Today In Ridiculous French Regulations: eBook Price Controls!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Competing on price is a completely fair advantage.

Tell that to all the local businesses destroyed by Tesco and Walmart.

[carpetmojo]

You may think their reg's are ridiculous, but they are their regs .........

And the French, among other things, are very watchful of their culture - especially their language, as I'm sure all know! - unlike a great many other nations, and it hasn't done them any great harm.

As rogue librarian said, it's hardly new, and the principle seems to work for them.
And to follow on from mr. ploppy, they do have small bookshops still..........

[adityadubey]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

You may think their reg's are ridiculous, but they are their regs .........

And the French, among other things, are very watchful of their culture - especially their language, as I'm sure all know! - unlike a great many other nations, and it hasn't done them any great harm.

As rogue librarian said, it's hardly new, and the principle seems to work for them.
And to follow on from mr. ploppy, they do have small bookshops still..........

I must clarify, no disrespect to the French. I love them and their culture (French is the first foreign language I started learning). I just pasted the headline of the link out of sheer laziness.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Tell that to all the local businesses destroyed by Tesco and Walmart.

Why should consumers subsidise less efficient businesses?

[carpetmojo]

Many do, because their definition of efficient, and "service", is totally different to yours, and they want more from their suppliers than "efficiency", like knowledge, good service, good customer relations, regard for the community, etc.. et...
We all know the topic, we all know the arguements, we all choose accordingly.
Sadly, "more efficient" today means cheapness, monopoly, more care about shareholders rather than customers, stack it high without knowing anything about what is being stacked apart from the profit, and destroy any competition as afr as possible.
End of rant. The question as asked is too vague.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Why should consumers subsidise less efficient businesses?

It is in the long term interest of consumers for those businesses to continue to exist so that they can provide competition to the multinationals. In a world where Tesco or Walmart are the only retail outlet (which is the logical conclusion of such price-war based competition), what happens when they decide they no longer want to stock certain items?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's not about copyright it's about not giving large corporations an unfair advantage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT COPYRIGHT!!

The size of a particular corporation is meaningless, except in the eyes of the french congress or whatever name they give their "parliamentary" organization.

There can be no advantage taken if none is given, and if the advantage here price, is given, by the uploader/author. Who are you? or by extension who are the french to say that the author should not be able to set their own price for their work?

In the future all prices will be set by the publisher, as it should be, where will this regulation stand then? I tell you nowhere. MEANINGLESS.

[Andrew H.]

While I'm not a fan of regulations like these, I do sympathize with their general goals. And there are, empirically, really only two outcomes possible:

(1) You allow competition on price. Big chains win, consumers win, small corner bookstores lose and vanish.

(2) You don't allow competition on price. Small corner bookstores win, consumers and big chains lose.

Note 1 - There is, of course, an argument to be made that consumers actually win when corner bookstores continue to exist. However, since history shows that consumers almost always choose the cheaper price when given the option, this counts as a "loss" for consumers.

Note 2 - The loss for consumers by disallowing price competition is much less of a loss than the loss the corner bookstores suffer: consumers can still buy the books that they want, they just have to pay more. Corner bookstores will go out of business. But still a loss for consumers.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, the origins of copyright lay in the minds of english publishers who were whining about the lower price of scottish imported pbooks, but these are ebooks we're talking about here folks.

Actually no. In 1523 the Spanish king granted a 20 year copyright (which included destruction and specific penalties for each unauthorized printed copy) to one of the men who sailed with Magellan. This came at the request of the writer, who sold about 1000 copies and made a handy sum of money on the deal.

And there were much earlier examples in China where they had printing presses centuries before the Europeans did.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually no. In 1523 the Spanish king granted a 20 year copyright (which included destruction and specific penalties for each unauthorized printed copy) to one of the men who sailed with Magellan. This came at the request of the writer, who sold about 1000 copies and made a handy sum of money on the deal.

And there were much earlier examples in China where they had printing presses centuries before the Europeans did.

Do you think that copyright can only exist when the technology for easy copying also exists? To put it another way, can an oral fiction be copyrighted?

I would be interested in links to your references, so that I may copy them onto my Kindle and read them later.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Do you think that copyright can only exist when the technology for easy copying also exists? To put it another way, can an oral fiction be copyrighted?

I would be interested in links to your references, so that I may copy them onto my Kindle and read them later.

My references refer to printed materials, not oral traditions. The Chinese had machine printed newspapers in the 8th century, already.

