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 it wasn't legitimately produced for worldwide distribution, only localized distribution. That you can carry the paper across a border doesn't change this.
The law is designed so that they can charge one price in India and another in Europe and a third in the US. Specifically, they want to charge the maximum that the market will bare in each physical location, and since the books are so much cheaper in India than in the states, they want to bar us from importing them at the reduced cost.
If they want to sell a non-transferable license to the content, and then as a courtesy provide you with a printed copy, fucking fine, let them do it. However, they shouldn't be allowed to sell you a book and then pretend that you don't own it. I understand this is sort of weird since Kirtsaeng is buying books in bulk for the purpose of resale, but what applies to them applies just as much to an individual student who hawks his text books at a yard sale as far as I can tell.
Except that it doesn't, because the import ban exempts individual copies bought originally for personal use.
I was with you originally, as evidenced by my posts, until I realized that what your concerned about isn't covered by this law. If you buy a copy, you own it, no problem.
The issue is that a business, which is what this dude was operating as, is not allowed to import en masse to begin with. It's a business regulation.
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.
These days, people put up with digital copies because they are free. If you get them from the interwebs.
Basically if you are ALLOWED to buy a copy, you are still allowed to resell it.
This guy was essentially never allowed to buy his copies to begin with. Or rather have his family illegally ship him copies that were not for personal use.
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
Aren't these copyright laws one of the big reasons that these textbooks are available for a reduced (affordable) cost outside of the United States in the first place?
If textbooks could be sold freely between countries / regions, language barriers would prevent quite a bit of resale. Beyond that...this isn't software or media that can be region locked. Anyone can read a textbook, so isn't it more likely that publishers will just stop selling English language textbooks for a reduced cost in those regions?
Who is going to suffer? The publishing company? Or the students overseas who need access to those textbooks and American students who pay more to make up for those lost sales?
Now, I would think publishers could control this by instituting tighter controls with the publishers in Thailand, not letting them make bulk sales to non-certified bookstores, requiring proof of enrollment in Thai universities to receive the reduced rate, and charging others the US rate, etc. But the law is the law, and saying that it's the company's responsibility alone when they should be protected by the law is not exactly fair application.
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
I asked earlier and nobody seems interested, but what exactly is Wiley's overall profit margin. Across all products, how much do they actually bring in, compared to revenues and costs?
There's this accepted assumption that they're fleecing students, but I'm curious if it can be backed up. Or, if we put an end to things like frequent editions, would it simply mean a price hike to compensate?
This isn't rhetorical, I honestly have no idea why kind of profit margin (as a percentage) they pull in. I'm curious how many of you do, though. Or are we just mad because fuck textbooks is expensive?
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
Not only are there new textbooks more often, but they're often absolutely needed. As anybody who had been stuck with a BAD textbook can tell you. It gets awful in some of the more obscure fields, where there simply isn't much competition (or very many motivated experts to write a new one).
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
What I am saying is that the current law is the socialism!
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
What I am saying is that the current law is the socialism!
In part.
He's saying we need more. The textbook market does seen pretty abusive. So regulation may be warranted.
But I'd still really like to see some numbers on publishers first, though.
Basically if you are ALLOWED to buy a copy, you are still allowed to resell it.
Can we resell foreign works? Reading these sections would seem to imply that personal use lifts the import ban but first sale may not apply because the work was not made where the law applies. Is there some other section(s) that cover this?
This subsection does not apply to - importation or exportation, for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States or departing from the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3)*, the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
*106 (3) are the sale rights granted to the copyright owner
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
Basically if you are ALLOWED to buy a copy, you are still allowed to resell it.
Can we resell foreign works? Reading these sections would seem to imply that personal use lifts the import ban but first sale may not apply because the work was not made where the law applies. Is there some other section(s) that cover this?
This subsection does not apply to - importation or exportation, for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States or departing from the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3)*, the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
*106 (3) are the sale rights granted to the copyright owner
To be fair, this is one of the major points of concern in the case, and it's due to the "lawfully made under title" language. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS clarifies that to include foreign made products imported under color of law.
Really, the law should be amended to read "or imported."
