due to unrelated Thai interests. Also, having his family pose as individual end purchasers to obtain the books may constitute fraud under Thai law, who knows. And if it doesn't now, it might soon (see "pressure from U.S. interests"). Lastly, I have no idea what the economies of scale for shipping textbooks individually from Thailand to the U.S., versus shipping in bulk to the U.S. then shipping individually domestically, look like.
You may think these are just "details," but the devil is often in the details. What you certainly haven't done here is argue for a fundamental change in U.S. copyright law, since apparently you're suggesting that it's not even needed in order for kids to get their cheap textbooks.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
Additionally, it's still the same author, just with different representatives, which comes back to my point that you don't have multiple copyright holders unless you sell the copyright to someone else, which is your own damn fault. If you don't put a price clause in the contract when you sell the copyright or production rights, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to compete on price.
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.
So you're saying that I could walk into the Chinese embassy and get their copyright for the The Hobbit movie?
Bullshit.
What .... why would you go to the Chinese embassy? What the fuck are you talking about?
I don't think you know anything about what you are trying to comment on here.
Whoever made The Hobbit either owns the rights globally or sold it to someone else who does or sold it to multiple people in different regions. With movies, I think it's likely the parent company owns the global distribution rights.
All of which ties back to the point that this is all about the fact that copyright can have different owners in different areas and those owners rights to that IP need to be respected by the law.
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.
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
Right, so you don't understand copyright at all.
So you're admitting that the person why created a work is the one that gets the copyright. Thank you.
Could this problem just be solved by requiring a "Not for sale or distribution outside of Thailand" type message on the copyright page of books printed there?
They have that already. The texts in question had a very clear Berne copyright notice stating which regions they were authorized to be sold in.
Could this problem just be solved by requiring a "Not for sale or distribution outside of Thailand" type message on the copyright page of books printed there?
That already exists. International Editions explicitly say "Not for sale in North America".
Could this problem just be solved by requiring a "Not for sale or distribution outside of Thailand" type message on the copyright page of books printed there?
That already exists. International Editions explicitly say "Not for sale in North America".
In fact, one of the articles I read stated that this type of message existed in these specific textbooks.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
Are they really arbitrary?
I'm not being facetious here, does anyone know what the business model is like?
The only thing I know about the inside of the industry is that the profit margins, according to someone I knew who was helping write one, are not what you'd think for most of them. They are marketing to a niche audience and textbooks take ages to write. That's as far as he told me anyway.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
Are they really arbitrary?
I'm not being facetious here, does anyone know what the business model is like?
The only thing I know about the inside of the industry is that the profit margins, according to someone I knew who was helping write one, are not what you'd think for most of them. They are marketing to a niche audience and textbooks take ages to write. That's as far as he told me anyway.
It depends on the text, honestly. Many of the more specialized texts for high level courses aren't profitable, for the reasons you mention. But the 101 texts? Yeah, those are moneymakers.
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
The copyright aspect of this case (which is utterly arbitrary considering there's no copying going on) can also be solved. If you import a legitimately-produced work from another country that is adequately identical to a work produced in the USA by the same company (or another company under license, a subsidiary, etc.) then just give those imported copies whatever protections they'd get under US copyright law if you'd bought them in the US.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
Are they really arbitrary?
I'm not being facetious here, does anyone know what the business model is like?
The only thing I know about the inside of the industry is that the profit margins, according to someone I knew who was helping write one, are not what you'd think for most of them. They are marketing to a niche audience and textbooks take ages to write. That's as far as he told me anyway.
It depends on the text, honestly. Many of the more specialized texts for high level courses aren't profitable, for the reasons you mention. But the 101 texts? Yeah, those are moneymakers.
Pretty much this, they take say a psych101 textbook that they made $50 mil off of, and then turn around and alter it by less than 1% brand it the new edition and force a whole new set of students to buy the new one with their iron grip over the college professors by bribing entering into a mutually beneficial relationship with the administration
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
Ignoring, of course, that intellectual property doesn't follow the same principles as physical widgets.
Because that makes the argument easier, I suppose.
It depends on the text, honestly. Many of the more specialized texts for high level courses aren't profitable, for the reasons you mention. But the 101 texts? Yeah, those are moneymakers.
So pretty much the same as any other copyright-related industry, the Biebers subsidize that one (formerly) indie band you love, who aren't making shit for their label.