Magellan's assistant I was referring to was Antonio Pigafetta (and the copyright he received for the publication of his manuscript), I will look it up again and post some links later. My point being that even way back in the 16th century authors were concerned about unauthorized copying.

Unlike some of the other participants in the voyage he was not richly rewarded by the king and therefore asked for said special copyright -- nobody else was to be allowed to copy or publish his manuscript for 20 years.

But, of course, you are right. Today almost anyone has easy access to methods of copying books and especially ebooks. Just my conclusion is the exact opposite of yours. Because copying is so easy we need copyright more than ever.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Magellan's assistant I was referring to was Antonio Pigafetta (and the copyright he received for the publication of his manuscript), I will look it up again and post some links later. My point being that even way back in the 16th century authors were concerned about unauthorized copying.

Unlike some of the other participants in the voyage he was not richly rewarded by the king and therefore asked for said special copyright -- nobody else was to be allowed to copy or publish his manuscript for 20 years.

Just my conclusion is the exact opposite of yours. Because copying is so easy we need copyright more than ever.

Doesn't that sound like censorship? The restriction of knowledge dissemination? We can install systems to reward authors in a copyright free world, if monies are the reason for copyright, copyright will no longer be needed.

We think there might be other reasons for the copyright meme to have gained so much traction over the years, but that is no matter, what matters is ending it ASAP.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

... except in the eyes of the french congress or whatever name they give their "parliamentary" organization.

I like your gratuitous use of quotes here. JFTR, they, too, have a bicameral parliament, comprising of a National Assembly and a Senate. (Not surprising, really, considering that they practically invented the whole system.)

... who are the french to say that the author should not be able to set their own price for their work?

You, too, sadly fail to grasp the concept. That is exactly what this system allows the author or publisher to do: they get to set the final retail price.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Doesn't that sound like censorship? The restriction of knowledge dissemination?

No, it doesn't. And if you seriously fail to see the difference, fail to grasp the very nature of copyright all further discussion will be pointless.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Doesn't that sound like censorship? The restriction of knowledge dissemination? We can install systems to reward authors in a copyright free world, if monies are the reason for copyright, copyright will no longer be needed.

We think there might be other reasons for the copyright meme to have gained so much traction over the years, but that is no matter, what matters is ending it ASAP.

Censorship is if absolutely nobody can publish something. Copyright is when only certain parties have that right for a limited time to reward them for their work. Of course other systems "might work" -- though from what I have seen the "donations optional" system usually works out as "very, very few donations". But it should be up to the rightsholders to decide. They have done the work or purchased the rights. It is up to them. Sorry, but I don't think helping freeloaders over authors makes sense. As one German author put it "I prefer the dignity of someone willing to purchase my books over the humilation of a handout".

Now as to the limited part, all I can say is "Oh Canada!".

[Gaurnim]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

While I'm not a fan of regulations like these, I do sympathize with their general goals. And there are, empirically, really only two outcomes possible:

(1) You allow competition on price. Big chains win, consumers win, small corner bookstores lose and vanish.

(2) You don't allow competition on price. Small corner bookstores win, consumers and big chains lose.

I don't really agree that there are only two possible outcomes, or at least that consumers and big chains lose when you set fixed prices.

A quick clarification first, on the matter of the fixed price itself :
This is not exactly a fixed price, a small (max 5%) discount is allowed. This usually does not amount to much due to prices in the 5-30€ range, though, but it allows a small diffferenciation and fidelity programs.

If you allow small stores to persist (fixed price doesn't ensure they're thriving, mind you), you tend to increase the diversisty of books available to consumers.
Big chains usually don't take risks with the books they stock, they take the mainstream stuff and maybe a small number of fringe stuff if the relevant personnel is knowledgeable and interested enough.
Small stores tend to be a bit specialized and so usually propose a wider variety of books in their chosen field of predilection.
The big chains still dominate the market because they can have a larger stock of the bestsellers and a wider general selection.
They also tend (in France, at least) to stock other items such as CDs, games, DVDs, ... making them a one stop location for "cultural" products and thus drawing more customers.


A word on the "unanimity" part of the article that was quoted :
As rogue_librarian (thanks) explained, the French Parliament is separated in two different houses, the Senate and the National Assembly.
The two houses have to vote on a law for it to be validated.
When they disagree, a special parliamentary commission is created with an equal number of members of both houses, in order to work on the law and try to find a middle ground.
When they do, it's not surprising that the commission's members vote unanimously for the law proposal that they have drafted.
The new proposal will still have to be voted by the two houses before it can be applied.