Also, thanks tinwhiskers. I think it's really hard to discuss the issue while focused on textbooks, because there's a lot of specific negative baggage that comes along with that industry in particular.
Basically if you are ALLOWED to buy a copy, you are still allowed to resell it.
Can we resell foreign works? Reading these sections would seem to imply that personal use lifts the import ban but first sale may not apply because the work was not made where the law applies. Is there some other section(s) that cover this?
This subsection does not apply to - importation or exportation, for the private use of the importer or exporter and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States or departing from the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3)*, the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
*106 (3) are the sale rights granted to the copyright owner
To be fair, this is one of the major points of concern in the case, and it's due to the "lawfully made under title" language. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS clarifies that to include foreign made products imported under color of law.
I agree this is a likely outcome. Narrow extension to first sale, but Kirtsaeng's actions weren't personal use, so the import ban applies. No way they'll agree with his claim that first sale trumps the import restrictions.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
What I am saying is that the current law is the socialism!
In part.
He's saying we need more. The textbook market does seen pretty abusive. So regulation may be warranted.
But I'd still really like to see some numbers on publishers first, though.
Well I've gotten through two classes no without actually buying the textbook despite being required to do so, so in some cases pretty fucking abusive!
$110 for a book that is used so little that it's not necessary to complete any coursework. Yep
Edit: I used the previous edition, sometimes page numbers even line up to the correct topic or end of chapter review as listed on an assignment which is hilarious
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
There's more scope for here as the business is so heavily regulated and the nature of who the drugs are sold too. You personally probably could, but probably not legally due to the requirements for prescriptions and the fact that non-profits who receive the drugs are unlikely to sell to people other than the intended patients (who have a strong disincentive to sell, though undoubtedly some do).
It's as much an argument to move to a different model of selling pharmaceuticals (licenses to healthcare organisations rather than on a per unit basis, would go a long way to fixing quite a few other problems in that industry), than an argument in favour of restricting subsequent sales.
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
What I am saying is that the current law is the socialism!
In part.
He's saying we need more. The textbook market does seen pretty abusive. So regulation may be warranted.
But I'd still really like to see some numbers on publishers first, though.
Well I've gotten through two classes no without actually buying the textbook despite being required to do so, so in some cases pretty fucking abusive!
$110 for a book that is used so little that it's not necessary to complete any coursework. Yep
Edit: I used the previous edition, sometimes page numbers even line up to the correct topic or end of chapter review as listed on an assignment which is hilarious
I'm sure almost everyone has had classes where the professor told everyone the first day the textbook was entirely optional, classes where the textbook was absolutely required, and probably even classes where the textbook was required, but never used. The book being used so little is really more on the professor, department, and university than the publisher themselves.
The big question is how much profit are these publishers netting. I assume that the profit varies widely depending on the type of book used - I'm sure 'American History 101' is much more profitable then 'Vector Bundles and K–Theory.' Overall though, are they making a 2-3% margin? A 10-15% margin? A 85% margin? What prices would reflect a reasonable but not outrageous profit margin?
One issue that I have is that higher education is becoming mandatory in America. Unless you plan to work minimum wage jobs your entire life, you will almost certainly attend college at some point. If you are required to take certain courses, and required to purchase certain books, the publishers have a monopoly and can effectively charge whatever price they want.
I really thing that we need a general overhaul of how we treat higher education in the United States, and recognize that education is a necessary public service that should be treated almost like a utility.
what im saying is we need some socialism to demand that textbooks sold to public schools have profit caps of some sort, or some sort of clamping down on this edition shit
I asked earlier and nobody seems interested, but what exactly is Wiley's overall profit margin. Across all products, how much do they actually bring in, compared to revenues and costs?
There's this accepted assumption that they're fleecing students, but I'm curious if it can be backed up. Or, if we put an end to things like frequent editions, would it simply mean a price hike to compensate?
This isn't rhetorical, I honestly have no idea why kind of profit margin (as a percentage) they pull in. I'm curious how many of you do, though. Or are we just mad because fuck textbooks is expensive?