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
The copyright aspect of this case (which is utterly arbitrary considering there's no copying going on) can also be solved. If you import a legitimately-produced work from another country that is adequately identical to a work produced in the USA by the same company (or another company under license, a subsidiary, etc.) then just give those imported copies whatever protections they'd get under US copyright law if you'd bought them in the US.
Congratulations, you just killed the American media industry. There's a reason that we don't have parallel importation.
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
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
Are they really arbitrary?
I'm not being facetious here, does anyone know what the business model is like?
The only thing I know about the inside of the industry is that the profit margins, according to someone I knew who was helping write one, are not what you'd think for most of them. They are marketing to a niche audience and textbooks take ages to write. That's as far as he told me anyway.
Textbooks may take ages to write, but editions take minutes. There's only a new textbook when a new discipline is established, so once every few decades. After that, they come out with new "editions" that they sell for multiple hundreds of dollars to avoid competition with the secondary market.
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
Ignoring, of course, that intellectual property doesn't follow the same principles as physical widgets.
Because that makes the argument easier, I suppose.
It depends on the text, honestly. Many of the more specialized texts for high level courses aren't profitable, for the reasons you mention. But the 101 texts? Yeah, those are moneymakers.
So pretty much the same as any other copyright-related industry, the Biebers subsidize that one (formerly) indie band you love, who aren't making shit for their label.
The difference between intellectual property and everything else is that you can copy it. Given that nothing here would let someone besides the producer copy or produce the work, there is no functional difference.
So how is this different from the legal maneuvers that got Lik-Sang shut down?
I don't have time to read the whole decision in the Lik-Sang case, but I recommend you do if you want an answer to that question. A bit of skimming, however, brings us to this list (given in the ruling) of relevant facts:
(a) The website is in English and English is its default language [see Annex 3 to the Particulars of Claim[11]].
(b) The prices quoted are in pounds sterling and sterling is the default currency when the site is accessed from England. Promotions are given in sterling as well.
(c) The PSP manuals are available on the website in various European languages including English.
(d) There are a number of testimonials on the website from UK purchasers.
(e) Pacific ran a free shipping promotion until the very day before the PSP Console was launched in Europe.
(f) A spurious EC Certificate of Conformity was included with the product shipped to Europe.
So it wasn't so much that purchasers in the UK were buying PSPs from Asia, but rather that the business in Asia was specifically marketing to UK customers. Which is presumably why I didn't run into any particular legal roadblocks when shopping for that guitar in Japan...I was having to browse Japanese storefronts in Japanese (some had options for English, some I had to rely on Google's translations), I would have been paying in Yen, they were charging full shipping, etc.
They were exporting outside the intended sphere for that trademarked product, but they were not specifically gearing their business to that end. I know computer nerds like their shit digital/binary, and that's hard to define objectively, but it's not hard at all to find in a civil court to a preponderance standard.
So yeah, Lik-Sang got themselves proper fucked, because they thought they were smarter than the law. Just like this dude.
EDIT: Note that these PSPs were being sold prior to the launch date in the UK. Probably not critical to the final ruling, but certainly wasn't winning them style points with the judge.
I feel that it's easy to get behind a knee jerk 'fuck the textbook fuckers' because they are a bunch of money grubbing fuckers that have a racket.
But, the way the law's written, it really doesn't seem like it permits this guy to run his business and do what he was doing.
Either way, I'm surprised the textbook manufacturers haven't moved to a pricing model where the paper textbooks are significantly MORE expensive then they are already, but they offer a more moderately priced electronic version that's region locked and uses a licensing model. Instead of charging $200 / book, they could charge $150, and advertise how nice and student friendly their new e-books are.
Once they put every used bookstore out of business, they could almost afford to give each student a Kindle-like tablet that can download textbooks, etc.
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
Ignoring, of course, that intellectual property doesn't follow the same principles as physical widgets.
Because that makes the argument easier, I suppose.
The difference between intellectual property and everything else is that you can copy it. Given that nothing here would let someone besides the producer copy or produce the work, there is no functional difference.
I'd argue that the difference is that intellectual property has a near-zero marginal cost, which means that the per-unit price (for copies sold to the end user) doesn't have a floor, meaning that it can be sold at whatever price an individual market can bear, provided barriers are in place to prevent mass parallel importation.
BMW can't sell a $1K car in India, it can't be produced that cheaply. But Wiley can sell a $10 book. Because the marginal cost of a copy is nearly zero.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the actual profit margins Wiley realizes are? I thought they were in the single digits, last I looked. Maybe not. Might be relevant to the conversation, though.
