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."

Re:What possible reason

[cnettel]

What possible reason could France have for this law, besides being successfully bought by big business?

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.

Re:What possible reason

[FireFury03]

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).

European Mindset?

[phobos13013]

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...

granted

[DeeQ]

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.

Here's one reason

[Foolicious]

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!

Re:European Mindset?

[Bud Dickman]

Why legislate choices for the community to make? If people want to shop at Walmart and destroy their locally-owned businesses - isn't that their right in a free and open society?

Re:What possible reason

[0123456789]

We had a similar law in the UK until about 10 years ago. Prior to it being repealed, I thought it was absurdly anachronistic. However, since it was repealed, supermarkets have been stocking, and massively discounting, high-profile books (Harry Potter and the like). The downside is that it's become almost impossible to find a small, independent bookshop, and even the large chains are struggling. In response, the large chains are cutting the breadth of their stock, instead stocking more of the high profile titles, and similarly discounting them. 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.

Thankfully, Amazon fills the gap. However, browsing a decent, well-stocked book store is a far more pleasant experience than browsing Amazon.

Loss leaders

[Rob T Firefly]

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?)

Re:granted

[Albanach]

QED. The purpose of the law is to encourage more bookshops to stock a wider selection of books, knowing they are not going to be undercut by a large conglomerate. Where such agreements don't exist, there tend to be fewer bookshops, and those that do exist focus on the high volume new releases, making older, more obscure texts harder to purchase.

Of course there are disadvantages to be argued too, however the point of the law is to alleviate the very problem you see with bookshops.

Re:What possible reason

[hopeless case]

"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.

At first...

[PinkyDead]

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.

Re:What possible reason

[Plunky]

Which doesn't make sense. Let the big chains stock the big names at no profit. Let the small guy charge full price for the low-volume titles that the big chains can't carry because, even at full price, there's not enough volume. Everyone (including the consumer) wins.

except it doesn't work that way. the megastores have unreasonable buying power and use it wilfuly to beat down the price they pay for goods, with the result that they can undercut everybody else and still make bigger profits. since they only sell high volume items they don't care but it is the profit on high volume items that allows booksellers to keep other stock on the shelves for long periods of time and makes a good bookshop. so, the good bookshops close and the only winners are the investment banks who own shares in the megastores.

the french are against that.

Re:It is just a question of etymology

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems we know where this came from:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp [snopes.com]

The price of socialism

[theophilosophilus]

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 [wikipedia.org]. Imagine what this logic would mean if it was applied to technology [wikipedia.org].

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[chortick]

A recent article in the Economist http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430246 [economist.com] may provide helpful context to Americans trying to understand the thinking here.

As much as Americans like to kick the French...

[argStyopa]

...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.

Re:Actually, the real beef...

[colonslash]

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 [youtube.com] for fun and profit.

It's dumping

[bytesex]

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.

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[Anonymous Coward]

i've traveled to france a few times in my jaunts around the globe, and i have to say that--in paris at least--i have noticed two distinct classes of parisians: those who delight in sharing conversation and such with any foreigner, and those who have an irrational hatred of all americans. i imagine it is just the same way with americans. c'est la vide, i believe is the saying.

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[GPF(BSOD)]

I've always wondered why Americans (I assume you're American) are so anti-French, especially when they helped you get independence from Britain etc, right?

I can think of a few reasons why some Americans may have Anti-French feelings

Actually, it's not hate. We're merely disappointed with the French. They used to be ultimate BADASSES! I mean, seriously.

I had this epiphany while watching a show on Discovery. This guy wanted to walk from the middle of deep, dark African jungle to the shore. So, he enlists the assistance of native tribes along the way. What do those native tribes speak? French. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FRIGALL JUNGLE!

Go around the world. Much like a long dead society that left pieces of itself scattered around the galaxy in some Sci-fi novel, the French have left little pieces of France all over the show. America truly learned the value of kicking ass and taking names from the French.

But now? They're all about working 4 days a week, job protectionism, eating cheese, etc. Not to say that eating cheese is bad, per se. It's just that, back in the day, they would eat cheese while still conquering everything. Ever.