Higher Education accounted for approximately 18% of total Company revenue in fiscal year 2011 for Wiley. Of this, 69% came from book sales(textbooks etc.). Considering that the revenue was $1,742,551,000 in 2011, this comes down to $216,424,834.2 for textbooks(and other similar publications). In 2011, Wiley's net income was $177,928,000(9.9%). If we're going by operating income, $248,100,000(14.2%) but considering that Higher Education counts for roughly one fifth of the company business, we can't really draw direct conclusions from this.
Higher Education has generated revenue growth at a compound annual rate of 7% over the past five years. The total revenue of Higher Education segment was $306,561,000 for 2011, of which textbooks accounted for $211,611,000 (69%).
Direct expenses and amortization accounted for $103,421,000 resulting in a gross profit margin of 66.7%, for the fiscal year 2011.
The fact that either your professor, your department, or you as a student were so inept that the textbook was of no use to you is irrelevant. And that you were able to get by with an old edition (which was it? unused, old edition, or both?) is great. I agree, constant edition shuffles are annoying.
What they are not, however, is evidence of abuse across the industry, or a publisher. I don't care if Wiley fleeces freshmen in intro courses to subsidize upper division texts that have smaller markets. I care if their net profit margin, across the market, is excessive. If not, then perhaps we should consider the possibility that maybe textbooks really just ARE expensive. Like, to provide. So people learn shit.
Am I also the only one who actually used, significantly, a majority of my texts? Also, am I the only one who was forced to buy a new edition for a follow on course, only to find that it was actually a significant and beneficial revision? Not the norm, of course, but made the $150 sting less.
In that case, the prof had told me I could get by with the old edition for two previous classes (I had bought it as a freshman, but had to take a couple years off...the book was used for a total of four classes that I took). The final class, an upper division elective, actually focused on the areas that had been revised and added...so I was strongly encouraged to suck it up and buy the new copy.
And hey, it was a substantial revision that added several chapters worth if new and useful content. Crazy!
Interesting numbers, thanks Rhan9. I'd be curious if other expenses are being left out there, and how the company is only realizing single digit margins whiles pulling that high a margin in college texts.
(1) Importation.— Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.
and
17 USC § 109 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
They do seem to contradict, but I actually lean towards the side of the importer rather than the copyright owner because of the language used.
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies...."
This indicates that if you imported a work - regardless if you yourself sold it, personal use exceptions aside - you are in violation of the exclusive right to distribute.
However, 17 USC 109 is "limitations on exclusive rights." It is explicitly a limitation of that same exclusive right
17 USC § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
...
So even if the importation of a work that has been acquired outside the United States constitutes an infringement, 17 USC 109 indicates that the legitimate owner of a particular copy is exempt from this restriction and is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession without the authority of the copyright owner.
This interpretation is entirely consistent with both laws, restricts any non-legitimate owners of a particular copy (either stolen or the copy was done illicitly) from importing a copyrighted work for distribution and allows for a consistent first sale doctrine.
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?
Funny how Wiley owns the copyright globally, somehow, then. If copyright is so fractured, why can't I get the Chinese copyright for The Avengers?
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
Given that Australia allows importation without sinking into the sea, I highly doubt this is a problem.
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
(1) Importation.— Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.
and
17 USC § 109 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
They do seem to contradict, but I actually lean towards the side of the importer rather than the copyright owner because of the language used.
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies...."
This indicates that if you imported a work - regardless if you yourself sold it, personal use exceptions aside - you are in violation of the exclusive right to distribute.
However, 17 USC 109 is "limitations on exclusive rights." It is explicitly a limitation of that same exclusive right
17 USC § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
...
So even if the importation of a work that has been acquired outside the United States constitutes an infringement, 17 USC 109 indicates that the legitimate owner of a particular copy is exempt from this restriction and is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession without the authority of the copyright owner.
This interpretation is entirely consistent with both laws, restricts any non-legitimate owners of a particular copy (either stolen or the copy was done illicitly) from importing a copyrighted work for distribution and allows for a consistent first sale doctrine.
Except to get there, you have to ignore that copyright is something that only extends to the border of any given nation. The textbooks in question never had US copyright attached - in fact, they explicitly said that they were NOT licensed for US distribution. Now, the law in the US does have some specific exceptions for personal use, archival, and non-profit work, but for the most part in order to get US copyright attached, you have to get the US copyright holder to do so.
