• Go to page :
  • 12 3
  • Text Only
magika said:   I teach introduction to political science every semester. I get to choose the textbook, but the school ***REQUIRES***that (1) I must use a textbook even though I'd prefer not to and (2) I must always require the most recent edition of the textbook. So what I do is keep the copy I bought 3 years ago and announce to the class that while I have to list the most up to date version of the textbook ($175) the older editions are fine.

I also mention that I just happen to be in an office near a photocopy machine, and if anyone wants to come "borrow" my extra copy of the text I leave in the paper slot on my office door....that would be fine with me. Surprisingly, no one has stolen the extra book, and the book store keeps wondering why they aren't selling books to students in my section (apparently they keep track of this).


Poly Sci, huh? No ethics classes?

That sounds an awful lot like a law that is Specifically designed to protect a Cartel.
How did this agreement come about. This law is not a just law and should be abolished.
Once a person purchases something, as long as he does not duplicate it, or counterfeit it that
item should be his to do with what he pleases. What we are really talking about here is self serving
GREED, the publisher wanted to lock in a greater profit from students that are forced to pay the higher
price, no competition to bring prices down to an equilibrium eternally high prices. This man already received payment, if we do live in an era of Free trade, why can't the little guy with a good idea prosper.
This publisher has the sole right to distribute this product in the United States, and
the other guy wasn't really a distributor, he was just saling used books, books that have already
been purchased and the price paid to the original publisher, he just chose to bring his collection of
books here to sale. I think their are too many laws in the U.S. that are choking the right
of average citizens to make a comfortable living, the lawyers always ready to run after an ambulance
and cloak their actions in the law of man, never having to live with the consequences that they
have wrought upon society. The Lawyers just take their money and run out of the house while
it's burning down.

peste386 said:   How is buying a book and then reselling it Copyright infringement? He did not produce the book.Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982

These days, I would just "borrow" the text books via Rapidshare & torrent.

magika said:   I teach introduction to political science every semester. I get to choose the textbook, but the school ***REQUIRES***that (1) I must use a textbook even though I'd prefer not to and (2) I must always require the most recent edition of the textbook. So what I do is keep the copy I bought 3 years ago and announce to the class that while I have to list the most up to date version of the textbook ($175) the older editions are fine.

I also mention that I just happen to be in an office near a photocopy machine, and if anyone wants to come "borrow" my extra copy of the text I leave in the paper slot on my office door....that would be fine with me. Surprisingly, no one has stolen the extra book, and the book store keeps wondering why they aren't selling books to students in my section (apparently they keep track of this).
You get an A+.
We had professors whose book of choice was a book that they wrote themselves..and only sold it through certain local book stores. It was basically leeching money off of us.
Many times we just bought one book among a group of us, and then just photocopied what we needed. No reason to spend $100+ on something that will be worth half of that in 6 months. (Or in the case of university bookstore, the $135 chemistry textbook I bought from them was worth $5 at the end of the semester. Yeah right.)

ScrawneyWallet said:   magika said:   I teach introduction to political science every semester. I get to choose the textbook, but the school ***REQUIRES***that (1) I must use a textbook even though I'd prefer not to and (2) I must always require the most recent edition of the textbook. So what I do is keep the copy I bought 3 years ago and announce to the class that while I have to list the most up to date version of the textbook ($175) the older editions are fine.

I also mention that I just happen to be in an office near a photocopy machine, and if anyone wants to come "borrow" my extra copy of the text I leave in the paper slot on my office door....that would be fine with me. Surprisingly, no one has stolen the extra book, and the book store keeps wondering why they aren't selling books to students in my section (apparently they keep track of this).


Poly Sci, huh? No ethics classes?

Taking care of your students is unethical. Debate.

Where I went we were using Feynman's Physics in freshman physics and that was 45 years ago. They continued it for the next 30+ years. I have yet to see a better introductory physics text book for science and engineering majors. My niece used my copy her freshman year. I think that the start of for profit educations is a big factor in this. Education used to be thought of as a "public good" to quote Paul Samuelson not a profit center for corporations.

cristinaaaron said:   Publishers could easily use paper with light-absorbing coating which would prevent anyone from photocopying or scanning the books. Basically the same way you coat a check so when it is printed, it shows up with "COPY" and "VOID" on it......just coat the whole page and let the guys print out black pages or use it to watermark in naughty pictures or something.Why don't you patent this? Publishers would have to pay you first, then raise prices by $100 a book for a new "improved" technology and students (aka suckers) will pay for that too.