I feel that it's easy to get behind a knee jerk 'fuck the textbook fuckers' because they are a bunch of money grubbing fuckers that have a racket.
But, the way the law's written, it really doesn't seem like it permits this guy to run his business and do what he was doing.
Either way, I'm surprised the textbook manufacturers haven't moved to a pricing model where the paper textbooks are significantly MORE expensive then they are already, but they offer a more moderately priced electronic version that's region locked and uses a licensing model. Instead of charging $200 / book, they could charge $150, and advertise how nice and student friendly their new e-books are.
Once they put every used bookstore out of business, they could almost afford to give each student a Kindle-like tablet that can download textbooks, etc.
One thing people ignore is textbook stores. Those fuckers are nearly as evil as the publishers, and certainly aren't helping the publishers' image any. I remember when I was in school hearing people talk about their local college textbook stores, and they sounded absolutely fuckawful. Prices above cover price, minimal trade-in value, used prices near cover price, that kind of thing. Whereas at my university, the bookstore was owned and operated by the student association, and did not turn a profit. Or rather, all profits were regularly rolled back into lower prices. Our books were generally sold for below cover price (almost always cheaper than Amazon as well), trade-ins (and used prices) were annoying but relatively fair, etc.
So I don't think it's just the publishers raping students, but they seem to get 100% of the blame.
That said, they have tried shenanigans in the past to offer "lower prices" in exchange for barriers to resale (like included software, online services, etc). Students don't seem to be biting. At the end of the day, a physical book is just plain easier to study from, at least in my experience. Most students seem like they'd rather take their chances with the buyback lottery than go digital.
EDIT: This could change, of course, and perhaps it already has since I graduated.
The law is almost certainly on the side of Wiley here, but it's really just due to the laws involved being crap.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
The copyright aspect of this case (which is utterly arbitrary considering there's no copying going on) can also be solved. If you import a legitimately-produced work from another country that is adequately identical to a work produced in the USA by the same company (or another company under license, a subsidiary, etc.) then just give those imported copies whatever protections they'd get under US copyright law if you'd bought them in the US.
Congratulations, you just killed the American media industry. There's a reason that we don't have parallel importation.
Yes. And that reason involves companies bellowing about how free trade is awesome until somebody else's free trading starts cutting into their profits. Then, it's lobbyin' time. Intellectual property, due to its very nature (there is only one original instance of it) cannot be a commodity. But books with stuff printed on the pages (or dvds with bits pressed into them, etc.)? Those are commodities, and should be freely tradable as such. This is especially true in the case of copies of things, because the marginal cost is tiny and the scarcity is artificial.
That said, they have tried shenanigans in the past to offer "lower prices" in exchange for barriers to resale (like included software, online services, etc). Students don't seem to be biting. At the end of the day, a physical book is just plain easier to study from, at least in my experience. Most students seem like they'd rather take their chances with the buyback lottery than go digital.
EDIT: This could change, of course, and perhaps it already has since I graduated.
They still do the shenanigans, though my experience has been that professors will often put the online services to good (though usually optional) use, and some publishers seem to be willing to collaborate with bookstores/professors to create custom editions which are cheaper and can be reused, but not easily resold (except to the same bookstore).
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.
Define "fair valuation of the product produced". Does this mean the market valuation? Because as I explained, the market valuation for intellectual property is zero. IP creation is a fixed cost of production and so will not be represented in the free market price. (indeed, not represented in any price)
Because of this, we can't use the "fair valuation of the product produced" because no such valuation exists. Well, that is not true. There exists a "fair valuation of the product" in the mind of each individual person in the world. That value is "the maximum price they would be willing to pay for the product". After all, if a person would be willing to pay the price it must be "fair". However this is not a single price since its different for every person.
Demand curves essentially represent the number of people who have valuations of the product above the price at that particular price point. Supply curves represent the number of copies that would be produced at a particular price point. We tend to think the free market is "fair" because it maximizes the number of people who can get the book while not having the producer lose money. In this evaluation large numbers of people purchase the book for less than they value the book, they win.
But in a free market producers won't make any profit (the market essentially forces CRS production functions). And if produces don't make any profit then the fixed cost of producing books means zero production of new books.