In short, no, US law does not allow parallel importation.
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
There's more scope for here as the business is so heavily regulated and the nature of who the drugs are sold too. You personally probably could, but probably not legally due to the requirements for prescriptions and the fact that non-profits who receive the drugs are unlikely to sell to people other than the intended patients (who have a strong disincentive to sell, though undoubtedly some do).
It's as much an argument to move to a different model of selling pharmaceuticals (licenses to healthcare organisations rather than on a per unit basis, would go a long way to fixing quite a few other problems in that industry), than an argument in favour of restricting subsequent sales.
The health regulatory framework isn't germane to the discussion. Because saying "I can't because it's illegal" pretty much end the discussion on the textbook case, since what he did was illegal. The analogy is to frame the discussion in something besides books. Another product that has a similar 1st world/3rd world price dichotomy, and where the marginal price to make a copy is basically 0 is AIDS medication.
More over switching to a licensing model for healthcare orgs doesn't really change the situation at all. Unless you think the licence fee an American Hospital and one in Africa(and the rates passed along to the end user) would be the same.
(In other words, where is the money going, what is it subsidizing, or how many lambos is it buying)
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/annual_reports/ar_2011/ should give you all the info you need. There's a pdf on the detailed financials, where all of this information should be listed. I didn't have the time to go over it with a fine toothed comb, but if you want any specifics, they should be in there.
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?
Funny how Wiley owns the copyright globally, somehow, then. If copyright is so fractured, why can't I get the Chinese copyright for The Avengers?
You can. I doubt you could afford the asking price however.
When you create a copyrighted work within a Berne signatory, you effectively receive the copyright for that work in all signatory countries. Once you have these copyrights, you can then sell and package them as you please. You can even sell copyright on exclusive or non-exclusive terms. You can also elect to attach specific copyrights to specific versions of the work - this requires placing a specific notice in the work.
Again, read Stross' breakdown of how copyright is managed and sold on the international market (I've linked to it prior.)
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
There's more scope for here as the business is so heavily regulated and the nature of who the drugs are sold too. You personally probably could, but probably not legally due to the requirements for prescriptions and the fact that non-profits who receive the drugs are unlikely to sell to people other than the intended patients (who have a strong disincentive to sell, though undoubtedly some do).
It's as much an argument to move to a different model of selling pharmaceuticals (licenses to healthcare organisations rather than on a per unit basis, would go a long way to fixing quite a few other problems in that industry), than an argument in favour of restricting subsequent sales.
The health regulatory framework isn't germane to the discussion. Because saying "I can't because it's illegal" pretty much end the discussion on the textbook case, since what he did was illegal. The analogy is to frame the discussion in something besides books. Another product that has a similar 1st world/3rd world price dichotomy, and where the marginal price to make a copy is basically 0 is AIDS medication.
More over switching to a licensing model for healthcare orgs doesn't really change the situation at all. Unless you think the licence fee an American Hospital and one in Africa(and the rates passed along to the end user) would be the same.
I disagree - it's illegal for different reasons (it's unlikely that you'd be able to buy or that they are allowed to sell those drugs) which aren't irrelevant, and from a moral point of view there is a potential benefit to being able to do so if handling the drugs were legal. AIDS medication should never be withheld from patients because they can't afford it, doesn't matter where they live.
So like the textbook case, assuming you're not stealing the drugs or selling them off book, importing them would be OK.
Tastyfish on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
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.
You are being a bit slippery here again, and viewing this way too much through the simple model of a single monopolistic firm employing price discrimination in isolation of the bigger picture. First of all, when you are talking about efficiency here, you are talking about efficiency of allocation of the goods in the particular market. Perfect price discrimination provides this sort of efficiency on a micro level when you are forced into a monopolistic situation, but on a macro level or for an overall "social efficiency" the effect is much less clear and is more situational. Remember this efficiency comes at the cost of eradicating consumer surplus for the benefit of the monopoly, and that has effects beyond just the single market in question.
