15 ms·

Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

266 points by nla 14y ago

pc86 14y ago
I'm glad, obviously. You should be able to do whatever you want with something after you purchase it. But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court.
- jrajav 14y ago
  > But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court. Not being a lawyer, isn't this the best result possible for consumers in terms of establishing precedent?
  - mrchucklepants 14y ago
    I would agree. After I buy it, it is mine to deal with as I please.
    - throwaway1979 14y ago
      Not necessarily. I was from a modest family in Asia and went to high school (actually, I skipped most of high school as I studied on my own). I remember paying a few thousand rupees for a textbook. Most of these were printed on low quality paper and had soft or generic covers. I never thought that these books were cheap ... until I moved to North America. I noticed many books for my undergad costed over a hundred dollars. They were usually on better stock paper (I mention the paper quality not to justify the price difference but rather to describe to people who may not be familiar with the cheap books). Clearly, the North American textbook prices are higher than developing country prices. Ultimately, I benefited greatly from the cheaper books. I doubt the end result is going to be a net-decrease in the price of books. Rather, some books might become inaccessible by the poor in developing countries. But what about the poor in developed countries, you ask? Hard question to answer.
      - drucken 14y ago
        some books might become inaccessible by the poor in developing countries. But what about the poor in developed countries, you ask? Hard question to answer. Isn't the exact reverse more likely? You only ever need one copy of a book to make more copies. All that this could lead to is a (futile) continuation of the trend of US publishers changing versions of a book sold directly in other countries. But developing country cheap copy publishers can just copy a US version and/or a domestic version of the book. So, a "stratification" of books (US version, domestic version + digital versions) will be continue to be available to developing countries and pirates. The real difficulties will be the poor/legal prices in the US. I suspect students photocopying library books will only increase in fashion.
      - dougmccune 14y ago
        I'm involved in academic publishing, and this is exactly what will happen. Publishers will simply stop selling the cheaper international versions. Those cheaper prices aren't sustainable, they only exist because the investment in the book is already made up for by the US/first world market. The cheap international pricing is subsidized by the more expensive markets and the international sales don't (historically) cannibalize the US/European sales. If that changes and the international copies flood the US market the international copies will simply stop being created. They aren't (economically) worth doing on their own. You can complain about publishers all you want, but the net result of this change will simply be less affordable textbooks sold to the developing markets. Maybe that's just a short term result and new entrants will figure out how to profitably target the developing world with high quality material, but the short term affect will be a decrease in those low-cost editions sold overseas.
        WildUtah 14y ago
        That's ideal. What we need is enough schools and teachers with an incentive to contribute to a public domain textbook system. Each contributor should write a good presentation of a specialty or a favorite subject. Then the whole book will be among the best textbooks possible. And the textbook cartel will collapse in the USA and the less developed world while students have better books for free.
  - pc86 14y ago
    It is, the part that makes me sad is we had to set the precedent in the first place. It's good that a precedent has been set but it's ridiculous there was ever a lawsuit over reselling a book.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Hashing out "ridiculous" things is exactly what rule of law is for. Because what's obvious to you is not obvious to everyone, or there wouldn't have been a dispute in the first place.
- Shivetya 14y ago
  So, will IP on physical media be subject to this ruling? Will this accelerate us away from being able to even buy physical copies of these items?
- gameshot911 14y ago
  Honest question: What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? For example, if a phone company sells me a smartphone with the agreement that I do not unlock the phone, should I still be able to do whatever I want with the phone (unlock it) after it is in my possession?
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? Everything is sold with particular assumptions. Consumers often use their purchases in ways the seller didn't foresee.
  - pc86 14y ago
    Anyone who signs an agreement should be bound by that agreement assuming the other party did not act in bad faith. I think it's important to stick to text books though and not venture into software or cell phone territory because it's a very safe bet that no contract was ever signed and no agreement was ever entered into other than "here's my money, give me that book."
  - usea 14y ago
    I'm not the GP, but yes. As long as you were willing to break that agreement and take on any penalties incurred. If the device is yours, you can smash it on the ground even if the agreement prohibits it. However, you've now broken the agreement and there may be a fee or some other penalty.
  - coldpie 14y ago
    > What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? Then you specify that assumption and the penalties for breaking it in a contract, which both parties sign. That's why I find the phone unlocking thing so baffling--you're already under contract, why do the carriers care if you unlock your phone so long as you don't violate the terms of the contract?
jug6ernaut 14y ago
Honestly I don't know how i feel about this. As a recent grad i know full well how high prices are for text books, i would do everything possible to prevent having to buy them. I personally thing the requirement to always have a new textbook(that years version) is more ridiculous then the prices they charge. I don't know where that requirement stems from, but in my opinion it is the real problem. But with that said I don't see this ruling lowering prices, if anything it will increase the prices in the other regions where the prices were previously lower. There is no kind of magic bullet with these kinds of things, companies are not going to just lower profit margins, they will always try to make it up somewhere.
- pkfrank 14y ago
  Potentially relevant bit from the Higher Opoprtunity Education Act's textbook provision: http://content.efollett.com/HEOA/library/HEOATextbookProvision.pdf http://content.efollett.com/HEOA/library/HEOATextbookProvisi... Provision C.1.c: Publishers are required to provide [to the professor or other book chooser]... >A description of the substantial content revisions made between the current edition of the college textbook or supplemental material and the previous edition, if any. I'd like to see this information made public in a reliable manner. It's well and good that the professors should be enlightened about the relevant content changes, but the spirit of the HOEA is to make textbooks more affordable and purchasing more transparent. If that's really the end-goal, then forcing publishers to make that information public and consumer-facing should be the true requirement. Until students have that, they're beholden to the professors (who may have ulterior motives) when making the purchasing decision.