So we have to have a monopoly type situation. In this instance the producer raises the price above their marginal cost in order to make a profit. But in doing so, some of the people who would have purchased the book at the lower price will no longer purchase the book, and all of the people who had valuations between the monopoly price and the market price would lose out on some welfare. This situation is only more efficient than the free market situation because in the free market situation the book doesn't exist at all.
But what if we could sell the book to each person at the value they would be willing to pay for it? If this were the case everyone would get books, the seller would make the most money and, in general, total welfare is higher. I.E. What if i could charge poor people less money for the books and charge rich people more? If the market is not segmented you can't do this, because the poor people will just sell their books to the rich people and make a profit. The end result of that is that the market looks just like the free market solution. Which is bad because then no one writes books.
But if we are able to prevent the resale then we are able to sell the book to everyone, at the price that they're willing to pay, and this is economically just as good as the free market solution under the hypothetical situation that the free market situation existed. Though it is the case that the producer (read author) reaps the vast majority of the benefits, if it were not the case there would simply be no benefits to be had.
And since we set up the monopoly system in the first place so that the author could benefit its not particularly a problem that the author benefits more from the segmentation of markets since his increase in benefits do not correspond to a reduction in the amount of books sold.
They were artificially created because the government asked economists what was best and economists said "segment the markets"
FTFY. You cannot make the argument to the free market while ignoring that the free market is not efficient in this instance
Lets be explicitly clear the point of this law is not to allow authors to "game differences in international law" but to prevent arbitragers from "gaming differences in international law".
Oh man, can we please stop acting like plastic discs and paper are the commodity being sold? You aren't paying for paper and ink, or plastic, you are paying for the words and images contained therein.
Arguing otherwise is stupid.
Unless you just masturbate to a world where hard copies no longer exist. Which is cool, I guess.
Edit: wait what was this about brown people needing Wiley to have textbooks? I think India could write its own textbooks and suggesting otherwise is silly
Suggesting that they don't because we can sell them books only implies that the consumers in India reap more benefit from purchasing "our" textbooks than they would by purchasing Indian textbooks. Any way you look at it market segmentation increases the benefit to everyone.
Heck with the laws we have, an Indian professor could write a textbook in India to compete with a U.S. professor and then sell his textbook in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. professor over here too. But if the laws change to as suggested by you/bagginess/etc then they could not because they could not compete with resellers selling the version they produced in India in the United States.
Oh man, can we please stop acting like plastic discs and paper are the commodity being sold? You aren't paying for paper and ink, or plastic, you are paying for the words and images contained therein.
Arguing otherwise is stupid.
Unless you just masturbate to a world where hard copies no longer exist. Which is cool, I guess.
"Legitimately-produced copy of some IP" is the thing you are buying. Once you buy it, that specific copy should be able to be freely traded like any other commodity, regardless of whatever media it is put upon.
Oh man, can we please stop acting like plastic discs and paper are the commodity being sold? You aren't paying for paper and ink, or plastic, you are paying for the words and images contained therein.
Arguing otherwise is stupid.
Unless you just masturbate to a world where hard copies no longer exist. Which is cool, I guess.
"Legitimately-produced copy of some IP" is the thing you are buying. Once you buy it, that specific copy should be able to be freely traded like any other commodity, regardless of whatever media it is put upon.
Except that there is no global copyright, so that legitimacy is restricted to that region.
Let's put it another way. If you buy some pot from a state dispensary in Vancouver, WA, do you really think that will stop the Portland cops from busting your ass?
Posts
So you're saying that I could walk into the Chinese embassy and get their copyright for the The Hobbit movie?
Bullshit.
Right, because copying someone else's work is the exact same as buying it from them.
Seriously, if they don't want someone buying their work at a low price they should stop selling it at that price. I see no reason why "copyright" shouldn't be exactly that: copy right.
This is all true, but I think it's interesting that we seem to see this issue almost exclusively in terms of textbooks. This suggests to me that it's not the market segmentation allowed through copyrights that is the problem, but rather the peculiar issues at play within the textbook industry. Grey markets exist for other products, but it doesn't seem like for any other product it actually shakes the core business model quite as much as it does with the textbook industry. I've never really put much thought into looking for grey market DVDs. Even looking at books, which are (less) easily copied online (eReaders are less common than MP3 players), I don't recall ever looking to a grey market for fiction or nonfiction works outside of textbooks. Nor was I bothering to pirate them.