Second, as you mention, this sort of market segmentation does not provide perfect price discrimination, which is in general impossible or at least impractical. This means that the inefficiencies from monopoly pricing will still remain even if they are potentially reduced, as the monopoly will set the profit maximizing price for each market dependent upon the demand there. Price discrimination is the means that monopolies like to reduce their inefficiencies the best because they get to raid the pockets of high demand consumers, but that is not the only way to intervene in the market to try to deal with monopolistic inefficiency.
Third, and this ties back into the overall macro level effects, there will be clear winners and losers from this sort of price discrimination scheme. You aren't getting Pareto efficiency out of this. The higher demand consumers will be forced to pay more as they will be locked into a market segment that has a higher equilibrium than the overall market. For textbooks if they traded on the global market then the price would be set at a level in between the prices of the more and less elastic markets, so while books would be more expensive and less would sell in somewhere like India, they would be less expensive and more would sell somewhere like the United States. If you break it down by country like I was earlier, then the entirety of the downside will be eaten by the constituencies with the high demand markets.
And finally, there's more to a market like textbooks than can be captured entirely by a straightforward single monopoly model. That is because even if copyright can give a monopoly on a single text, there is imperfect competition as other companies could find authors to write competing texts if they see some markets as being woefully underserved. Maybe that isn't so much the case with some other copyrighted goods, like say if you wanted to watch the Dark Knight then a knock off may not be so acceptable, but with educational materials there isn't necessarily that much attachment to an exact presentation of a particular text ahead of deciding on the text for a class.
Now, perhaps price discrimination through copyright based trade barriers is for the best overall, but I am rather skeptical that that is obviously the case, and suspect that it'll end up being at least somewhat subjective. Though I guess any sort of argument along the lines of "let's solve inefficiencies by shoveling more money into the monopoly's pockets!" is going to set off alarm bells for me.
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
Why?
Seriously, this statement doesn't make sense.
So many of you seem unable to separate "I hate textbooks cause they are expensive and there's shitty practices involved" with "IP law works this way for a very good reason".
Just cause they may be a shit company doesn't mean they aren't right.
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
Why?
Seriously, this statement doesn't make sense.
So many of you seem unable to separate "I hate textbooks cause they are expensive and there's shitty practices involved" with "IP law works this way for a very good reason".
Just cause they may be a shit company doesn't mean they aren't right.
There's also the "i know this is the law, i just think the law is stupid/immoral/wrong/cake." option.
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.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
Why?
Seriously, this statement doesn't make sense.
So many of you seem unable to separate "I hate textbooks cause they are expensive and there's shitty practices involved" with "IP law works this way for a very good reason".
Just cause they may be a shit company doesn't mean they aren't right.
There's also the "i know this is the law, i just think the law is stupid/immoral/wrong/cake." option.
That's exactly what I'm talking about in the post you just quoted. I said right, not legal for a reason.
Many seem to be confusing "I don't like textbook companies" with "the law is wrong".
Posts
Except that it wasn't legitimately produced for worldwide distribution, only localized distribution. That you can carry the paper across a border doesn't change this.
Round and round we go....
If they want to sell a non-transferable license to the content, and then as a courtesy provide you with a printed copy, fucking fine, let them do it. However, they shouldn't be allowed to sell you a book and then pretend that you don't own it. I understand this is sort of weird since Kirtsaeng is buying books in bulk for the purpose of resale, but what applies to them applies just as much to an individual student who hawks his text books at a yard sale as far as I can tell.
I was with you originally, as evidenced by my posts, until I realized that what your concerned about isn't covered by this law. If you buy a copy, you own it, no problem.
The issue is that a business, which is what this dude was operating as, is not allowed to import en masse to begin with. It's a business regulation.
These days, people put up with digital copies because they are free. If you get them from the interwebs.
This guy was essentially never allowed to buy his copies to begin with. Or rather have his family illegally ship him copies that were not for personal use.
There's new textbooks far more often then that. And only a few (generally the 101 level shit) follow the frequent editions structure.
If textbooks could be sold freely between countries / regions, language barriers would prevent quite a bit of resale. Beyond that...this isn't software or media that can be region locked. Anyone can read a textbook, so isn't it more likely that publishers will just stop selling English language textbooks for a reduced cost in those regions?
