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."
How the hell does giving free shipping mean that the price of the book is discounted? The book is $7.99 or whatever regardless of the price of shipping, free or not.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
It's not big business, it's the unions. RTFA
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.
By the time you've read TFA, they'll have probably surrendered.
Captcha: steaming (like a fine mug of frosty piss)
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
A lot of countries have or had the law - like the Net Book Agreement in the UK. It helped keep the average cost of book lower and ensured that a wider range and variety of books got published. It was abolished in the UK some years back, since when a lot of smaller book shops disappeared and it has gotten harder and harder to find shops with a wide range of books rather than those just pushing the most recent best sellers at discounted prices.
Germany has a similar system in place but is also facing problems because the Swiss have decided to allow discounted German books.
So the law gave readers a wider range of books and, on the whole, helped keep prices lower.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
That shipping does add cost to the book however it doesn't help small bussiness at all. If people wanted to buy the book locally they would. It would cost the same, and it would be instant delivery. People are ordering the books off amazon with free shipping because it is more easy to do than to go down to a book store and find the book. I myself wouldn't mind paying the extra money to just be able to order a book online just for the fact it wont take me 10 years to locate it. Finding new books isn't hard but when you have to find a old one, it can be a pain to find. Its the small companys fault for not having a different system to make buying books more easy. Book stores in my expereience are horribly layed out and hard to find anything that you are looking for.
Yes. The law was enacted in 1981 to prevent the market from being flooded with only cheap, marked-down books (think of those strip mall "Discount Books" places, if you live in the US), and, as I'm sure you can guess, to keep competition, ummm, competitive. The law has been brought before the mighty French court before, both times being upheld, probably because it's even in its application; it's not like it applies to some sellers and not others. It's like a price control. This was all brought to light because the "French Bookseller's Union" sued Amazon to try and stop the free shipping and the court (in December) interpreted that as part of the book price. Other countries have similar laws actually, but France is the only one that has applied it to the shipping -- when shipping to France.
By refusing to comply and instead paying the fine each day, Amazon is increasing the chance of the fine being raised after the 30 days. Also, it's funny we're talking about the government being bought by big business...and yet, isn't Amazon big business? Touché!
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Thankfully, Amazon fills the gap. However, browsing a decent, well-stocked book store is a far more pleasant experience than browsing Amazon.
Wal-mart and other big stores can cut prices dramatically not only from "cutting deals," but from simply offering certain items as what is called a "loss leader."
For instance, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other big stores often get their music CDs for the same price that other, dedicated music stores would pay (say, for example, $10) but they actually price the CD for less than they paid for it (say $9) and intentionally lose money on the purchase. The idea of course is that a customer who comes in to buy that CD will pick up some other things that will make up the difference.
In theory if people walked into Best Buy and bought nothing but music CDs the company would hemorrhage money, but in practice of course their plan works out perfectly while the smaller music shops can't possibly compete on fair ground. (One owner of a local music shop near me routinely sends his employees to the big stores to buy stock for his shelves, because it's a better deal than he can get from his supplier. How screwed up is that?)
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Isn't this exactly the kind of nonsense that Nicolas Sarkozy wants to put an end to? Fining a business for doing something that BENEFITS consumers just because of pressure from some lazy brick-and-mortars (who would rather hide behind their union and the laws they've forced through than innovate and compete) seems insane.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Because the French have no word in their language for entrepreneur, they are not capable of understanding the American concept of laissez-faire.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
French fine for free freight? Formidable.
I'm not sure how to take seriously someone who says in 2008 that you're screwed if you want a non-bestselling book. We live in a time of unprecedented availability of books (and music, and movies, etc.). Truly screwed was when you went to the cozy little independent bookshop and they didn't have your book. Then you backordered it for six weeks.
This is paradise for book-buying, regardless of whatever romanticized ideal of the independent bookseller you cling to.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
When the retards who only see the cost of their purchase in dollars destroy their local economy, they will go crying to goverment for help. Those of us who knew better will have to bail them out. Better to prevent the fools from dragging us all down. This is the same logic used for gun control, drug laws, seatbelt laws, child protection laws, etc...
Blar.
"The net effect on the consumer? You can get Harry Potter or 2 dozen other titles for £2, but you're screwed if you want something else. I think it's fair to say that most /. readers want to buy books other than John Grisham, Harry Potter, and celeb biography du jour."
What about the net effect on the consumer of the government setting prices? How can Europeans give in so easily to the passage of so many rob-peter-to-pay-paul laws and still have functioning economies? I don't doubt that they have some way of restraining the effect of these laws and that they have powerful economies, but it must take some other form than making classic liberal arguments to prevent their passage. What form? Does anyone know?
Anyway, back to the argument at hand, how exactly am I screwed if I want to buy a wider range of books, absent this law? Living in the U.S. (without such a law), I have no problem buying a wide range of books cheaply.
Is that France has a pile of protectionist laws screwing up their economy and this is just one of them.
Amazon isn't selling at a loss. They're just selling at a price that some stores don't want to compete with. And French law, instead of giving the consumer the right to buy where they can get something the cheapest, instead forces the consumer to pay more for a product than they need to.