- milesskorpen 14y ago
  The new text book thing isn't a requirement — but (a) professors get copies of the new books for free and (b) the publishers make just enough changes between editions to make it hard to use old versions (different question, vocab words, etc.), so that teachers prefer all students to have the same version ... and this is only an option for the new books. Text books are somewhat irrelevant however — the Court upholding the first sale doctrine is fantastic, and hopefully will open the doors for lots more exporting / importing.
- 14y ago
jivatmanx 14y ago
Excellent for the native textbook industries of these countries.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  But not necessarily for the students in those countries. Presumably low-cost and market-recognized quality are factors that have kept American textbooks in distribution in foreign markets (and domestic producers out of those markets). In their absence, one might think that prices will rise, quality will fall, or both; at least in the short run. If these countries are relatively free of government collusion with established (or establishing) producers, then ultimately competitive pressures could rectify that as market demand gets satisfied; but in the short run prices up, quality down.
  - mjmahone17 14y ago
    Alternatively, it's possible the American publishers wer effectively "dumping" their textbooks to prevent international publishers from ever being able to establish themselves.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      Always a possibility. Though that wouldn't change the short term effect on students, since the "dumping" did have the effect of lower prices for them.
DoubleMalt 14y ago
It is hard to overestimate the importance of this decision. Had it gone the other way it would have been an utter disaster and contrary to every common sense Still it concerns me that 3 judges sided with the publisher. In such a landmark decision even 6 to 3 seems to close a margin for comfort.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  The supreme court does not "side with" any particular party (ideally); they "side with" a specific interpretation of the law. If you read both the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion, you'll see that the dissenting opinion is strictly based on interpretation. The supreme court not only attempts to interpret how to apply the law, but determine what congress' intent was when enacting the law.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Actually, at least 2 justices specifically do not determine congress's intent, because they do not believe it matters. If you look, you'll see they often specifically refuse to join in footnotes/etc that cite congressional intent or history.
    - SEMW 14y ago
      It's possible they're still trying to determine congress's intent in a sense, they just give a more objective meaning to 'intent': i.e. what a reasonable person reading the statute would think that congress meant by the words they used. (As opposed to what they actually, subjectively meant, per extrinsic evidence like statements made in congress). That's the way intent is read in contract law: it's judged objectively (from the position of a reasonable person in the position of the parties at the time of contracting), subjective intentions don't matter. [Edit: while true of English contract law, this is apparently not accurate for US contract law: see DannyBee's reply] (I'm only guessing - I'm an English law student, so not familiar with US supreme court justices, so could be completely wrong on what they're doing. [Edit: yup, I was.])
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition. In general the whole textbook industry makes me sick. But fact is that lecturers are entirely responsible for it. The publishers can only do what the lecturers let them do, and either through apathy or greed the lecturers have shirked their responsibility to their students.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  The worst offenders are the professors who write their own textbooks (even though there are dozens of better ones already available) and then use them in their courses, making money off each student. Maybe there should be conflict of interest rules in universities. The heroes in this game are the instructors who are creating open-source textbooks.
  - kyrra 14y ago
    I had a professor that created his own textbook that he taught out of. His lectures were him writing the textbook on the whiteboard. This was a good 1.5 hour nap every tuesday/thursday.
    - fabriceleal 14y ago
      I also had a couple of professors that did the exact same think for a course. Most of the professors gave away the slides of the course, and even more additional material; these ones gave nothing but a bunch of literally useless tables and charts, completely worthless for the exams. Needless to say, this textbook was the only and obligatory literature for the course.
  - slaxman 14y ago
    I don't think it is wrong for a professor to recommend his book for his course. But it is definitely wrong for him to force his students to use them. We had a lot of profs in college who had written books and recommended them. But if you attended the classes you really didn't require the textbooks in the first place.
kbutler 14y ago
This will push textbooks more heavily toward digital distribution, where the content will be "licensed" to an individual user, without resale rights. While I applaud digital distribution, the lack of consumer rights comparable to the first sale and fair use doctrines is a large and growing problem.
- dublinben 14y ago
  The only saving grace of digital distribution of textbooks is that it (often) allows easier pirating. The availability of inexpensive used textbooks is less crucial if free PDFs are available.
  - dubya 14y ago
    The publishers are already pushing bundled grading systems with their textbook. You get the textbook and also a login key so you can submit homework and quizzes online. I don't know how widespread it is yet, but I suspect many service courses at state schools will adopt it soon.
    - khuey 14y ago
      It's getting more and more popular for intro level courses. It's an easy way to shift more of the cost of running the course off of the university (or the state) and onto the students because you need fewer TAs/grading assistants.
arikrak 14y ago
This is good news. Publishers charge US students much more than students in other (even high-income) countries. At least they shouldn't be able to legally prevent people from buying international edition books. The publishers often change the questions in those books, but there are ways to deal with this. The old-textbook publishing market will probably decline in the near future as people move to digital and interactive options. This will be a big improvement, but the publishers will once again have control. There will be many free options available though.
chaddeshon 14y ago
It is great that students will be able to get cheap text books. But, are we not concerned that the court seems to be throwing out a law passed by Congress in an area where the Constitution grants them explicit power to act merely because they think the law is a bad idea? Title 17 of the U. S. Code Section 602(a)(1) “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 infringe- ment of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sec tion 501.”