Who is going to suffer? The publishing company? Or the students overseas who need access to those textbooks and American students who pay more to make up for those lost sales?
Now, I would think publishers could control this by instituting tighter controls with the publishers in Thailand, not letting them make bulk sales to non-certified bookstores, requiring proof of enrollment in Thai universities to receive the reduced rate, and charging others the US rate, etc. But the law is the law, and saying that it's the company's responsibility alone when they should be protected by the law is not exactly fair application.
I asked earlier and nobody seems interested, but what exactly is Wiley's overall profit margin. Across all products, how much do they actually bring in, compared to revenues and costs?
There's this accepted assumption that they're fleecing students, but I'm curious if it can be backed up. Or, if we put an end to things like frequent editions, would it simply mean a price hike to compensate?
This isn't rhetorical, I honestly have no idea why kind of profit margin (as a percentage) they pull in. I'm curious how many of you do, though. Or are we just mad because fuck textbooks is expensive?
Not only are there new textbooks more often, but they're often absolutely needed. As anybody who had been stuck with a BAD textbook can tell you. It gets awful in some of the more obscure fields, where there simply isn't much competition (or very many motivated experts to write a new one).
What I am saying is that the current law is the socialism!
In part.
He's saying we need more. The textbook market does seen pretty abusive. So regulation may be warranted.
But I'd still really like to see some numbers on publishers first, though.
Can we resell foreign works? Reading these sections would seem to imply that personal use lifts the import ban but first sale may not apply because the work was not made where the law applies. Is there some other section(s) that cover this?
Should I be able to bulk buy AIDS medication in Africa for pennies a dose, and then reship it to the US where it costs $5 a dose.
Do you think that selling all their AIDS medicine for 10c a dose will recoup the R&D costs for the pharmaceuticals? Do you think Africans with AIDS can afford them at the break-even point, lets say $1 a dose?
To be fair, this is one of the major points of concern in the case, and it's due to the "lawfully made under title" language. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS clarifies that to include foreign made products imported under color of law.
Also, thanks tinwhiskers. I think it's really hard to discuss the issue while focused on textbooks, because there's a lot of specific negative baggage that comes along with that industry in particular.
I agree this is a likely outcome. Narrow extension to first sale, but Kirtsaeng's actions weren't personal use, so the import ban applies. No way they'll agree with his claim that first sale trumps the import restrictions.
Well I've gotten through two classes no without actually buying the textbook despite being required to do so, so in some cases pretty fucking abusive!
$110 for a book that is used so little that it's not necessary to complete any coursework. Yep
Edit: I used the previous edition, sometimes page numbers even line up to the correct topic or end of chapter review as listed on an assignment which is hilarious
There's more scope for here as the business is so heavily regulated and the nature of who the drugs are sold too. You personally probably could, but probably not legally due to the requirements for prescriptions and the fact that non-profits who receive the drugs are unlikely to sell to people other than the intended patients (who have a strong disincentive to sell, though undoubtedly some do).
It's as much an argument to move to a different model of selling pharmaceuticals (licenses to healthcare organisations rather than on a per unit basis, would go a long way to fixing quite a few other problems in that industry), than an argument in favour of restricting subsequent sales.
I'm sure almost everyone has had classes where the professor told everyone the first day the textbook was entirely optional, classes where the textbook was absolutely required, and probably even classes where the textbook was required, but never used. The book being used so little is really more on the professor, department, and university than the publisher themselves.
The big question is how much profit are these publishers netting. I assume that the profit varies widely depending on the type of book used - I'm sure 'American History 101' is much more profitable then 'Vector Bundles and K–Theory.' Overall though, are they making a 2-3% margin? A 10-15% margin? A 85% margin? What prices would reflect a reasonable but not outrageous profit margin?
One issue that I have is that higher education is becoming mandatory in America. Unless you plan to work minimum wage jobs your entire life, you will almost certainly attend college at some point. If you are required to take certain courses, and required to purchase certain books, the publishers have a monopoly and can effectively charge whatever price they want.
I really thing that we need a general overhaul of how we treat higher education in the United States, and recognize that education is a necessary public service that should be treated almost like a utility.