Hey, here are a few more patent ideas:
  • Develop a book every page of which will turn blank after reading it (spy's technology already have this)
  • Print the book in 3-D technology, make students to buy prescription individually-fitted 3-D glasses
  • Work with Apple - develop student eBooks which work only on the latest iPad (maybe use it in conjuction with patents #1 and #2)


Profit!

cristinaaaron said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   The book publishers know they can't charge USA prices in these developing countries , and if they tried , the students would just get one book and photocopy/scan it. So the publishers made the decision it's better to sell the books in these countries for a tiny profit , so people would actually purchase them rather than photocopy or scan them

Publishers could easily use paper with light-absorbing coating which would prevent anyone from photocopying or scanning the books. Basically the same way you coat a check so when it is printed, it shows up with "COPY" and "VOID" on it......just coat the whole page and let the guys print out black pages or use it to watermark in naughty pictures or something.


If I paid full US price for an Econ book, and went to photocopy a graph at the library so I could draw on it and nudies came out......at the library.....

hpmax said:   It's hard for me to be sympathetic to this guy, he had to know what he was doing wrong. Here is an example statement: "This edition may be sold only in those countries to which it is consigned by Prentice-Hall International. It is not to be re-exported and its not for sale in the USA, Mexico, or Canada." Here's another: "This edition is manufactured in India and is authorized for sale only in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives." And another... "This Eastern Economy Edition is the authorized, complete and unabridged photo-offset reproduction of the latest American edition specifically published and priced for sale only in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam."

They are very clearly claiming that this is a low priced copy explicitly made for sale in certain countries and not the US. These editions are virtually always lower quality copies of American textbooks (some are slightly inferior copies, some are very inferior). It's one thing when you buy one of these overseas come to the US, use it and sell it. It's another when you are buying them in bulk explicitly and solely for the purpose of reselling it which is CLEARLY in contradiction to the publisher's desires. The publisher would have never sold the books had the buyer(s) not misrepresented themselves as legitimate buyers who intended to abide by the statement at the beginning of the book. The book publishers couldn't sell any books at first world prices in the third world and they couldn't make any money selling books at third world prices in the first world -- so they have to discriminate by location.


Your argument is taking this to extremes.

Let's go hypothetical... I buy a knife from a manufacturer. After buying the knife, I find a note in the packaging that says the MFR is vegetarian, and it is expressly forbidden that I use this knife to kill, cut, or otherwise harm an animal.

I do 1 of 2 things:
1. I ignore it. My knife, I do what I want with it. Ownership transferred when I gave something of value ($$$) for the goods being manufactuyred and sold.

2. IF I decide that the MFR has the right to tell me what I can use the knife for, I return it. And NEVER do business with that MFR again. And buy a knife elsewhere.

College students do not have the privelege of OPTION 2. They are mandated to purchase a specific book (meaning from a specific manufacturer / publisher).

imsparty said:   You do realize that your actions, while possibly benefiting students, directly harm your employer? You do realize that by indicating there is a copy machine that you are influencing youth to commit copyright infractions? WONDERFUL. You must be an ethics professor, huh?
Now let me do you a solid. 1) Offer to purchase textbooks from students for one dollar more than the price that the bookstore will give students. 2) Offer to sell the textbooks to students in the following semester for the price that you paid the students the previous semester (you do not make a profit, but the each and every student actually makes $1 from "buying" the textbook AND the environment is saved from needless copies being made) Of course, you do understand the importance of YOU not making a profit as doing such most likely would violate your employer contract... magika said:   I teach introduction to political science every semester. I get to choose the textbook, but the school ***REQUIRES***that (1) I must use a textbook even though I'd prefer not to and (2) I must always require the most recent edition of the textbook. So what I do is keep the copy I bought 3 years ago and announce to the class that while I have to list the most up to date version of the textbook ($175) the older editions are fine.

I also mention that I just happen to be in an office near a photocopy machine, and if anyone wants to come "borrow" my extra copy of the text I leave in the paper slot on my office door....that would be fine with me. Surprisingly, no one has stolen the extra book, and the book store keeps wondering why they aren't selling books to students in my section (apparently they keep track of this).


I don't know HOW this post was edited and there is no indication of an edit. But it somehow was.