What this says to me is that we need to investigate some sort of regulation of the textbook industry, and not necessarily to do away with the import ban. I'm sure if we sat around and brainstormed on this, we could think of some spiffy regulations that might help. It's my understanding that some states and university systems are already trying to address this. We've probably even had a thread on this in the past.
For most other copyrighted items, there is some semblance of a competitive market, even given the artificial monopolies on individual works created, that forces prices down to something approaching a reasonable level. I can rent a movie for about a dollar. Paying $10 to watch one in a theater isn't cheap, but also isn't insane. An album generally runs less than ten bucks. A Blu-Ray disc, if I'm willing to wait a bit and/or shop sales, can often be had for nearly the same. Because most entertainment products are competing for the audience's dollar. Textbooks are a peculiar industry where the "audience" is essentially "forced" to buy the product, regardless of price. At least if they want the degree they've invested years and tens of thousands of dollars in already.
I refuse to believe that the only solution to this problem is fundamentally altering the law applying to all copyrighted materials.
Especially since this would do pretty much jack and shit to address the real problems that affect copyrighted materials in other spheres (excessive terms, etc).
Even if a hunded Kirtsaengs did this, Wiley would still have 10 figure revenues
Exactly, I understand the law as its written says otherwise, but that's bullshit. If I buy an object I should be able to sell an object. Software is more gray because often you're not buying it you're buying a license, but with a book it's a physical object that I own
But if Amazon.com did this, they may not. And if the Court rules for Kirtsaengs, that's what comes next.
Also, you'll find pretty much zero sympathy for textbook publishers from me. I just don't see this as the way to fix it.
Well, as it is you can both buy the object and sell the object, provided that the original purpose was for personal use.
This is a regulation of businesses, not individuals. Kirtsaeng was operating a business. Are we saying that we shouldn't be able to regulate businesses? If a business can buy an object* they should be able to sell an object, without any pesky rules? Because I'm pretty sure most here support regulating more than a few products when businesses get into buying and selling them. But copyrighted works are different, because most of us went to college and seriously fuck textbooks they're super expensive.
* - Noting, of course, that in this case the business isn't even allowed to buy the object. That's the point.
Not necessarily. It's just as possible they are a completely different company.
I know with smaller authors they can have multiple publishers (ie - different companies), one for each region. Especially true for those trying to break into the US market.
What this comes down to is copyrights are not global and not necessarily owned by the same person. This case, imo, is basically over whether the US government is actually going to enforce the copyright system it has within it's own borders.
Except that a book isn't just a physical object, it's a copyrighted work. And always has been since the Statute of Anne. And the law clearly has protections for personal, archival, and non-profit collection use, so someone casually importing a single copy for personal use is in the clear.
What .... why would you go to the Chinese embassy? What the fuck are you talking about?
I don't think you know anything about what you are trying to comment on here.
Whoever made The Hobbit either owns the rights globally or sold it to someone else who does or sold it to multiple people in different regions. With movies, I think it's likely the parent company owns the global distribution rights.
All of which ties back to the point that this is all about the fact that copyright can have different owners in different areas and those owners rights to that IP need to be respected by the law.
Right, so you don't understand copyright at all.
Edit: wait what was this about brown people needing Wiley to have textbooks? I think India could write its own textbooks and suggesting otherwise is silly
Edit 2: I'm not disputing that Wiley is correct according to the letter of the law, I just don't like that they are using their stranglehold to force colleges to use their books, force students to buy new editions, and using the law as a blunt instrument to try and buy the same textbooks from overseas which are still being sold at a profit. I don't have to like that Wiley is legally correct because fuck those scumbags.
Smaller authors also don't really need to worry about people caring enough to import it from other countries to save money on their $6 pulp romance novel/24-esque thriller.
It is however a huge problem for the textbook industry, which puts arbitrary zeroes on what they actually have to charge to get a profit of their "bullshit sociology introduction text volume 27"
Sure, I can buy a copy, but wouldn't it affect Play Asia's ability to sell me that copy? Deciding for Wiley would make it possible for copyright holders to go after people selling things to other unintended market segments. Nintendo/Sony/Capcom/Konami/etc. would have to go after them in their home country, but I don't think that's a problem. (Or is it? Do we need to consider the effect of this ruling on other countries?) Are we looking at a future where all importing will be done from countries that are not signatories of the Berne Convention?