- freehunter 14y ago
  That's the whole point of the Supreme Court and of the balance of powers. Congress is free to pass whatever law they want, it's up to the Court to decide if the law is valid or Constitutional. If the Court thinks the law is a bad idea, they're free by all means to throw it out, that's the reason they exist.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    "It's a bad idea" is a very different thing than "it's unconstitutional." It shouldn't even need to be said, but this is a mistake that is pervasive on HN.[1] There are infinite shitty ideas that are nonetheless Constitutional. The Court is empowered to throw out unconstitutional legislation. It is not empowered to throw out Constitutional legislation that happens to be a bad idea. [1] On everything from campaign finance to drone strikes, nobody bothers drawing the very important distinction between "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."
    - chaddeshon 14y ago
      The mass media doesn't often doesn't even try distinguish between the two. For hot button issues that make it to the Supreme Court, there is always a lot of talk about "I think people should be allowed to X" not "the law says Y" or "The Constitution allows Z". If we want to be in control of our own governance, we would be better served if elected Congressmen make the laws rather than nine old people who are accountable to no one (even if those nine old people are brilliant thinkers).
andrewpi 14y ago
SCOTUSblog analysis: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/opinion-analysis-justices-reject-publishers-claims-in-gray-market-copyright-case/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/opinion-analysis-justices-...
- ISL 14y ago
  Grouping useful stuff together: The opinion itself: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf The dissent is perhaps most interesting.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    I just love circular reasoning like Ginsberg's. "We should decide this case in Wiley's favor because it's the official policy of the United States to support similar provisions in international agreements." Then, when it's time to negotiate the next ACTA framework or WIPO treaty, we'll fall back to, "Hey, US law works this way, and look how successful it's been for us. Wouldn't the rest of you benighted nations like to enjoy the fruits of our maximalist copyright regime as well?"
- WildUtah 14y ago
  The older case Costco v. Omega was decided in an unsigned, unexplained per curiam decision. No one outside the court knows which four were on each side. Breyer won six votes for his strong pro-competition, pro-market, IP moderate position. Remember that in Eldred v. Ashcroft (q.v.) Breyer wrote one of two vigorous dissents against the essentially permanent copyright terms now in force. Former justice Stevens was the other. Stevens was also joined by Breyer in the split decision in Bilsky where they won four votes (with Ginsburg and Sotomayor) for serious restrictions on patents for software and business methods and possibly total exclusion from patentability for those arts. In short, Stevens was a great loss and Breyer is still a national treasure. Let's hope we get more like them and fewer like Kennedy, who always seems to be on the wrong side of IP cases. (Alito, Roberts, and Scalia are very bad, too, but haven't been as consistent trying to destroy our industry as Kennedy.)
socalnate1 14y ago
This is fantastic news. Had the court ruled differently, the first sale doctrine would have been in doubt, which could have destroyed ebay, craigslist, garage sales and nearly anything that involves reselling a good.
lvxn0va 14y ago
Yet they won't take up the $200,000 file sharing case, even though the record companies lost their right to protection after the first sale of the music.
antiterra 14y ago
The case involves textbooks, but it's not really about textbooks. Instead it's about what "made lawfully under this title" means in the context of first-sale of physical items. Under one interpretation, if you buy a book outside the US, your ability to resell it in the US without permission depends on whether or not the book was made in the United States. Under the other interpretation, "lawfully made under this title" means more that the making of the item itself was within the legal construct of copyright. That is, not pirated or counterfeit. This second interpretation is what the majority opinion espouses, and the dissenting opinion aligns with the first. This may be unsatisfactory for people concerned with software or e-book licenses, but Omega v. Costco might have come out differently if this had been decided beforehand. In that case, Omega sued Costco for reselling watches because they registered a copyright* for a logo on the back of the watch. Omega claimed that Costco had no first-sale protection from copyright since the watches were not made in the US. The 9th circuit agreed, SCOTUS split 4-4 (Kagan self-recused) and the 9th circuit stood. The majority opinion implies that it's perfectly fine to fly to a foreign country, purchase legitimately sold watches, toasters, electric kettles, and books and bring them home for sale. (Subject to applicable duties, etc.) Yes, manufacturers will probably not just throw their hands up and give up on price discrimination. I have no idea what they will do. But the profits from Country X still might trump any loss of profit/image due to importation and resale in the US. Scrambling chapters in textbooks might work, but then they lose some efficiency and flexibility, for example: the option of liquidating inventory to a low-margin market when a new edition comes out in the US at a higher profit margin. * Generally brand logos are trademarked, but they can sometimes also be copyrighted. It's a little muddy, and arguments exist whether or not, say, Mickey Mouse could become/remain a trademark after the copyright protection expires. EDIT: To clarify what I meant by "I have no idea what they will do": I am not entirely without ideas of approaches companies could take; the suggestions in other reply threads here are definitely candidates. I just don't think I can predict the specific action[s]. Maybe 'all of the above' for some, maybe the status quo for others.
- digikata 14y ago
  You already have the answer to what a publisher might do in your post: lobby for the imposition of duties on imported copyrighted material (or a narrower description as fits the market they're trying to protect). I'm not agreeing with that approach, it just seems likely.
nitrogen 14y ago
It's interesting that the Omega watch case had a 4-4 tie in the SC while this decision was 6-3. Does this mean that Costco can start importing cheap watches again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp.#Supreme_Court_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale...
- WildUtah 14y ago
  Costco won in district court on remand. The theory was that even if it was infringing copyright, using copyright to block physical goods was an abuse of copyright. So Costco still won in the end. Omega was appealing the decision last I heard. Cr_ppy Omega watches are overpriced anyway.
  - khuey 14y ago
    Seems like this precedent should make Omega's appeal that much harder.
shrikant 14y ago