But the reason I noticed is because I want to do imsparty a "runny and mushy" (seriously, do a solid?).

Your scenario makes absolutely no sense. magika said that the school requires he use the most recent edition. All this buying/ selling, not making a profit, blah blah, is moot whenever a new edition is released. Which is the whole point of his post. He has found a way to TRY and circumvent the system. As a matter of fact, I think he could probably try a fair use argument for the few pages copied. Or, if he REALLY wanted to skirt the issue, He could verbalize the requirement, then tell the students that he will NOT be teaching from the latest revision for a while, but when he does he needs student to take copious notes. Or he could just tell the students to complain about the ridiculousness of buying a new revision, where only the cover picture and 4 pages have changed.

Just looked at the DOJ Criminal Resource manual and it is clear 1 or 2 copies of a specific text are covered under the "First Sale Doctrine" so your garage sale example doesn't count as a violation. If you sold 50 of them that would be a different story. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/... So I don't think Kirtsaeng will have much luck.

As to the requirement of the most recent copy of a text unless the college or university is a state school qualifying for state immunity under the XII Amendment the requirement was a violation of retail price maintenance laws until Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., was decided by 5-4 in 2007. Thank you W.

I'm not sure I totally understand this. We are talking about the rights owner wanting to be able to control the distribution of items when they are first sold. This doesn't mean that a "Made in China" item that was legally sold in the US can't be legally resold. It means that an item that was initially sold in a different country can't make its way back to the US retail chain, because the rights holder may have sold it for far less in the other country.

So, it isn't quite "not being able to sell your used stuff," right?

galabar said:   I'm not sure I totally understand this. We are talking about the rights owner wanting to be able to control the distribution of items when they are first sold. This doesn't mean that a "Made in China" item that was legally sold in the US can't be legally resold. It means that an item that was initially sold in a different country can't make its way back to the US retail chain, because the rights holder may have sold it for far less in the other country.

So, it isn't quite "not being able to sell your used stuff," right?


I believe that if this goes towards the rights owner, then it has implications on resale of goods. It's not a product making it back into the US retail chain, it's just a product bought by some individuals, then resold to another individual who lists on eBay and makes a big profit.

RushnRockt said:   I think you are being purposely dense here. The implication of Disney copyright never expiring is that the copyright lobby has yet again managed to extend copyright protection length, as has been done several times before. You appear to be well aware of that to begin with, so I am not sure why go through the trouble of making it sound like it's just about Disney and not the overall state of affair with copyright laws.
Not being dense at all. itsausername's response to me was poorly written, and unclear. I have no clue what he was alluding to (parody, breach, political, good with that...?)

While I definitely think that the copyright laws are too restrictive and need to be changed, I see absolutely no "need" for Disney's copyrights to expire.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

And this is an excellent example where if one was charged with breaking this law, they should push for jury nullification.

Being a professor these days involves doing favors, pulling strings and all sorts of politicking I'm not sure they signed up for when they were starting off their PhDs.
* Professors are measured by the number of times their work is published and cited in Journals. So they help each other out by adding each others' names to their research work.
* Professor A wants to badly get published. He contacts Professor B, who happens to be on the board of review for some journal. Prof B also also happens to have a new textbook coming out next semester. Prof A makes it known to Prof B that he's evaluating whether this text book is an apt choice for next semester. Boom, A's article(s) gets published.
* Seasoned Professor is done with writing textbooks. He really doesn't want to make changes for a new edition. He's satisfied and planning retirement. Publisher calls Prof and lets him know that he really must make a new edition. They'll provide "technical editors" to work on the changes, he just needs to approve it. There's of course a big bonus involved in addition to royalties. Of course all the technical editors do is add trivial material in strategic places so all page numbers are now different. Rearrange the hw questions at chapter ends. (to make it harder for students relying on older editions to keep up with the assigned reading work)

What a scam industry

saferisk said:   * Seasoned Professor is done with writing textbooks. He really doesn't want to make changes for a new edition. He's satisfied and planning retirement. Publisher calls Prof and lets him know that he really must make a new edition. They'll provide "technical editors" to work on the changes, he just needs to approve it. There's of course a big bonus involved in addition to royalties. Of course all the technical editors do is add trivial material in strategic places so all page numbers are now different. Rearrange the hw questions at chapter ends. (to make it harder for students relying on older editions to keep up with the assigned reading work)
And if he professor says no, the publisher can still publish the new edition and can even keep using the original professor's name. But they will hire a new co-author that will pick up a share of the original author's royalties for the sales of the new edition. Textbook publishing agreements are written to allow the publishers to keep churning out new editions whether or not the original author would like to be involved.

nsdp said:   Just looked at the DOJ Criminal Resource manual and it is clear 1 or 2 copies of a specific text are covered under the "First Sale Doctrine" so your garage sale example doesn't count as a violation. If you sold 50 of them that would be a different story. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/... So I don't think Kirtsaeng will have much luck.

