Amazon thumbs its nose at French ban on free shipping of books.

[Alfy]

Not necessarily surprising. The law was voted, but the 'décret d'application' probably has not gone through yet. The FNAC web site has always been much slower to adapt to anything then Amazon's, so I guess changes will come a tad later.

[SteveEisenberg]

Checking tonight on the two biggest French eBook sites:

www.fnac.com is abiding by the letter and intent of the new law. You can buy a paper book at full price with free shipping, or at 5 percent off in one of their physical stores.

www.amazon.fr is still selling at 5 percent off with the nose-thumbing shipping fee of 1 centime.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Checking tonight on the two biggest French eBook sites:

www.fnac.com is abiding by the letter and intent of the new law. You can buy a paper book at full price with free shipping, or at 5 percent off in one of their physical stores.

www.amazon.com is still selling at 5 percent off with the nose-thumbing shipping fee of 1 centime.

Breaking News!

Everyone is obeying the law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Breaking News!

Everyone is obeying the law.

How do you know that?

Ninjalawyer said:

So in a Common Law jurisdiction, there would be a strong argument that Amazon is complying with the law as written (assuming it unambiguously only restricts no-cost shipping). That said, case law in the UK and Canada is full of situations where courts have gone outside of the plain meaning of the text, even where the text seems unambiguous. There's also the fact that France uses weirdo civil law, which probably has its own particular kinks.

And I know that inte Sweden it is not only the actual text of the law that matters you look at the intent and what was written in works done that lead up to the law text.

So do you actually know how the law works in France? Some people do not write were they live so it is hard to know. But to me it seems to be a lot people here assuming the law must work as in the US.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by TCSimpson

So the French banned Amazon from doing free shipping of book orders.

To be accurate it's either you do do free shipping OR you apply a 5% discount on books, but not both. And it affects every e-retailer selling books, not only Amazon.

[SteveEisenberg]

Maybe it depends what book you check, but this morning Amazon.fr seems to have gone discount-free, while still charging the cent for shipping. So www.fnac.com is, at least momentarily, a centime cheaper. Here is an example:

http://recherche.fnac.com/SearchResu...0&submitbtn=OK

http://www.amazon.fr/En-finir-avec-E...zg_bs_books_38

Could it be the Amazon has decided their policy of a day ago had too much legal or political risk? Or it is just that they periodically change prices? I'll be checking again to see if the discount comes back.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

How do you know that?

Ninjalawyer said:


And I know that inte Sweden it is not only the actual text of the law that matters you look at the intent and what was written in works done that lead up to the law text.

So do you actually know how the law works in France? Some people do not write were they live so it is hard to know. But to me it seems to be a lot people here assuming the law must work as in the US.

U.S.

It may be that there are places where the "intent" of the law is enforceable, but I don't really consider that to be lawful.

I cannot imagine the horror of living in a place where the "law" is that arbitrarily dependent on whatever the politicians say it is -- and then have it apply retroactively.

If they can explain the intent in court proceedings, they should've used that explanation as the text of the law.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If they can explain the intent in court proceedings, they should've used that explanation as the text of the law.

I this case, the intent of the law is to stop Amazon. They can't very well say that can they.

Greg

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by gweeks

I this case, the intent of the law is to stop Amazon. They can't very well say that can they.

Greg

Then not only shouldn't it be a law, but they cannot explain to the court what the intent is that Amazon violated!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

U.S.

It may be that there are places where the "intent" of the law is enforceable, but I don't really consider that to be lawful.

I cannot imagine the horror of living in a place where the "law" is that arbitrarily dependent on whatever the politicians say it is -- and then have it apply retroactively.

If they can explain the intent in court proceedings, they should've used that explanation as the text of the law.

Different law system works in different ways and have different pros and cons. The advantage to let courts make interpretations is that they then can handle situation that were not predicted. So therefore the laws are not written overly specific and the courts can use the reasoning and motivation for the law when applying it to a new situation.

[SteveEisenberg]

Here's Amazon FAQ on the law:

https://www.amazon.fr/gp/help/custom...deId=201360370

Here's the law:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affich...XT000029210814

Here's what I believe happened:

A law went into effect commonly interpreted as giving businesses that ship books a choice between selling at a 5 percent discount, and offering free shipping. One, or the other -- not both. My high school French isn't good enough for me to offer my own interpretation of the legal text, but this is consistent with what I just wrote:

samhy, Post #35, this thread

and:

http://www.france24.com/en/20140109-...all-retailers/

For the first couple days after the legislation came into effect on 8 July, Amazon indeed both offered the 5 percent discount and shipped at the virtually free price of one Euro cent. The is the nose thumbing of our thread title.

However, several days later, Amazon backed down.

A continuing reminder of Amazon's days of rage last week is the one centime shipping fee. As far as I can see, it's unnecessary by any interpretation of the law, and puts Amazon's price for a shipped book one cent higher than the competition. If my understanding is correct, Amazon will, I predict, drop the one cent charge in coming days.

For years to come, Amazon's French government critics, who do in fact exist, will look back on those few days last week as proof of Amazon's arrogance. But unless I am missing something (and I may, since I'm not sure how Amazon promotions fit with the law ), the middle finger waving is over.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here's what I believe happened:

A law went into effect commonly interpreted as giving businesses that ship books a choice between selling at a 5 percent discount, and offering free shipping. One, or the other -- not both. My high school French isn't good enough for me to offer my own interpretation of the legal text, but this is consistent with what I just wrote:

samhy, Post #35, this thread

and:

http://www.france24.com/en/20140109-...all-retailers/

You're right. In France a price book is set by the publisher and the seller has the possibility to offer a 5% discount. No more (that's the Lang law).
When some sellers, including but not limited to Amazon, started free shipping in addition to the 5% discount it has been seen as a bigger discount and one that can't be matched by brick and mortar shops if they don't ship books.
So in the end, this is a way to preserve the independent bookstores.

Those are only facts, not my personal views

[Laridae]

I'm not surprised; just the latest example of the French gov meddling in the marketplace to protect their aging books-and-mortar bookstore lobby.

Didn't we see something like this a few months ago?

The public must be all for it if they elected the gov, but, personally, I'd object to it as a "tax on nostalgia"

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Laridae

The public must be all for it if they elected the gov, but, personally, I'd object to it as a "tax on nostalgia"

Aptly put

[darryl]

Ninjalawyer gave the benefit of his opinion which is generally correct in common law jurisdictions. Intent of the legislature may become relevant in a very limited fashion if it is required to resolve an ambiguity in the wording of the legislation concerned. If there is no ambiguity, the question never arises.

However, Ninjalawyer's comments were limited to Common law jurisdictions, as are my own. France is, of course, a civil law jurisdiction and I am not familiar with its rules of interpretation. I do, however, note eschwartz's comment with approval. That is:

"It may be that there are places where the "intent" of the law is enforceable, but I don't really consider that to be lawful.

I cannot imagine the horror of living in a place where the "law" is that arbitrarily dependent on whatever the politicians say it is -- and then have it apply retroactively.

If they can explain the intent in court proceedings, they should've used that explanation as the text of the law."