What if Kirtsaeng set up a web store in Thailand? Heck, this operation already involved his family. Create a company in Thailand, have his family there "own" it, and outsource running it to him as an "employee" of that company. He can make the site in English, he can charge is US dollars (Thailand doesn't care what currency you accept as long as you pay the right taxes, right?) and he can have his family ship the books from Thailand to customers in the US. He was already paying for shipping to get the books from Thailand to the US anyways, so that's not really an added cost. We can talk about duties on the books, but we've already said this isn't really about import laws anyways, and I doubt it would affect the sales.
And really, what's to stop someone more enterprising from perfecting this formula? At this point, we're just discussing the details. If the result of this decision is just "make sure you're selling from the originating country" that seems like it's a weak stopgap at best. The internet allows me to set up shop anywhere, and global shipping is at the point where I can make it work with little fuss. I mean, the only reason buying the guitar was a pain was because the seller hadn't figured it out yet. If you could go to an English language website that sold the guitar in US dollars, and laid out in advance that the cost plus shipping plus duty was still less than what you had to pay in the states, and you were okay with the 2 week shipping time to get it to you, why not get it?
Under what law? Please, point me to the slope to begin with (I don't see it from here), then explain to me why it's slippery.
Yeah, I mentioned this. I don't see India further developing their own textbook industry as a particularly bad thing.
Right. Fuck those scumbags. And instead of pushing for specific regulations to address textbooks, and the stranglehold they have over their audience, let's use an unrelated portion of copyright law that applies to all works. Make fundamental changes across the entire system. Because it's more convenient.
See, I would propose the exact opposite. You said you never really looked for a grey market for DVD's or non-textbook books, because they were generally reasonably priced. Thus, allowing a grey market for these things probably wouldn't have much effect one way or another (in the US). It seems like, rather than trying to legislate each individual industry that we believe is behaving unfairly, this is an area that the free market can actually correct on its own.
I also don't see why worries about a foreign manufacturer pricing you out of your own market once you grant them the use of you copyright couldn't be solved via existing contract law, rather than bruteforcing a solution via copyright law. Your Chinese printer sells directly to American customers, you sue them for breach of contract.
Only the importer OR exporter need be importing/exporting for personal use. U.S. law would not allow Capcom to go after Play Asia. Now, the law in whatever country you're buying from may prevent export, but it's not like we can affect that from the U.S. anyway (which is the affect this ruling will have on other countries...none). On your end, which is to say the U.S. end, you are allowed to purchase a copy for personal use from abroad and Capcom (or Wiley) can sit and spin.
I think having to worry about import duties on the books would indeed affect sales. As would the risk of your textbooks getting held up in customs. The fact that he had a U.S.-based web storefront was part of what made him as successful as he was.
Also, if he creates his company in Thailand, Thailand may well decide to regulate him. Possibly due to pressure from U.S. interests, or due to unrelated Thai interests. Also, having his family pose as individual end purchasers to obtain the books may constitute fraud under Thai law, who knows. And if it doesn't now, it might soon (see "pressure from U.S. interests"). Lastly, I have no idea what the economies of scale for shipping textbooks individually from Thailand to the U.S., versus shipping in bulk to the U.S. then shipping individually domestically, look like.
You may think these are just "details," but the devil is often in the details. What you certainly haven't done here is argue for a fundamental change in U.S. copyright law, since apparently you're suggesting that it's not even needed in order for kids to get their cheap textbooks.
Additionally, it's still the same author, just with different representatives, which comes back to my point that you don't have multiple copyright holders unless you sell the copyright to someone else, which is your own damn fault. If you don't put a price clause in the contract when you sell the copyright or production rights, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to compete on price.
So you're admitting that the person why created a work is the one that gets the copyright. Thank you.
They have that already. The texts in question had a very clear Berne copyright notice stating which regions they were authorized to be sold in.
That already exists. International Editions explicitly say "Not for sale in North America".
In fact, one of the articles I read stated that this type of message existed in these specific textbooks.
Are they really arbitrary?
I'm not being facetious here, does anyone know what the business model is like?
The only thing I know about the inside of the industry is that the profit margins, according to someone I knew who was helping write one, are not what you'd think for most of them. They are marketing to a niche audience and textbooks take ages to write. That's as far as he told me anyway.
It depends on the text, honestly. Many of the more specialized texts for high level courses aren't profitable, for the reasons you mention. But the 101 texts? Yeah, those are moneymakers.