I really liked this bit from the decision: > Third, Wiley and the dissent claim that a nongeographical interpretation will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for publishers (and other copyright holders) to divide foreign and domestic markets. We concede that is so. A publisher may find it more difficult to charge different prices for the same book in different geographic markets. But we do not see how these facts help Wiley, for we can find no basic principle of copyright law that suggests that publishers are especially entitled to such rights. FINALLY! Someone's finally seen what Robert Heinlein wrote in Life-Line and essentially just paraphrased it: > There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
- hub_ 14y ago
  That's why the content industry pushed for the DMCA and used that in the case of the DeCSS case: DMCA as a mean to protect market protection like DVD region encoding. The problem with physical books is that they can't do it. The know it, the court knows it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Presumably however this means that buying both your DVDs and your DVD player from another region is now unambiguously legal. (IANAL)
    - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
      I'm fairly certain that was always clearly legal.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
isb 14y ago
Why can't they apply similar interpretation to legalize re-importation of drugs? The arguments there are similar ( "drugs are expensive in US to subsidize foreign markets"). This is also another blow to the academic publishing racket. In response, they might stop publishing cheap international editions. I hope the availability of high quality open source textbooks and material from MOOCs will cause the developing world to adopt them instead. However, there is a chance that pirated copies - either digital or facsimile copies of US editions - will flood the asian markets. This already happens today but at a small scale.
auctiontheory 14y ago
In the bookstore of my local community college, I saw the required intro calculus text selling for around $140. That is wrong in so many ways. And it's instructive to contrast textbook prices with the very reasonable student discounts on software. Software labels are trying to create customers for life, while book publishers are price gouging while they can.
pflats 14y ago
I'm not a huge international policy wonk, but I don't get how these suits (this one and Omega vs. Costco) reconcile with the rules of the WTO (of which the US and Thailand are charter members). Doesn't the National Treatment Policy state that imported goods shouldn't be treated differently than locally-produced ones? And doesn't restricting the first-sale doctrine on imported good break that very rule? I'd love for someone to explain how this relates to international law that we're supposed to be following. I'm always curious abou this stuff, and I can't find anything good in my Google searches. (I realize that the WTO is rather toothless, but still.)
jared314 14y ago
I'm not sure why so few people link to the real content. Oral Argument recordings: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-697 http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_de... Opinions: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
protomyth 14y ago
If you listen to the oral arguments http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-697 http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_de... , I get the feeling the resale of cars weighed a bit on decision: "A geographical interpretation would prevent the resale of, say, a car, without the permission of the holder of each copyright on each piece of copyrighted automobile software. Yet there is no reason to believe that foreign auto manufacturers regularly obtain this kind of permis sion from their software component suppliers, and Wiley did not indicate to the contrary when asked. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29–30. Without that permission a foreign car owner could not sell his or her used car."
smsm42 14y ago
I feel glad and sad in the same time. Glad because first sale doctrine survived, and sad because it could very well not. The whole matter that first sale doctrine disappears as soon as you cross borders sounds ridiculous - the practice of manufacturing goods cheaply at one place and sell them in another is an extremely common practice, and there's absolutely zero reason for books to be except from it.
brownbat 14y ago
Roberts and Sotomayor on one side, Scalia and Ginsburg on the other. Not really a right/left split. If you had to draw some line, you might notice that the dissenters, Ginsburg (80), Scalia (77), and Kennedy (76), are the oldest on the bench. I wouldn't read too much into that, just thought it was interesting. We probably already make too much of the "right/left" line in the court, since cases like this--where people don't cleanly line up according to political ideology--are fairly common.
qwertzlcoatl 14y ago
Small victories are victories none the less. The fact that this had to come up as a question to begin with demonstrates a critical flaw in our system. A Flaw with IP law, and with the ability of high dollar interests to influence our government.
ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
Am I the only one that disagrees with the decision? Correct me if I'm wrong: So imagine you're a publisher and you sell a math book in the USA for $60 and in a 3rd world country for $20 so that more people can afford it and you can establish a presence there. Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? I know most of us here love having the freedom to do whatever we want but we need to look at the RESULT of the decision, not the EMOTIONAL return of the decision. Sure it makes us feel good to know we can sell what we want to where-ever and whom-ever we want. But what if the result of that action is a bad thing? I think it's quick sales like this that will push more publishers to: 1) Move towards digital only distribution with heavy DRM. 2) Increase prices in the USA to make up for the loss in profit. 3) Increase prices in other countries to discourage the overseas exporting. 4) Retract themselves entirely from smaller markets. Am I missing something, or not seeing the benefit? Seriously critique my thoughts, I want to see both sides to this.
- sonabinu 14y ago
  As a student, I feel text books are priced way too high. If the international version is just a few dollars less that the one sold in the US, no one is going to go searching the web for a cheaper book. The problem is that the price variance is too much and these are required text books. I sometimes spend hours to look for a used text book that is cheap. If I sold my used text book, I will get a max of 5 $ from a text book vendor but to buy it back is around 50 $. It is always the student who seems to be at the losing end.
- cbs 14y ago
  Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? The law should only be concerned with fairness insomuch as it informs "right vs wrong". Nobody is entitled to a business model.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? Yes, and no better reasoning is required other than "It's my book now and I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it." If you restrict what people can do with their own stuff just because of the indirect effect on a current business model then you'll simply snuff out other (better) business models. Free and open-source software may have never become popular if MS had been able to complain that it was eating into their business model and affecting their ability to "give away" software to universities and schools, and that's just one example.

