4 ms·

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

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.
jeffdavis 14y ago
"Am I the only one that disagrees with the decision? ... we need to look at the RESULT of the decision" That is not the job of the Supreme Court. They are supposed to decide based on what the law says, regardless of the result. If you disagree with the law, then write to Congress. But it's fair to ask whether this will produce better or worse results. It's a good observation that this will cause publishers to shift out of poorer markets and increase the use of DRM[1]. The previous situation was not perfect though, either. To interpret that statute geographically would be a major restriction on trade; and if not, would create a lot of ambiguity. Nobody wants to purchase something from another country if they are worried that the manufacturer will come in later and take it away because it had some copyrighted design (which could be anything) on it somewhere. I believe the results will be better overall (by a lot) under the new interpretation of the law. Clarity and simplicity about where you stand as the owner of property is incredibly important. One way to think about it is that nothing has changed. The publisher can still create a contract with the buyer that says they won't resell it in another region. It's just that the "default" purchase contract does not give the publisher that right. And we should make defaults match expectations as closely as possible, otherwise people are entering into contracts they don't understand. The notion of purchasing a product has many expectations that go with it that have been developed over millennia. To allow the publishers to inject extra terms that contradict those expectations just to fit their particular business model is ridiculous. [1] Though DRM wouldn't be nearly as bad if there were no DMCA and if the sellers were forced to call it "licensing" rather than "buying". Again, the default purchasing contract should match the expectations of both parties.

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.

jeffdavis 14y ago

"Am I the only one that disagrees with the decision? ... we need to look at the RESULT of the decision" That is not the job of the Supreme Court. They are supposed to decide based on what the law says, regardless of the result. If you disagree with the law, then write to Congress. But it's fair to ask whether this will produce better or worse results. It's a good observation that this will cause publishers to shift out of poorer markets and increase the use of DRM[1]. The previous situation was not perfect though, either. To interpret that statute geographically would be a major restriction on trade; and if not, would create a lot of ambiguity. Nobody wants to purchase something from another country if they are worried that the manufacturer will come in later and take it away because it had some copyrighted design (which could be anything) on it somewhere. I believe the results will be better overall (by a lot) under the new interpretation of the law. Clarity and simplicity about where you stand as the owner of property is incredibly important. One way to think about it is that nothing has changed. The publisher can still create a contract with the buyer that says they won't resell it in another region. It's just that the "default" purchase contract does not give the publisher that right. And we should make defaults match expectations as closely as possible, otherwise people are entering into contracts they don't understand. The notion of purchasing a product has many expectations that go with it that have been developed over millennia. To allow the publishers to inject extra terms that contradict those expectations just to fit their particular business model is ridiculous. [1] Though DRM wouldn't be nearly as bad if there were no DMCA and if the sellers were forced to call it "licensing" rather than "buying". Again, the default purchasing contract should match the expectations of both parties.