If you make and sell widgets, anybody who buys those widgets should be able to resell them anywhere they like if they so desire. If you want to prevent this behavior, you can optionally have a country's government impose tariffs (or other similar restrictions) that apply to all widgets, including yours. If businesses want free and open trade, that trade needs be free and open for everyone. If your prices in a region are higher than what it would cost for Joe Public to buy/ship a stack of your widgets from Thirdworldistan and resell them, then your prices are probably too high.
The copyright aspect of this case (which is utterly arbitrary considering there's no copying going on) can also be solved. If you import a legitimately-produced work from another country that is adequately identical to a work produced in the USA by the same company (or another company under license, a subsidiary, etc.) then just give those imported copies whatever protections they'd get under US copyright law if you'd bought them in the US.
Pretty much this, they take say a psych101 textbook that they made $50 mil off of, and then turn around and alter it by less than 1% brand it the new edition and force a whole new set of students to buy the new one with their iron grip over the college professors by bribing entering into a mutually beneficial relationship with the administration
Ignoring, of course, that intellectual property doesn't follow the same principles as physical widgets.
Because that makes the argument easier, I suppose.
So pretty much the same as any other copyright-related industry, the Biebers subsidize that one (formerly) indie band you love, who aren't making shit for their label.
Congratulations, you just killed the American media industry. There's a reason that we don't have parallel importation.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Textbooks may take ages to write, but editions take minutes. There's only a new textbook when a new discipline is established, so once every few decades. After that, they come out with new "editions" that they sell for multiple hundreds of dollars to avoid competition with the secondary market.
Not terribly, which is also why nobody has gone the whole "set up a Thai Web storefront to sell gray market textbooks" route.
The difference between intellectual property and everything else is that you can copy it. Given that nothing here would let someone besides the producer copy or produce the work, there is no functional difference.
I don't have time to read the whole decision in the Lik-Sang case, but I recommend you do if you want an answer to that question. A bit of skimming, however, brings us to this list (given in the ruling) of relevant facts:
So it wasn't so much that purchasers in the UK were buying PSPs from Asia, but rather that the business in Asia was specifically marketing to UK customers. Which is presumably why I didn't run into any particular legal roadblocks when shopping for that guitar in Japan...I was having to browse Japanese storefronts in Japanese (some had options for English, some I had to rely on Google's translations), I would have been paying in Yen, they were charging full shipping, etc.
They were exporting outside the intended sphere for that trademarked product, but they were not specifically gearing their business to that end. I know computer nerds like their shit digital/binary, and that's hard to define objectively, but it's not hard at all to find in a civil court to a preponderance standard.
So yeah, Lik-Sang got themselves proper fucked, because they thought they were smarter than the law. Just like this dude.
EDIT: Note that these PSPs were being sold prior to the launch date in the UK. Probably not critical to the final ruling, but certainly wasn't winning them style points with the judge.
But, the way the law's written, it really doesn't seem like it permits this guy to run his business and do what he was doing.
Either way, I'm surprised the textbook manufacturers haven't moved to a pricing model where the paper textbooks are significantly MORE expensive then they are already, but they offer a more moderately priced electronic version that's region locked and uses a licensing model. Instead of charging $200 / book, they could charge $150, and advertise how nice and student friendly their new e-books are.
Once they put every used bookstore out of business, they could almost afford to give each student a Kindle-like tablet that can download textbooks, etc.
I'd argue that the difference is that intellectual property has a near-zero marginal cost, which means that the per-unit price (for copies sold to the end user) doesn't have a floor, meaning that it can be sold at whatever price an individual market can bear, provided barriers are in place to prevent mass parallel importation.
BMW can't sell a $1K car in India, it can't be produced that cheaply. But Wiley can sell a $10 book. Because the marginal cost of a copy is nearly zero.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the actual profit margins Wiley realizes are? I thought they were in the single digits, last I looked. Maybe not. Might be relevant to the conversation, though.
One thing people ignore is textbook stores. Those fuckers are nearly as evil as the publishers, and certainly aren't helping the publishers' image any. I remember when I was in school hearing people talk about their local college textbook stores, and they sounded absolutely fuckawful. Prices above cover price, minimal trade-in value, used prices near cover price, that kind of thing. Whereas at my university, the bookstore was owned and operated by the student association, and did not turn a profit. Or rather, all profits were regularly rolled back into lower prices. Our books were generally sold for below cover price (almost always cheaper than Amazon as well), trade-ins (and used prices) were annoying but relatively fair, etc.
So I don't think it's just the publishers raping students, but they seem to get 100% of the blame.
