This has scary implications for all of us

DO NOT READ. The writer fails to adequately describe the law and why lower courts have ruled against the defendant. The piece is nothing more than scare quotes and mentioning of large companies so it gets re-posted on other news feeds. Author should be ashamed, and we should not reward her with page views.
 
arpinum said:
DO NOT READ. The writer fails to adequately describe the law and why lower courts have ruled against the defendant. The piece is nothing more than scare quotes and mentioning of large companies so it gets re-posted on other news feeds. Author should be ashamed, and we should not reward her with page views.
Click to expand...

That is solely your opinion. The implications are broader than not wanting someone to get "page views".
 
If OP wants the masses to be informed, how about a link that actually describes the case, with background information and explanation of the relevant statute and case law? Here is one proposal: http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/ . The Marketwatch piece might get people mad, but it certainly does not inform.

Disclaimer: The OP would like everyone to know this is solely my opinion. Others may think differently than me, and some may prefer the original article's ability to spark outrage over my preference to be informed.
 
Traut said:
That is solely your opinion. The implications are broader than not wanting someone to get "page views".
Click to expand...

It took me a while to figure out why the article seemed so low on facts and so incoherent. Then I figured out that you linked to page 2. There is a page 1 with more information.

This case revolves around copyrighted textbooks. Someone found out that some textbooks (regular editions, not black-market copies) were cheaper in Thailand than in the US, imported large numbers of them from Thailand, sold them cheaply, undercutting the publisher, made a lot of money in the process and was sued by the publisher (who held the copyright). The gist of the case is therefore whether copyright can be used to enforce global market segmentation for the same thing. Whether sales of non-copyrightable items are affected at all is debatable.

If you want to read the whole thing, read http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=AEC86DBA-0DA1-11E2-AC22-002128049AD6 (the printable version, it also gets rid of all the clutter and ads around the article)

It's still a pretty confused article.
 
Please take a few minutes and read it.
Click to expand...

Do excuse my sharing my opinion but perhaps you should have followed your own advice?

The issue at stake is copyright, as rxmd has pointed out. This has nothing to do with every day transactions but the writer appears to be unable to understand that.
 
It seems strange to me that somebody could buy a product overseas for the normal price, go through the expense and trouble of shipping it back to the U.S. sell it at a profit and still undercut the retail price of the publisher. I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, but on the face of it, it seems the publisher must be doing something backwards for this to be possible.

The other odd thing to me is - why are these (presumably) English language text books sold in such large quantities in Thailand for this scheme to even be workable in the first place?
 
tunalegs said:
It seems strange to me that somebody could buy a product overseas for the normal price, go through the expense and trouble of shipping it back to the U.S. sell it at a profit and still undercut the retail price of the publisher. I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, but on the face of it, it seems the publisher must be doing something backwards for this to be possible.

The other odd thing to me is - why are these (presumably) English language text books sold in such large quantities in Thailand for this scheme to even be workable in the first place?
Click to expand...

There is a market for English-language textbooks in non-English-speaking countries, in particular in engineering; that one doesn't surprise me at all. My minors when studying in Germany were computer science and mathematics, and at least half of the textbooks were in English. Occasionally I see English-language textbooks on bookshelves here in Kyrgyzstan, for what it's worth.

What the publisher did was probably that there was demand for their English textbooks by Thai students in Thailand, and they could either profit from that or leave the market to pirated copies. So they took the camera-ready files they already had for their US editions, took them to a printer in Thailand (where printing is much cheaper than in the US) and had a local print run made. This cost the publisher basically no money other than the paper and printing, so they could make a profit in the local market even at a much lower price than in the US. Note that the local market needs to be distinct from the US market for this to work.

The whole pricing model is basically dependent on a clear price distinction for the same product between a "core market" (Western countries), upon which the publisher's production process is based, and secondary, low-price markets (Thailand in this case), which basically works as a byproduct of reusing their production from the core market. Of course this business model breaks down as soon as someone re-exports the products from the secondary into the core market.

The publisher here is between a rock and a hard place. He can't give up market segmentation, because that would mean that Thai textbook prices would skyrocket and that Thai students would switch to pirated copies. He can't allow gray reimports either, because that destroys the business model upon which his pricing calculations depend. So the publisher tries to use copyright to enforce artificial market segmentation. The interesting thing here is that these are not counterfeit books (as usual in copyright cases), but genuine physical books that were legitimately bought in a store, hence the implications on first sale, but it still seems essentially a copyright case.
 
rxmd said:
There is a market for English-language textbooks in non-English-speaking countries, in particular in engineering; that one doesn't surprise me at all. My minors when studying in Germany were computer science and mathematics, and at least half of the textbooks were in English. Occasionally I see English-language textbooks on bookshelves here in Kyrgyzstan, for what it's worth.

What the publisher did was probably that there was demand for their English textbooks by Thai students in Thailand, and they could either profit from that or leave the market to pirated copies. So they took the camera-ready files they already had for their US editions, took them to a printer in Thailand (where printing is much cheaper than in the US) and had a local print run made. This cost the publisher basically no money other than the paper and printing, so they could make a profit in the local market even at a much lower price than in the US. Note that the local market needs to be distinct from the US market for this to work.

The whole pricing model is basically dependent on a clear price distinction for the same product between a "core market" (Western countries), upon which the publisher's production process is based, and secondary, low-price markets (Thailand in this case), which basically works as a byproduct of reusing their production from the core market. Of course this business model breaks down as soon as someone re-exports the products from the secondary into the core market.
Click to expand...

This makes sense, but I'd also be content to believe they're just mad they couldn't have more college students over barrels. :angel:
I'd also wonder if they print the U.S. market books in the U.S. anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Leica as a work of ART: Selling the image of elegant exclusivity
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Back
Top Bottom