266 points by nla 14y ago

pc86 14y ago

I'm glad, obviously. You should be able to do whatever you want with something after you purchase it. But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court.

jrajav 14y ago
> But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court. Not being a lawyer, isn't this the best result possible for consumers in terms of establishing precedent?
- mrchucklepants 14y ago
  I would agree. After I buy it, it is mine to deal with as I please.
  - throwaway1979 14y ago
    Not necessarily. I was from a modest family in Asia and went to high school (actually, I skipped most of high school as I studied on my own). I remember paying a few thousand rupees for a textbook. Most of these were printed on low quality paper and had soft or generic covers. I never thought that these books were cheap ... until I moved to North America. I noticed many books for my undergad costed over a hundred dollars. They were usually on better stock paper (I mention the paper quality not to justify the price difference but rather to describe to people who may not be familiar with the cheap books). Clearly, the North American textbook prices are higher than developing country prices. Ultimately, I benefited greatly from the cheaper books. I doubt the end result is going to be a net-decrease in the price of books. Rather, some books might become inaccessible by the poor in developing countries. But what about the poor in developed countries, you ask? Hard question to answer.
    - drucken 14y ago
      some books might become inaccessible by the poor in developing countries. But what about the poor in developed countries, you ask? Hard question to answer. Isn't the exact reverse more likely? You only ever need one copy of a book to make more copies. All that this could lead to is a (futile) continuation of the trend of US publishers changing versions of a book sold directly in other countries. But developing country cheap copy publishers can just copy a US version and/or a domestic version of the book. So, a "stratification" of books (US version, domestic version + digital versions) will be continue to be available to developing countries and pirates. The real difficulties will be the poor/legal prices in the US. I suspect students photocopying library books will only increase in fashion.
    - dougmccune 14y ago
      I'm involved in academic publishing, and this is exactly what will happen. Publishers will simply stop selling the cheaper international versions. Those cheaper prices aren't sustainable, they only exist because the investment in the book is already made up for by the US/first world market. The cheap international pricing is subsidized by the more expensive markets and the international sales don't (historically) cannibalize the US/European sales. If that changes and the international copies flood the US market the international copies will simply stop being created. They aren't (economically) worth doing on their own. You can complain about publishers all you want, but the net result of this change will simply be less affordable textbooks sold to the developing markets. Maybe that's just a short term result and new entrants will figure out how to profitably target the developing world with high quality material, but the short term affect will be a decrease in those low-cost editions sold overseas.
      - WildUtah 14y ago
        That's ideal. What we need is enough schools and teachers with an incentive to contribute to a public domain textbook system. Each contributor should write a good presentation of a specialty or a favorite subject. Then the whole book will be among the best textbooks possible. And the textbook cartel will collapse in the USA and the less developed world while students have better books for free.
- pc86 14y ago
  It is, the part that makes me sad is we had to set the precedent in the first place. It's good that a precedent has been set but it's ridiculous there was ever a lawsuit over reselling a book.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Hashing out "ridiculous" things is exactly what rule of law is for. Because what's obvious to you is not obvious to everyone, or there wouldn't have been a dispute in the first place.
Shivetya 14y ago
So, will IP on physical media be subject to this ruling? Will this accelerate us away from being able to even buy physical copies of these items?
gameshot911 14y ago
Honest question: What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? For example, if a phone company sells me a smartphone with the agreement that I do not unlock the phone, should I still be able to do whatever I want with the phone (unlock it) after it is in my possession?
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? Everything is sold with particular assumptions. Consumers often use their purchases in ways the seller didn't foresee.
- pc86 14y ago
  Anyone who signs an agreement should be bound by that agreement assuming the other party did not act in bad faith. I think it's important to stick to text books though and not venture into software or cell phone territory because it's a very safe bet that no contract was ever signed and no agreement was ever entered into other than "here's my money, give me that book."
- usea 14y ago
  I'm not the GP, but yes. As long as you were willing to break that agreement and take on any penalties incurred. If the device is yours, you can smash it on the ground even if the agreement prohibits it. However, you've now broken the agreement and there may be a fee or some other penalty.
- coldpie 14y ago
  > What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? Then you specify that assumption and the penalties for breaking it in a contract, which both parties sign. That's why I find the phone unlocking thing so baffling--you're already under contract, why do the carriers care if you unlock your phone so long as you don't violate the terms of the contract?

jug6ernaut 14y ago

Honestly I don't know how i feel about this. As a recent grad i know full well how high prices are for text books, i would do everything possible to prevent having to buy them. I personally thing the requirement to always have a new textbook(that years version) is more ridiculous then the prices they charge. I don't know where that requirement stems from, but in my opinion it is the real problem. But with that said I don't see this ruling lowering prices, if anything it will increase the prices in the other regions where the prices were previously lower. There is no kind of magic bullet with these kinds of things, companies are not going to just lower profit margins, they will always try to make it up somewhere.

pkfrank 14y ago
Potentially relevant bit from the Higher Opoprtunity Education Act's textbook provision: http://content.efollett.com/HEOA/library/HEOATextbookProvision.pdf http://content.efollett.com/HEOA/library/HEOATextbookProvisi... Provision C.1.c: Publishers are required to provide [to the professor or other book chooser]... >A description of the substantial content revisions made between the current edition of the college textbook or supplemental material and the previous edition, if any. I'd like to see this information made public in a reliable manner. It's well and good that the professors should be enlightened about the relevant content changes, but the spirit of the HOEA is to make textbooks more affordable and purchasing more transparent. If that's really the end-goal, then forcing publishers to make that information public and consumer-facing should be the true requirement. Until students have that, they're beholden to the professors (who may have ulterior motives) when making the purchasing decision.
milesskorpen 14y ago
The new text book thing isn't a requirement — but (a) professors get copies of the new books for free and (b) the publishers make just enough changes between editions to make it hard to use old versions (different question, vocab words, etc.), so that teachers prefer all students to have the same version ... and this is only an option for the new books. Text books are somewhat irrelevant however — the Court upholding the first sale doctrine is fantastic, and hopefully will open the doors for lots more exporting / importing.
14y ago

jivatmanx 14y ago

Excellent for the native textbook industries of these countries.

