There's two sales which occur,the original purchase of the book which happens overseas, there's no dispute here.
The book is then resold in the US from a "distributor" in the US to US customers, thats why this becomes a US issue. Its the secondary sale which is questionable.
There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution. It sucks that information - There's no value in the paper, just the printing on it - can cost different amounts in different areas, but it's fairly easy to differentiate between "I bought 1-3 copies of this book in my home country, moved here, and brought them with me" and "I had my parents ship crates of books from my home country, which I resold at a profit". The gray area will remain "I personally bought something from foreign land, even though I do not reside there".
> There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution.
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, legally, there isn't, and shouldn't be. You should be able to build a business or nonprofit to give away, sell or lend secondhand games, books, CD's, videos, etc.
I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building & supporting their sales channels.
The assertion that people should be able to do whatever they want with products on a scale large enough to damage a manufacturer's business is flawed. I propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes.
*Disclaimer, I work with manufacturers to solve these types of issues.
> I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you... propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes.
Of course an entrenched industry would disagree with any actions that decrease profit. I'm sure if I grew a manufacturing company, I'd also want the gov't to not tax any of my profits, but that doesn't inform at all about the morality of my position.
Let the market decide how the pricing should happen. Why should the gov't artificially segment the market?
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating.
> In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating.
Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating?
No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.
I'm not advocating the repeal of the First-sale doctrine. It's the abuse of the doctrine that is troublesome. The doctrine should protect non-commercial isolated sales of goods by consumers. But when the sales transition into a larger scale business is when the problems only begin.
Gray markets can be devastating in an economic capacity (revenue, profitability, brand equity, sales channels, consumer satisfaction, warranty costs, r&d) and in a social capacity (consumer safety, environmental costs, tax revenue, organized crime)
Below is a very small sample of the negative impacts of gray markets:
I know some countries have parallel import restrictions and others have import duties even on personal items. I've paid somewhere between 10-25% tax on my own second hand clothes and books when relocating temporarily to Scandinavia - because they weren't in my luggage.
(Edit: I should note the taxable amount was recovered when I demonstrated re-export of the items when I left).
Sure. Then convince the court your customers were just buying paper to recycle. You could also sell burned DVDs of The Dark Knight to customers interested in expanding their plastic collection.
I've noticed sometimes this tendency in programmers (and in my younger self) to see human systems like computers. A court isn't a VM running the law as a bytecode. It's a bunch of humans, and they operate on common sense, too.
Often there are gray areas and it's possible to sidestep the law, but you need a minimum of plausibility... if you put a note on textbooks to say "for use as fuel only", then go and sell it to students, I doubt that'll fool anyone.
It's the same thing for selling burned CDs with a note to say "for use as recycled plastic only". There's a difference between selling them by the crate to a recycling center, and letting customers buy specific titles individually. The letter of the law may not specify that difference, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
The book is then resold in the US from a "distributor" in the US to US customers, thats why this becomes a US issue. Its the secondary sale which is questionable.