You'd think it was pretty silly if the US had a federal law that said that you could only sell a product for no less than 5% of MSRP, wouldn't you? And you'd think it was ESPECIALLY silly if that law only applied to particular products?
Well, except agriculture, but there we just write checks to producers.
paintball
I completely agreed with your sentiment, however, on thinking about it for a minute, from a strictly accounting point of the view the French courts are completely correct.
The cost of the book to you is:
Cost of the Book + Cost of Shipping
Now the shipping is outside of Amazon's control because it goes through a third party (i.e. the postal service) and so they cannot offer free shipping (only the postal service can do that), but what they can do is reduce the cost of the book in order to offset the cost of the shipping - in which case the court is absolutely correct. The book is being sold at a discount - and if that's more than 5%, they're breaking the law.
Now on the other hand: for "The French Bookseller's Union" methinks read bunch of lazy bastards who don't want anyone ripping into their cushy cartel.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
the french are against that.
In the same vein, this is not a fundamental justice issue. France determines the rules to trade in their country. If you don't like them, you don't have to trade there. Or, you can program in special exceptions (no free shipping) for French customers. We can argue about whether their rules are stupid or not (rejecting email based on legal MAIL FROM chars is stupid). But this isn't a case of oppression or murder.
Look, in retail, floor space == $$$$. In the U.S. (and probably most of the rest of world albeit with different units), retail space is leased per square foot per month. The more bookshelves you have, the more square footage you need to house them all. The more books you have, the more bookshelves you'll need.
Carrying a very, very broad and deep selection of books means that you'll have a lot of books that will sit on the shelf collecting dust until the right buyer comes along. Something like Harry Potter or the latest John Grisham or Stephen King novel will fly off the bookshelves quite quickly -- a book on the esoteric practices of Zoroastrianism will move much, much slower.
If you only dedicate floor space to the best sellers, you can sell them at deep discounts because you'll make it up on volume.
For the rest -- well, a set of bookshelves and associated space required that takes up 10 ft^2 in a $30/sq. ft. facility ends up costing $300 a month. In order to make money, you need to sell more than $300 worth of books from that shelf per month. That doesn't seem like much, but if you have a bunch of odd books waiting for the right buyer and sell only 1 or 2 a week, you didn't make it.
That's reality for the small independent bookseller.
My blog
Adding the price of shipping to the book and prohibiting discounts is a funny idea. Let's see: If you have to add the price of shipping to a book sold by an online seller you have to add other costs as well, e.g. the costs of your book shop. So if you are selling a book for the standard price and your bookshop is nicer than the one across the street you are giving an illegal discount. The same would be true if your bookshop has more employees or better qualified employees than the average bookshop. We should therefore call for legislation defining the "standard bookshop" - just to make sure there isn't any evil competition at all.
Amazon et. al are great when you know exactly what you are looking for. But(way back when anyway) small independent bookstores are(were?) usually run by book nuts who really got a chance to know you and could be counted on to discuss books you have read/like/might like. Amazon's suggestion software is good, but not a perfect replacement. Not to mention some people enjoy the atmosphere of just wandering through rows and rows of books looking for a treasure.
It's still probably not worth erecting such stubborn laws to protect, but there is something to be said about the atmosphere of a small book store.
Monstar L
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?
Yeah, visit Amazon.com (or .fr) and just look around. Nothing but high-volume items to be seen! And certainly no way to find out-of-print used books, either. Truly, the only winner is Jeff Bezos.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
...I believe this is not a French-exclusive sort of deal. I would say it's generally continental/European.
In my experience in Germany at least, the prices of books are entirely fixed by a cartel BY LAW and it's illegal to sell them below that cartel's set prices. Pretty sad in a country that values learning so highly.
-Styopa
The "French Booksellers' Union" - Syndicat de la Librairie Française - is not a labor union. It's a business organization. They don't fight for worker's rights, they fight for trade regulations that help their business.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Europe has very strong anti-dumping laws generally. This could be considered dumping; somebody has to pay for the shipping after all. If the publisher recommends that it be sold for a certain price that you may not be more than 5% off of, you can betcha that the thing isn't sold to the stores for any less than 5% off of the recommended price (and that in low-supply areas, the stores put 10% on top of that price). I don't mean to defend it, I think it's old-fashioned and awkward; I'm just trying to explain it. In theory, Amazon could try to push everyone off the market by offering books for a few cents for a few years. Where do you draw the line ? I know the taxman will draw a line at a certain point at least.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
If you want to do business in a country, you follow the laws by that country. How hard is that to understand?
If you do not want to do that, you do not do business in that country.
Wether this is an American company in France, A Belgian company in Spain or a Russian one in the USofA.
I am sure that I will be fined selling alcohol to people under the age of 21 in the USofA, no matter what my opinion is of that law, or the fact that the country of my headoffice allows this. I am sure both Heineken and InBev would agree.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
But I think the french judges are barking up the wrong tree: the real culprit here in France is the french "public" postal system. It used to be a public monopoly ("La Poste"), aimed at making the service affordable at an equal price whoever you are, wherever you are in the country. I.e. if you were a marketing company with 20000 letters to send a day, you had to pay roughly the same (per item) as an individual who occasionnally posts one letter. So far, so good.