Higher Education accounted for approximately 18% of total Company revenue in fiscal year 2011 for Wiley. Of this, 69% came from book sales(textbooks etc.). Considering that the revenue was $1,742,551,000 in 2011, this comes down to $216,424,834.2 for textbooks(and other similar publications). In 2011, Wiley's net income was $177,928,000(9.9%). If we're going by operating income, $248,100,000(14.2%) but considering that Higher Education counts for roughly one fifth of the company business, we can't really draw direct conclusions from this.
Higher Education has generated revenue growth at a compound annual rate of 7% over the past five years. The total revenue of Higher Education segment was $306,561,000 for 2011, of which textbooks accounted for $211,611,000 (69%).
Direct expenses and amortization accounted for $103,421,000 resulting in a gross profit margin of 66.7%, for the fiscal year 2011.
What they are not, however, is evidence of abuse across the industry, or a publisher. I don't care if Wiley fleeces freshmen in intro courses to subsidize upper division texts that have smaller markets. I care if their net profit margin, across the market, is excessive. If not, then perhaps we should consider the possibility that maybe textbooks really just ARE expensive. Like, to provide. So people learn shit.
Am I also the only one who actually used, significantly, a majority of my texts? Also, am I the only one who was forced to buy a new edition for a follow on course, only to find that it was actually a significant and beneficial revision? Not the norm, of course, but made the $150 sting less.
In that case, the prof had told me I could get by with the old edition for two previous classes (I had bought it as a freshman, but had to take a couple years off...the book was used for a total of four classes that I took). The final class, an upper division elective, actually focused on the areas that had been revised and added...so I was strongly encouraged to suck it up and buy the new copy.
And hey, it was a substantial revision that added several chapters worth if new and useful content. Crazy!
So it does happen. Sometimes.
So the most relevant portions and
They do seem to contradict, but I actually lean towards the side of the importer rather than the copyright owner because of the language used.
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies...."
This indicates that if you imported a work - regardless if you yourself sold it, personal use exceptions aside - you are in violation of the exclusive right to distribute.
However, 17 USC 109 is "limitations on exclusive rights." It is explicitly a limitation of that same exclusive right
So even if the importation of a work that has been acquired outside the United States constitutes an infringement, 17 USC 109 indicates that the legitimate owner of a particular copy is exempt from this restriction and is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession without the authority of the copyright owner.
This interpretation is entirely consistent with both laws, restricts any non-legitimate owners of a particular copy (either stolen or the copy was done illicitly) from importing a copyrighted work for distribution and allows for a consistent first sale doctrine.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Funny how Wiley owns the copyright globally, somehow, then. If copyright is so fractured, why can't I get the Chinese copyright for The Avengers?
Given that Australia allows importation without sinking into the sea, I highly doubt this is a problem.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Except to get there, you have to ignore that copyright is something that only extends to the border of any given nation. The textbooks in question never had US copyright attached - in fact, they explicitly said that they were NOT licensed for US distribution. Now, the law in the US does have some specific exceptions for personal use, archival, and non-profit work, but for the most part in order to get US copyright attached, you have to get the US copyright holder to do so.
In short, no, US law does not allow parallel importation.
The health regulatory framework isn't germane to the discussion. Because saying "I can't because it's illegal" pretty much end the discussion on the textbook case, since what he did was illegal. The analogy is to frame the discussion in something besides books. Another product that has a similar 1st world/3rd world price dichotomy, and where the marginal price to make a copy is basically 0 is AIDS medication.
More over switching to a licensing model for healthcare orgs doesn't really change the situation at all. Unless you think the licence fee an American Hospital and one in Africa(and the rates passed along to the end user) would be the same.
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/annual_reports/ar_2011/ should give you all the info you need. There's a pdf on the detailed financials, where all of this information should be listed. I didn't have the time to go over it with a fine toothed comb, but if you want any specifics, they should be in there.
You can. I doubt you could afford the asking price however.
When you create a copyrighted work within a Berne signatory, you effectively receive the copyright for that work in all signatory countries. Once you have these copyrights, you can then sell and package them as you please. You can even sell copyright on exclusive or non-exclusive terms. You can also elect to attach specific copyrights to specific versions of the work - this requires placing a specific notice in the work.