That said, they have tried shenanigans in the past to offer "lower prices" in exchange for barriers to resale (like included software, online services, etc). Students don't seem to be biting. At the end of the day, a physical book is just plain easier to study from, at least in my experience. Most students seem like they'd rather take their chances with the buyback lottery than go digital.
EDIT: This could change, of course, and perhaps it already has since I graduated.
Yes. And that reason involves companies bellowing about how free trade is awesome until somebody else's free trading starts cutting into their profits. Then, it's lobbyin' time. Intellectual property, due to its very nature (there is only one original instance of it) cannot be a commodity. But books with stuff printed on the pages (or dvds with bits pressed into them, etc.)? Those are commodities, and should be freely tradable as such. This is especially true in the case of copies of things, because the marginal cost is tiny and the scarcity is artificial.
They still do the shenanigans, though my experience has been that professors will often put the online services to good (though usually optional) use, and some publishers seem to be willing to collaborate with bookstores/professors to create custom editions which are cheaper and can be reused, but not easily resold (except to the same bookstore).
Define "fair valuation of the product produced". Does this mean the market valuation? Because as I explained, the market valuation for intellectual property is zero. IP creation is a fixed cost of production and so will not be represented in the free market price. (indeed, not represented in any price)
Because of this, we can't use the "fair valuation of the product produced" because no such valuation exists. Well, that is not true. There exists a "fair valuation of the product" in the mind of each individual person in the world. That value is "the maximum price they would be willing to pay for the product". After all, if a person would be willing to pay the price it must be "fair". However this is not a single price since its different for every person.
Demand curves essentially represent the number of people who have valuations of the product above the price at that particular price point. Supply curves represent the number of copies that would be produced at a particular price point. We tend to think the free market is "fair" because it maximizes the number of people who can get the book while not having the producer lose money. In this evaluation large numbers of people purchase the book for less than they value the book, they win.
But in a free market producers won't make any profit (the market essentially forces CRS production functions). And if produces don't make any profit then the fixed cost of producing books means zero production of new books.
So we have to have a monopoly type situation. In this instance the producer raises the price above their marginal cost in order to make a profit. But in doing so, some of the people who would have purchased the book at the lower price will no longer purchase the book, and all of the people who had valuations between the monopoly price and the market price would lose out on some welfare. This situation is only more efficient than the free market situation because in the free market situation the book doesn't exist at all.
But what if we could sell the book to each person at the value they would be willing to pay for it? If this were the case everyone would get books, the seller would make the most money and, in general, total welfare is higher. I.E. What if i could charge poor people less money for the books and charge rich people more? If the market is not segmented you can't do this, because the poor people will just sell their books to the rich people and make a profit. The end result of that is that the market looks just like the free market solution. Which is bad because then no one writes books.
But if we are able to prevent the resale then we are able to sell the book to everyone, at the price that they're willing to pay, and this is economically just as good as the free market solution under the hypothetical situation that the free market situation existed. Though it is the case that the producer (read author) reaps the vast majority of the benefits, if it were not the case there would simply be no benefits to be had.
And since we set up the monopoly system in the first place so that the author could benefit its not particularly a problem that the author benefits more from the segmentation of markets since his increase in benefits do not correspond to a reduction in the amount of books sold.
FTFY. You cannot make the argument to the free market while ignoring that the free market is not efficient in this instance
Lets be explicitly clear the point of this law is not to allow authors to "game differences in international law" but to prevent arbitragers from "gaming differences in international law".
Arguing otherwise is stupid.
Unless you just masturbate to a world where hard copies no longer exist. Which is cool, I guess.
Suggesting that they don't because we can sell them books only implies that the consumers in India reap more benefit from purchasing "our" textbooks than they would by purchasing Indian textbooks. Any way you look at it market segmentation increases the benefit to everyone.
Heck with the laws we have, an Indian professor could write a textbook in India to compete with a U.S. professor and then sell his textbook in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. professor over here too. But if the laws change to as suggested by you/bagginess/etc then they could not because they could not compete with resellers selling the version they produced in India in the United States.
"Legitimately-produced copy of some IP" is the thing you are buying. Once you buy it, that specific copy should be able to be freely traded like any other commodity, regardless of whatever media it is put upon.
Except that there is no global copyright, so that legitimacy is restricted to that region.
Let's put it another way. If you buy some pot from a state dispensary in Vancouver, WA, do you really think that will stop the Portland cops from busting your ass?