First Sale Doctrine now under assault

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by teh603

How long ago was that decided?

The reason I ask is because the Supreme Court has had a much stronger pro-Big Business bias since the past Bush administration, and this is an election year. Depending on how the election goes, any damage they do could take years or even decades to reverse.

'

I am not sure about when or what was decided. It seems to have gone away.
You probably are quicker than I at looking up things like that but if I get a chance I will look.

[plib]

Originally Posted by teh603

How long ago was that decided?

The reason I ask is because the Supreme Court has had a much stronger pro-Big Business bias since the past Bush administration, and this is an election year. Depending on how the election goes, any damage they do could take years or even decades to reverse.

The Bard had words for it, as he often did. It's not just the Supreme Court affected. 2010 was a redistricting year in the US, so they'll be feeling the effects of the 2010 election results for the next 10 years.

In many ways those two effects are more important than who sits in the President's chair for the following four years. Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas have been sitting in their chairs for over 20 years.

[Jyster]

Im guessing its talking about how some publishers sell textbooks overseas at a lower price than they sell at home, usually about half or less.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jyster

Im guessing its talking about how some publishers sell textbooks overseas at a lower price than they sell at home, usually about half or less.

It's very common for products to be priced differently for different markets and yes, that is where problems with "grey imports" tend to arise.

Originally Posted by teh603

How long ago was that decided?

The reason I ask is because the Supreme Court has had a much stronger pro-Big Business bias since the past Bush administration, and this is an election year. Depending on how the election goes, any damage they do could take years or even decades to reverse.

Yes, the current majority on the court has become very good at finding reasons for making rulings that favor big business, the wealthy, and not so subtly the Republican agenda. They have not been reluctant to reverse years of legal precedent to do so either. What in other times and with a different bent what Republicans would have chastised as an “activist court.”

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

It reminds me of when some authors/publishers were wanting to a piece of the used book market. i.e. they wanted to add a charge to Amazon, B&N and others' used book prices. The question was then raised about whether Ford and GM would start getting a cut when a guy sold his old pickup truck to someone. That question was basically laughed at and quickly forgotten.

I am sure these new dumb ideas will also be laughed at and quickly forgotten.

added ---
I read a little more into the cases and it seems the problem is when an item is meant to be sold cheaper abroad than in the USA. Some guy imported some text books and sold them on e-bay (as new) cheaper than they could be purchased in the USA. That is not exactly the used market.
I don't know what will happen.

I don't think you can get a new Toyota truck in Japan and ship it over here for a price that is less than buying it in America. But if it were used, I can't see a problem.

And to indicate that I am aware of some of these things. There is the case when you buy a vehicle or aircraft abroad, and ship it to the USA, it has to meet the US emissions and safety requirements, etc. If necessary the vehicle has to be retrofitted and inspected.

In the late 80's and early 90's a lot of Japanese went to LA and SF to buy Nikons and Canons. The price difference made up for the flight.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

This is already done on PC games and digital market.

In digital world I see this as acceptable practice, I can't resell my games, but on other hand I can wait for them and almost every time get them from sales, so I pay 10-50% of the price. Also good services like Steam make life much easier if you have good internet connection.

Still, it's purely wrong if this is done for physical products. Not sure if they can enforce it though...

I personally think it's wrong for digital sales also. Music on a CD is a digital source also. Video on a DVD is a digital source. I don't see it as any different. I pretty much refuse to buy DRM'd, non-transferrable content over $10 (and for ebooks more like $3). Yes, even Steam.

I feel that it violates my right to do as a I wish with my property. And I want it to work in 20 years if I want. I don't consider DRM'd purchases actual ownership. DRM devalues games to less than 10% of its normal value, to me. Ditto for books. I'd rather actually own property than "license" it.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Yes, the current majority on the court has become very good at finding reasons for making rulings that favor big business, the wealthy, and not so subtly the Republican agenda. They have not been reluctant to reverse years of legal precedent to do so either. What in other times and with a different bent what Republicans would have chastised as an “activist court.”

Being politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if they were to say, "Its only activist if they side against us." One person's frustrating activist is another's champion of liberty.

Originally Posted by Jyster

Im guessing its talking about how some publishers sell textbooks overseas at a lower price than they sell at home, usually about half or less.

