Slashdot Mirror
French Fine Amazon For Free Shipping
strech writes "Ars Technica reports that France is fining Amazon for offering free shipping on some orders. A French high court ruled in December that the practice violated a law preventing discounting the price of a book more than 5% off of the publisher's recommended price. Amazon has decided to pay the fine, rather than drop free shipping. The fine currently stands at €1,000 per day but is automatically reconsidered after 30 days, after which it could be raised dramatically."
Quite sad really. The notion that it helps small retailers, so business, but not necessarily big business. The publishers and the retail sector can gain from it, while those interested to compete on price and the general public do not, at least not related to their book purchases.
What possible reason could France have for this law, besides being successfully bought by big business?
I understand that the law was passed to prevent supermarkets from putting book sellers out of business by selling the most popular books at knock-down prices (the theory being that if all books are sold by the supermarkets rather than proper book stores you would only be able to buy the most profitable books).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I'm trying hard to understand this. Looking at European governmental action, typically these governments act to protect the consumer. I do not immediately see how forcing a higher price on a commodity can be good for the consumer. But then I remember Wal-Mart; look at Wal-Mart by offering lower prices for so many years has hurt local economies, local goods providers who cannot compete with volume pricing... which is exactly what Amazon does as well. They can take a hit on shipping because they probably have cut rate contracts with delivery companies anyway that local French sellers cannot compete with! So, all I can think is that the French government has bothered to look beyond the obvious, oh we save them 8EU so we are obviously better for the consumer and realized that there is more to a healthy economy and healthy society than saving someone a buck or two...
...and it should be known by now
Thankfully, Amazon fills the gap. However, browsing a decent, well-stocked book store is a far more pleasant experience than browsing Amazon.
The price of socialism is that getting a good deal is a crime. If you aren't paying full price someone isn't getting paid full price. The U.S. was like this once. Under FDR a farmer could get fined for growing wheat for the sole purpose of feeding to his family because, hypothetically, if every farmer did this it would impact the market for wheat. See Wickard v. Filburn. Imagine what this logic would mean if it was applied to technology.
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
This protectionist law is protecting their independent booksellers. What you call screwing up their economy, others call preserving their quality of life. Some people actually enjoy browsing physical books among their friends and neighbors.
Here in the US, I've lived in a few places where the downtown is filled with empty storefronts, with a WalMart on the edge of town.
I am not sure they have the best way to price in the external costs of a big box bookstore driving local bookstores out of business, but I have to take the slashdot-approved anti-corporate stance on this one.
I used to really believe in free-trade, but now I see the free-trade arguments more as corporate brainwashing of the gullible masses for fun and profit.
I find it fascinating that everyone here is discussing the ethicality and/or economic rationality of the French decision to fine Amazon, but nobody has taken up the issue of Amazon's deciding to pay the fine rather than obey the law. Is it seriously the view of every single slashdot reader that the purpose of the law is to raise money, and the sole reason for obeying the law is to avoid paying fines? Does the message that the French are sending—we do not want you to do this in our country—mean nothing?
I have long thought that the core problem with US culture, beyond even the diminishing influence of science, is that the ideal of the Rule of Law got lost at some point. While the evidence is indirect, this may be the starkest example I have seen in a long time.
Please, someone prove me wrong, and agree with me that Amazon is putting itself in a very bad light by ignoring this decision, whatever you may think of the reasoning behind it!