Then the UE commission pops in and says : "hey, you have to deregulate your market : postal service can no longer be a monopoly, you will have competitors from now on (DHL, UPS, FedEx, and so on)".
La Poste says "OK, so we have to adapt to that new competition. But most of our traffic comes from big businesses, which we charge the same price per letter or parcel as we do for everybody. DHL and FedEx are new on that market and they will target the same public: big businesses, corporate mail. Few clients, big opportunities, lots of mail."
"So, says La Poste, we're going to make special offers at very low prices per item for those big businesses with lots of parcels to send everyday. Let's make an initial threshold at, say, 10000 items per month to obtain those bargain prices. In order to compensate for the loss, individuals and smaller businesses will pay a higher fare."
In a really open market with lots of competitors on every segment of the market, this should all be fine and dandy: if the smaller businesses and the individuals don't want to see their fares go through the roof, they can always go and see another provider. Unfortunately, this is not the case: due to its former monopoly and public service requirements, La Poste is the only provider that has offices everywhere in the country, delivers goods everywhere (not only big cities), and therefore maintains a de facto monopoly on that market.
Now, this is why Amazon has an unfair advantage over its competitors: it is big enough and sells enough items per day to access the special fares provided by La Poste, something smaller businesses don't have, and therefore they can afford to ship for free. But should Amazon be held responsible for the unfair pricing of a monopolistic postal system ?
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
The law is not protectionist. Protectionism means that you do not allow foreign goods onto a local market. Since a French company, Alapage got in trouble for doing the same thing, you cannot classify this as protectionism.
And the agricultural policy is not French, it is a competence of the EU. The US does the same thing with its farm subsidies. Make no mistake, without regulation, the free market does not magically make agricultural production better, it impoverishes farmers and leads to huge fluctuations in prices and chronic shortages. The EU and the US (two of the world's most free-market oriented organizations) have subsidies for farmers because history has proven their necessity over and over.
By the way, the anti-dumping laws (this means selling products below price) in French laws are a result of the transposition of EU directives into national laws. Such directives exist to ensure the free market can prosper and they are the same across Europe. Given the nature of the European economy right now (hint: it's really good compared to everybody else), such initiatives must be doing something right.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Well, it's impossible for any real-life bookstore to compete with the fantasy one you've created in your mind using vast amounts of nostalgia, so I suppose that's probably true.
Being a person who is grounded in reality, when I go into the local Barnes and Noble and see books as far as the eye can see, with a coffeeshop off to my left, a high school kid playing cello music to my right past the checkers, and in the back a kid's section with a local school teacher reading children's books (and then I learn that for every book bought that day, Barnes and Noble is donating books to the local elementary schools)... well, I'll take that over any fantasy nostalgia bookstore you've come up with. Because, you know, it actually exists.
Comment of the year
Obviously, not enough people are willing to pay extra to browse in such an "atmosphere". Otherwise, these small bookshops would be thriving. However, plenty of people are willing to subsidize these little bookshops using other people's money, by making sure that all the consumers have to pay high prices.
Dieu merci! Now the French are safely protected from the limited selection of Amazon.com.
You might notice that the law was passed before the likes of Amazon existed. As with all laws, people with a vested interest will often use them in ways not envisaged at the time the law was passed, which may be contrary to the law's original intent. It doesn't necessarily mean the original idea was a bad one, it just means that the law needs to be adjusted to prevent this kind of abuse.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
And if that was valued by society, those small, independent bookstores run by book nuts would still be around. But it isn't, which is why people are doing what they always did: buy books that they hear about from adverts or their friends. You don't need a book nut to do that, you just need a place to buy what you want for the best price you can find.
Now, there probably is something to be said for that atmosphere, but not in every town like you posit once existed. That's the kind of thing that goes in where there are lots of people that are interested in that sort of thing. Like near colleges in a large metropolitan area. And, indeed, there is no shortage of such shops in Cambridge (MA, I don't know about the real Cambridge, but I can't think of a reason it'd be different.)
Interestingly, the French law does appear to greatly impact one class of typically very cash-strapped people: College students. I shudder to imagine how ripped off those who are forbidden from seeking better prices than you'd get in the college bookstore are.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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!
The Net Book Agreement was not a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement), it was a collusion between publishers and sellers to keep book prices artificially high.
It ended when such collusion was ruled to be illegal. If smaller shops disappeared, it's because they had previously only existed by unfairly exploiting the consumer.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
In the US 8% unemployment is pretty severe, but in some economies 8% unemployment isn't necessarily terrible. I don't actually know as I have little understanding of the french economy outside of my american brethren slamming the more worker-oriented laws. Given the US economy, yes these laws would be terrible, but please put them and the 8% unemployment rate into proper context BEFORE you say there is severe economic failure. Cause frankly, I don't believe you. France seems to be chugging along just as well as we are.