sageikosa 14y ago
But not necessarily for the students in those countries. Presumably low-cost and market-recognized quality are factors that have kept American textbooks in distribution in foreign markets (and domestic producers out of those markets). In their absence, one might think that prices will rise, quality will fall, or both; at least in the short run. If these countries are relatively free of government collusion with established (or establishing) producers, then ultimately competitive pressures could rectify that as market demand gets satisfied; but in the short run prices up, quality down.
- mjmahone17 14y ago
  Alternatively, it's possible the American publishers wer effectively "dumping" their textbooks to prevent international publishers from ever being able to establish themselves.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Always a possibility. Though that wouldn't change the short term effect on students, since the "dumping" did have the effect of lower prices for them.

DoubleMalt 14y ago

It is hard to overestimate the importance of this decision. Had it gone the other way it would have been an utter disaster and contrary to every common sense Still it concerns me that 3 judges sided with the publisher. In such a landmark decision even 6 to 3 seems to close a margin for comfort.

binarycrusader 14y ago
The supreme court does not "side with" any particular party (ideally); they "side with" a specific interpretation of the law. If you read both the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion, you'll see that the dissenting opinion is strictly based on interpretation. The supreme court not only attempts to interpret how to apply the law, but determine what congress' intent was when enacting the law.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Actually, at least 2 justices specifically do not determine congress's intent, because they do not believe it matters. If you look, you'll see they often specifically refuse to join in footnotes/etc that cite congressional intent or history.
  - SEMW 14y ago
    It's possible they're still trying to determine congress's intent in a sense, they just give a more objective meaning to 'intent': i.e. what a reasonable person reading the statute would think that congress meant by the words they used. (As opposed to what they actually, subjectively meant, per extrinsic evidence like statements made in congress). That's the way intent is read in contract law: it's judged objectively (from the position of a reasonable person in the position of the parties at the time of contracting), subjective intentions don't matter. [Edit: while true of English contract law, this is apparently not accurate for US contract law: see DannyBee's reply] (I'm only guessing - I'm an English law student, so not familiar with US supreme court justices, so could be completely wrong on what they're doing. [Edit: yup, I was.])

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition. In general the whole textbook industry makes me sick. But fact is that lecturers are entirely responsible for it. The publishers can only do what the lecturers let them do, and either through apathy or greed the lecturers have shirked their responsibility to their students.

greenyoda 14y ago
The worst offenders are the professors who write their own textbooks (even though there are dozens of better ones already available) and then use them in their courses, making money off each student. Maybe there should be conflict of interest rules in universities. The heroes in this game are the instructors who are creating open-source textbooks.
- kyrra 14y ago
  I had a professor that created his own textbook that he taught out of. His lectures were him writing the textbook on the whiteboard. This was a good 1.5 hour nap every tuesday/thursday.
  - fabriceleal 14y ago
    I also had a couple of professors that did the exact same think for a course. Most of the professors gave away the slides of the course, and even more additional material; these ones gave nothing but a bunch of literally useless tables and charts, completely worthless for the exams. Needless to say, this textbook was the only and obligatory literature for the course.
- slaxman 14y ago
  I don't think it is wrong for a professor to recommend his book for his course. But it is definitely wrong for him to force his students to use them. We had a lot of profs in college who had written books and recommended them. But if you attended the classes you really didn't require the textbooks in the first place.

kbutler 14y ago

This will push textbooks more heavily toward digital distribution, where the content will be "licensed" to an individual user, without resale rights. While I applaud digital distribution, the lack of consumer rights comparable to the first sale and fair use doctrines is a large and growing problem.

dublinben 14y ago
The only saving grace of digital distribution of textbooks is that it (often) allows easier pirating. The availability of inexpensive used textbooks is less crucial if free PDFs are available.
- dubya 14y ago
  The publishers are already pushing bundled grading systems with their textbook. You get the textbook and also a login key so you can submit homework and quizzes online. I don't know how widespread it is yet, but I suspect many service courses at state schools will adopt it soon.
  - khuey 14y ago
    It's getting more and more popular for intro level courses. It's an easy way to shift more of the cost of running the course off of the university (or the state) and onto the students because you need fewer TAs/grading assistants.

arikrak 14y ago

This is good news. Publishers charge US students much more than students in other (even high-income) countries. At least they shouldn't be able to legally prevent people from buying international edition books. The publishers often change the questions in those books, but there are ways to deal with this. The old-textbook publishing market will probably decline in the near future as people move to digital and interactive options. This will be a big improvement, but the publishers will once again have control. There will be many free options available though.

chaddeshon 14y ago

It is great that students will be able to get cheap text books. But, are we not concerned that the court seems to be throwing out a law passed by Congress in an area where the Constitution grants them explicit power to act merely because they think the law is a bad idea? Title 17 of the U. S. Code Section 602(a)(1) “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 infringe- ment of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sec tion 501.”