The First Sale Doctrine is not limited by quantity. If you purchase one copy or fifty copies of a particular work in physical form and own that physical manifestation, the First Sale Doctrine is operative as a defense to copyright infringement claims stemming from the loan or resale of the items.

The crux of this case is that the First Sale Doctrine has been held not to apply where the underlying works are not covered by United States copyright.

And also DOJ cannot decide what's the law.

riznick said:   RushnRockt said:   I think you are being purposely dense here. The implication of Disney copyright never expiring is that the copyright lobby has yet again managed to extend copyright protection length, as has been done several times before. You appear to be well aware of that to begin with, so I am not sure why go through the trouble of making it sound like it's just about Disney and not the overall state of affair with copyright laws.
Not being dense at all. itsausername's response to me was poorly written, and unclear. I have no clue what he was alluding to (parody, breach, political, good with that...?)

While I definitely think that the copyright laws are too restrictive and need to be changed, I see absolutely no "need" for Disney's copyrights to expire.


I suppose "need" is excessive, but there's also no "need" for Disney's copyrights to continue or ever have existed. The eventual expiration of copyrights and public domain access to intellectual property has been a part of the bargain for a long time, though. The people & government are obligated to protect such property for a period of time, and in exchange the property eventually belongs to everyone. If the deal is being renegotiated, I think there should be consideration for each side.

Disney's position is especially disturbing to me, as they have actually been pretty directly involved in extending copyright protection but have also been probably the most successful entity on Earth in exploiting works created by others that are in the public domain. Both financially and creatively successful. They are a shining example of why copyright expiration is a good deal for everyone.

SlimTim said:   riznick said:   RushnRockt said:   I think you are being purposely dense here. The implication of Disney copyright never expiring is that the copyright lobby has yet again managed to extend copyright protection length, as has been done several times before. You appear to be well aware of that to begin with, so I am not sure why go through the trouble of making it sound like it's just about Disney and not the overall state of affair with copyright laws.
Not being dense at all. itsausername's response to me was poorly written, and unclear. I have no clue what he was alluding to (parody, breach, political, good with that...?)

While I definitely think that the copyright laws are too restrictive and need to be changed, I see absolutely no "need" for Disney's copyrights to expire.


I suppose "need" is excessive, but there's also no "need" for Disney's copyrights to continue or ever have existed. The eventual expiration of copyrights and public domain access to intellectual property has been a part of the bargain for a long time, though. The people & government are obligated to protect such property for a period of time, and in exchange the property eventually belongs to everyone. If the deal is being renegotiated, I think there should be consideration for each side.

Disney's position is especially disturbing to me, as they have actually been pretty directly involved in extending copyright protection but have also been probably the most successful entity on Earth in exploiting works created by others that are in the public domain. Both financially and creatively successful. They are a shining example of why copyright expiration is a good deal for everyone.

Disney doesn't always win, such as in this epic 1994 case mentioned here on this travel blog
http://eccentricroadside.blogspot.com/2010/07/modern-marvel-pawt...

That's totally different. Copyright extension is to buy out the government, which is easy and legal. In your case, Disney needs to buy out the court, which is much harder and criminal in the States.

Perhaps we can undercut this guy on price. Has anyone gone to Africa to see if college books are sold for even less there?

whodini said:   Perhaps we can undercut this guy on price. Has anyone gone to Africa to see if college books are sold for even less there?ven

Seems like it would be even easier for this guy to just go back to Thailand and continue making a killing while flipping the publishers the bird.

Who Says his relatives still aren't doing it?
He just wants to be the USA division head



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014

It's time for an upgrade!

After a decade on our current platform, we're upgrading our plumbing. The site will be down for a few hours starting at 10PM CST tonight.

At FatWallet we strive to bring you the best coupons, deals and Cash Back. So please come back and check us out.