Again, read Stross' breakdown of how copyright is managed and sold on the international market (I've linked to it prior.)
I disagree - it's illegal for different reasons (it's unlikely that you'd be able to buy or that they are allowed to sell those drugs) which aren't irrelevant, and from a moral point of view there is a potential benefit to being able to do so if handling the drugs were legal. AIDS medication should never be withheld from patients because they can't afford it, doesn't matter where they live.
So like the textbook case, assuming you're not stealing the drugs or selling them off book, importing them would be OK.
My intermediate accounting class (3xxx level) used a text that received yearly updates. Same is true of my operations management class (also 3xxx) and, well... most of the others. Even finite math had yearly editions. These editions were rarely more than changes to page layout or switching one case study with another, but because the old editions were not available anymore, they couldn't be listed texts for the classes. We officially had to buy the new edition. Now, my instructors have been decent, and as much as possible have worked around older copies. But when students are dealing with bullshit like this? Yea, a case even with legal (but you must admit murky) standing is going to piss us off, and there won't be much sympathy for textbook publishers.
What it comes down to is, if the publisher is right and this truly is illegal, then it is one more instance of IP laws being totally broken.
Why?
You are being a bit slippery here again, and viewing this way too much through the simple model of a single monopolistic firm employing price discrimination in isolation of the bigger picture. First of all, when you are talking about efficiency here, you are talking about efficiency of allocation of the goods in the particular market. Perfect price discrimination provides this sort of efficiency on a micro level when you are forced into a monopolistic situation, but on a macro level or for an overall "social efficiency" the effect is much less clear and is more situational. Remember this efficiency comes at the cost of eradicating consumer surplus for the benefit of the monopoly, and that has effects beyond just the single market in question.
Second, as you mention, this sort of market segmentation does not provide perfect price discrimination, which is in general impossible or at least impractical. This means that the inefficiencies from monopoly pricing will still remain even if they are potentially reduced, as the monopoly will set the profit maximizing price for each market dependent upon the demand there. Price discrimination is the means that monopolies like to reduce their inefficiencies the best because they get to raid the pockets of high demand consumers, but that is not the only way to intervene in the market to try to deal with monopolistic inefficiency.
Third, and this ties back into the overall macro level effects, there will be clear winners and losers from this sort of price discrimination scheme. You aren't getting Pareto efficiency out of this. The higher demand consumers will be forced to pay more as they will be locked into a market segment that has a higher equilibrium than the overall market. For textbooks if they traded on the global market then the price would be set at a level in between the prices of the more and less elastic markets, so while books would be more expensive and less would sell in somewhere like India, they would be less expensive and more would sell somewhere like the United States. If you break it down by country like I was earlier, then the entirety of the downside will be eaten by the constituencies with the high demand markets.
And finally, there's more to a market like textbooks than can be captured entirely by a straightforward single monopoly model. That is because even if copyright can give a monopoly on a single text, there is imperfect competition as other companies could find authors to write competing texts if they see some markets as being woefully underserved. Maybe that isn't so much the case with some other copyrighted goods, like say if you wanted to watch the Dark Knight then a knock off may not be so acceptable, but with educational materials there isn't necessarily that much attachment to an exact presentation of a particular text ahead of deciding on the text for a class.
Now, perhaps price discrimination through copyright based trade barriers is for the best overall, but I am rather skeptical that that is obviously the case, and suspect that it'll end up being at least somewhat subjective. Though I guess any sort of argument along the lines of "let's solve inefficiencies by shoveling more money into the monopoly's pockets!" is going to set off alarm bells for me.
Seriously, this statement doesn't make sense.
So many of you seem unable to separate "I hate textbooks cause they are expensive and there's shitty practices involved" with "IP law works this way for a very good reason".
Just cause they may be a shit company doesn't mean they aren't right.
There's also the "i know this is the law, i just think the law is stupid/immoral/wrong/cake." option.
That's exactly what I'm talking about in the post you just quoted. I said right, not legal for a reason.
Many seem to be confusing "I don't like textbook companies" with "the law is wrong".