freehunter 14y ago
That's the whole point of the Supreme Court and of the balance of powers. Congress is free to pass whatever law they want, it's up to the Court to decide if the law is valid or Constitutional. If the Court thinks the law is a bad idea, they're free by all means to throw it out, that's the reason they exist.
- rayiner 14y ago
  "It's a bad idea" is a very different thing than "it's unconstitutional." It shouldn't even need to be said, but this is a mistake that is pervasive on HN.[1] There are infinite shitty ideas that are nonetheless Constitutional. The Court is empowered to throw out unconstitutional legislation. It is not empowered to throw out Constitutional legislation that happens to be a bad idea. [1] On everything from campaign finance to drone strikes, nobody bothers drawing the very important distinction between "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."
  - chaddeshon 14y ago
    The mass media doesn't often doesn't even try distinguish between the two. For hot button issues that make it to the Supreme Court, there is always a lot of talk about "I think people should be allowed to X" not "the law says Y" or "The Constitution allows Z". If we want to be in control of our own governance, we would be better served if elected Congressmen make the laws rather than nine old people who are accountable to no one (even if those nine old people are brilliant thinkers).

andrewpi 14y ago

SCOTUSblog analysis: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/opinion-analysis-justices-reject-publishers-claims-in-gray-market-copyright-case/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/opinion-analysis-justices-...

ISL 14y ago
Grouping useful stuff together: The opinion itself: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf The dissent is perhaps most interesting.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  I just love circular reasoning like Ginsberg's. "We should decide this case in Wiley's favor because it's the official policy of the United States to support similar provisions in international agreements." Then, when it's time to negotiate the next ACTA framework or WIPO treaty, we'll fall back to, "Hey, US law works this way, and look how successful it's been for us. Wouldn't the rest of you benighted nations like to enjoy the fruits of our maximalist copyright regime as well?"
WildUtah 14y ago
The older case Costco v. Omega was decided in an unsigned, unexplained per curiam decision. No one outside the court knows which four were on each side. Breyer won six votes for his strong pro-competition, pro-market, IP moderate position. Remember that in Eldred v. Ashcroft (q.v.) Breyer wrote one of two vigorous dissents against the essentially permanent copyright terms now in force. Former justice Stevens was the other. Stevens was also joined by Breyer in the split decision in Bilsky where they won four votes (with Ginsburg and Sotomayor) for serious restrictions on patents for software and business methods and possibly total exclusion from patentability for those arts. In short, Stevens was a great loss and Breyer is still a national treasure. Let's hope we get more like them and fewer like Kennedy, who always seems to be on the wrong side of IP cases. (Alito, Roberts, and Scalia are very bad, too, but haven't been as consistent trying to destroy our industry as Kennedy.)

socalnate1 14y ago

This is fantastic news. Had the court ruled differently, the first sale doctrine would have been in doubt, which could have destroyed ebay, craigslist, garage sales and nearly anything that involves reselling a good.

lvxn0va 14y ago

Yet they won't take up the $200,000 file sharing case, even though the record companies lost their right to protection after the first sale of the music.

antiterra 14y ago

The case involves textbooks, but it's not really about textbooks. Instead it's about what "made lawfully under this title" means in the context of first-sale of physical items. Under one interpretation, if you buy a book outside the US, your ability to resell it in the US without permission depends on whether or not the book was made in the United States. Under the other interpretation, "lawfully made under this title" means more that the making of the item itself was within the legal construct of copyright. That is, not pirated or counterfeit. This second interpretation is what the majority opinion espouses, and the dissenting opinion aligns with the first. This may be unsatisfactory for people concerned with software or e-book licenses, but Omega v. Costco might have come out differently if this had been decided beforehand. In that case, Omega sued Costco for reselling watches because they registered a copyright* for a logo on the back of the watch. Omega claimed that Costco had no first-sale protection from copyright since the watches were not made in the US. The 9th circuit agreed, SCOTUS split 4-4 (Kagan self-recused) and the 9th circuit stood. The majority opinion implies that it's perfectly fine to fly to a foreign country, purchase legitimately sold watches, toasters, electric kettles, and books and bring them home for sale. (Subject to applicable duties, etc.) Yes, manufacturers will probably not just throw their hands up and give up on price discrimination. I have no idea what they will do. But the profits from Country X still might trump any loss of profit/image due to importation and resale in the US. Scrambling chapters in textbooks might work, but then they lose some efficiency and flexibility, for example: the option of liquidating inventory to a low-margin market when a new edition comes out in the US at a higher profit margin. * Generally brand logos are trademarked, but they can sometimes also be copyrighted. It's a little muddy, and arguments exist whether or not, say, Mickey Mouse could become/remain a trademark after the copyright protection expires. EDIT: To clarify what I meant by "I have no idea what they will do": I am not entirely without ideas of approaches companies could take; the suggestions in other reply threads here are definitely candidates. I just don't think I can predict the specific action[s]. Maybe 'all of the above' for some, maybe the status quo for others.

digikata 14y ago
You already have the answer to what a publisher might do in your post: lobby for the imposition of duties on imported copyrighted material (or a narrower description as fits the market they're trying to protect). I'm not agreeing with that approach, it just seems likely.

nitrogen 14y ago

It's interesting that the Omega watch case had a 4-4 tie in the SC while this decision was 6-3. Does this mean that Costco can start importing cheap watches again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp.#Supreme_Court_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale...