IMO, if a publisher loses money because someone's importing goods that were sold cheaper overseas, then its their own fault for gouging over here. Inflation isn't the only reason things are more expensive here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

IMO, if a publisher loses money because someone's importing goods that were sold cheaper overseas, then its their own fault for gouging over here. Inflation isn't the only reason things are more expensive here.

The cost of doing business varies dramatically in different markets. A manufacturer has to charge a price which reflects local market conditions. It's unrealistic to charge the same for a textbook in a third-word country as in the US or Western Europe.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The cost of doing business varies dramatically in different markets. A manufacturer has to charge a price which reflects local market conditions. It's unrealistic to charge the same for a textbook in a third-word country as in the US or Western Europe.

How can market conditions vary between multiple captive markets? Its not like they have a choice. Either the students buy the required textbook, or they don't and risk the prof's wrath.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

How can market conditions vary between multiple captive markets?

Consider the cost of selling textbooks in, say, the US and Indian markets. It's much cheaper to operate a retail business in India than the US. Wages are much lower, for one thing. You can therefore sell your books much more cheaply in the Indian market, and still make the same profit on them.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The cost of doing business varies dramatically in different markets. A manufacturer has to charge a price which reflects local market conditions. It's unrealistic to charge the same for a textbook in a third-word country as in the US or Western Europe.

It is absolutely unconscionable for undergraduate texts to cost as much as they do. Case in point:

Fundamentals of Aerodynamics

$186.19 for the 5th edition. I don't remember the authors for my chemistry text, but that one came out with a new edition every single year. For a basic text that has been common knowledge for at least 100 years.

It is simply ethically wrong in my eyes to charge undergraduate students this much for a required text, particularly when viewed as one of four to five texts needed for that term.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

It is absolutely unconscionable for undergraduate texts to cost as much as they do. Case in point:

Fundamentals of Aerodynamics

$186.19 for the 5th edition. I don't remember the authors for my chemistry text, but that one came out with a new edition every single year. For a basic text that has been common knowledge for at least 100 years.

It is simply ethically wrong in my eyes to charge undergraduate students this much for a required text, particularly when viewed as one of four to five texts needed for that term.

As a former textbook author myself, I completely understand your viewpoint. The issue with textbooks is that:

1. They are EXTREMELY expensive to publish.
2. They have a VERY limited market.

Each copy that's sold therefore has to fund a large proportion of the production costs.

Sales of 5000 copies of a fiction book would be regarded as a miserable failure. Sales of 5000 copies of a textbook would be a major success.

That's why - in my student days, at least - many people bought their textbooks 2nd hand.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a former textbook author myself, I completely understand your viewpoint. The issue with textbooks is that:

1. They are EXTREMELY expensive to publish.
2. They have a VERY limited market.

Each copy that's sold therefore has to fund a large proportion of the production costs.

Sales of 5000 copies of a fiction book would be regarded as a miserable failure. Sales of 5000 copies of a textbook would be a major success.

That's why - in my student days, at least - many people bought their textbooks 2nd hand.

According to this site there are ~70 colleges in the U.S. that have an aerospace degree program. There were ~40 students in my aerodynamics class, so that's 2800 students a year, assuming they only offer the class once and all classrooms are the same size. That's also ignoring aeronautical degree programs, or any other programs of study that may require it (such as flight school, automotive racing, etc.). There are more aeronautical programs than aerospace, by the way, so there are more than 5,000 students (in the US alone) that have to purchase a text every year.

I can understand near $200, or even more, for a graduate level text in the art of the Somali Bantu, but not in even a relatively esoteric course such as aerodynamics at the undergraduate level.

With regard to 2nd hand texts, they don't help when the @sshole publishers update the edition every year or two.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

According to this site there are ~70 colleges in the U.S. that have an aerospace degree program. There were ~40 students in my aerodynamics class, so that's 2800 students a year, assuming they only offer the class once and all classrooms are the same size. That's also ignoring aeronautical degree programs, or any other programs of study that may require it (such as flight school, automotive racing, etc.). There are more aeronautical programs than aerospace, by the way, so there are more than 5,000 students (in the US alone) that have to purchase a text every year.

But they're almost certainly not all buying the same textbook. As a minimum, your 5000 students are probably buying 3 or 4 different textbooks, so that's a market of perhaps 1000-1500 copies per book. That's not a lot, especially if half the students are buying a 2nd-hand rather than a new copy.