WildUtah 14y ago
Costco won in district court on remand. The theory was that even if it was infringing copyright, using copyright to block physical goods was an abuse of copyright. So Costco still won in the end. Omega was appealing the decision last I heard. Cr_ppy Omega watches are overpriced anyway.
- khuey 14y ago
  Seems like this precedent should make Omega's appeal that much harder.

shrikant 14y ago

I really liked this bit from the decision: > Third, Wiley and the dissent claim that a nongeographical interpretation will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for publishers (and other copyright holders) to divide foreign and domestic markets. We concede that is so. A publisher may find it more difficult to charge different prices for the same book in different geographic markets. But we do not see how these facts help Wiley, for we can find no basic principle of copyright law that suggests that publishers are especially entitled to such rights. FINALLY! Someone's finally seen what Robert Heinlein wrote in Life-Line and essentially just paraphrased it: > There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

hub_ 14y ago
That's why the content industry pushed for the DMCA and used that in the case of the DeCSS case: DMCA as a mean to protect market protection like DVD region encoding. The problem with physical books is that they can't do it. The know it, the court knows it.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Presumably however this means that buying both your DVDs and your DVD player from another region is now unambiguously legal. (IANAL)
  - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
    I'm fairly certain that was always clearly legal.
    - jlgreco 14y ago

isb 14y ago

Why can't they apply similar interpretation to legalize re-importation of drugs? The arguments there are similar ( "drugs are expensive in US to subsidize foreign markets"). This is also another blow to the academic publishing racket. In response, they might stop publishing cheap international editions. I hope the availability of high quality open source textbooks and material from MOOCs will cause the developing world to adopt them instead. However, there is a chance that pirated copies - either digital or facsimile copies of US editions - will flood the asian markets. This already happens today but at a small scale.

auctiontheory 14y ago

In the bookstore of my local community college, I saw the required intro calculus text selling for around $140. That is wrong in so many ways. And it's instructive to contrast textbook prices with the very reasonable student discounts on software. Software labels are trying to create customers for life, while book publishers are price gouging while they can.

pflats 14y ago

I'm not a huge international policy wonk, but I don't get how these suits (this one and Omega vs. Costco) reconcile with the rules of the WTO (of which the US and Thailand are charter members). Doesn't the National Treatment Policy state that imported goods shouldn't be treated differently than locally-produced ones? And doesn't restricting the first-sale doctrine on imported good break that very rule? I'd love for someone to explain how this relates to international law that we're supposed to be following. I'm always curious abou this stuff, and I can't find anything good in my Google searches. (I realize that the WTO is rather toothless, but still.)

jared314 14y ago

I'm not sure why so few people link to the real content. Oral Argument recordings: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-697 http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_de... Opinions: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf

protomyth 14y ago

If you listen to the oral arguments http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-697 http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_de... , I get the feeling the resale of cars weighed a bit on decision: "A geographical interpretation would prevent the resale of, say, a car, without the permission of the holder of each copyright on each piece of copyrighted automobile software. Yet there is no reason to believe that foreign auto manufacturers regularly obtain this kind of permis sion from their software component suppliers, and Wiley did not indicate to the contrary when asked. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29–30. Without that permission a foreign car owner could not sell his or her used car."

smsm42 14y ago

I feel glad and sad in the same time. Glad because first sale doctrine survived, and sad because it could very well not. The whole matter that first sale doctrine disappears as soon as you cross borders sounds ridiculous - the practice of manufacturing goods cheaply at one place and sell them in another is an extremely common practice, and there's absolutely zero reason for books to be except from it.

brownbat 14y ago

Roberts and Sotomayor on one side, Scalia and Ginsburg on the other. Not really a right/left split. If you had to draw some line, you might notice that the dissenters, Ginsburg (80), Scalia (77), and Kennedy (76), are the oldest on the bench. I wouldn't read too much into that, just thought it was interesting. We probably already make too much of the "right/left" line in the court, since cases like this--where people don't cleanly line up according to political ideology--are fairly common.

qwertzlcoatl 14y ago

Small victories are victories none the less. The fact that this had to come up as a question to begin with demonstrates a critical flaw in our system. A Flaw with IP law, and with the ability of high dollar interests to influence our government.

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago

Am I the only one that disagrees with the decision? Correct me if I'm wrong: So imagine you're a publisher and you sell a math book in the USA for $60 and in a 3rd world country for $20 so that more people can afford it and you can establish a presence there. Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? I know most of us here love having the freedom to do whatever we want but we need to look at the RESULT of the decision, not the EMOTIONAL return of the decision. Sure it makes us feel good to know we can sell what we want to where-ever and whom-ever we want. But what if the result of that action is a bad thing? I think it's quick sales like this that will push more publishers to: 1) Move towards digital only distribution with heavy DRM. 2) Increase prices in the USA to make up for the loss in profit. 3) Increase prices in other countries to discourage the overseas exporting. 4) Retract themselves entirely from smaller markets. Am I missing something, or not seeing the benefit? Seriously critique my thoughts, I want to see both sides to this.

sonabinu 14y ago
As a student, I feel text books are priced way too high. If the international version is just a few dollars less that the one sold in the US, no one is going to go searching the web for a cheaper book. The problem is that the price variance is too much and these are required text books. I sometimes spend hours to look for a used text book that is cheap. If I sold my used text book, I will get a max of 5 $ from a text book vendor but to buy it back is around 50 $. It is always the student who seems to be at the losing end.
cbs 14y ago
Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? The law should only be concerned with fairness insomuch as it informs "right vs wrong". Nobody is entitled to a business model.
mpyne 14y ago
> Is it fair for people from that 3rd world country to sell the book back to the USA and for you to miss out on your profit? Yes, and no better reasoning is required other than "It's my book now and I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it." If you restrict what people can do with their own stuff just because of the indirect effect on a current business model then you'll simply snuff out other (better) business models. Free and open-source software may have never become popular if MS had been able to complain that it was eating into their business model and affecting their ability to "give away" software to universities and schools, and that's just one example.