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your history is fine. They helped us out in the American Revolution and I think they might have in the War of 1812 as well. We helped them out in WWI, WWII and well... we were involved in Vietnam, dunno how much help it was though. We bought about a third of our county from them even. Yet we don't really like one another in general. England, we've fought two wars with them and we love 'em dearly. Common language makes funny bed-fellows.

The anti-French lather Bush managed to work the nation into aside, Americans tend to see the French as smug and elitist. The French believe they are gods gift to music, cuisine, dance, drama, literure, science, you name it, they feel they do it better. The French still claim the first airplane flight was by a Frenchman in 1903 because there wasn't a Frenchman around to witness the Wright brothers do it 1901. That's the sort of attitude that drives Americans crazy. Yes, all nations believe they are the best at most everything, it's nationalistic pride, but the French seem to take it to a new plateau. Also, France is a socialist state, Americans (especially Republicans) instinctively distrust socialism thanks to cold war educations linking socialism with communism so closely.

From the other side, the French are percieved as viewing Americans as uncouth, uncultured and crass. (Considering what passes for music and movies in this country though I'm not going to argue to much with them on a few of those.) If it's American it's instantly less than what a Frenchman could do and not worthy of their time or attention. Look at how pissed off they got when a true blind taste test was done with American and French wines in Paris and the American wine won. The taste testers, Frenchmen and women, actually recieved death threats.

Americans probably resent the thousand or so years of French history that exists (even if France as it exists now has a shorter history than the United States) and the French need to constantly remind us of it. At the same time, the French probably resent current American power in the world and being reminded that they had that power once and are far weaker now. Doesn't matter that we aren't doing any better with it than they did. In truth we are probably just a little too similar and therefore really irriate one another. Any Frenchies around here want to take a better swing at why you don't like us?

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[hador_nyc]

Mmm; they helped you, you helped them.. Now the hatred makes perfect sense

Actually, I thinks it's the immense similarity in our two peoples that is the source of the problem. Both the French and US Americans have a bit of a chip on our shoulders about our place in the world both culturally and, let's say, militarily. We both would like hegemony over the whole world. To a real degree, albeit it seems to be fading at the moment, we have it. They did for a short time, but have always been second best. First they were second to the Brits, and then, after helping us separate from the Brits, we usurped the Brits for hegemony. The French never had their chance in the sun; except again for a short time when Napoleon was running things. In a sense, the general dislike of the British and the French for each other was transferred to the US and the French. Ironically, since the British are ruled by the Normans, and the Normans whom are Franconised(my word) Vikings, the British are very much culturally tied to the French. Again, due to our cultural origins in England, so is the US. That only progressed through time with the US-French relationship. After all, the French Revolution was inspired by the American revolution; something itself partially sparked by French Renaissance authors; and arguably triggered by the expensive French support given to our revolution while they still supported other parts of their ongoing war with England. Take America's most pure and idealistic symbol, the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France. Then there is the often referred to, but rarely read, De Tocqueville's Democracy in America; considered the definitive work on our political environment. Again, written by a Frenchman.

Admittedly, my rant is mostly about French ties to the US, and not as much the other way, but I'm American, and don't know that much about how we've impacted their culture. Still, I will say the willfulness and obstenance that both ascribe to the other is both well deserved as a description and accurate. I consider the US to be the younger sibling to both England and France; as such we love to hate them, but come to there defense when needed; that is all 3 parties there, even if the Brits and the Yanks generally get along better.

No discussion of Amazon's actions

[porpnorber]

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!

Re:Because smarter people pick up the tab.

[AK Marc]

Rochelle, IL. The town is about 2 hours west of Chicago. Interstates came through, and the downtown took a hit. Stores moved closer to the interstates to get people from there. But downtown managed to survive. Then Wal-Mart moved in. They sold hardware for a lower cost than the True Value hardware store could but it from their wholesaler. They sold cheap clothing, even at prices below a used clothing store near the hardware store. Even the florist in downtown went out of business, as well as the bank. There was a fight for the town when the Del Monte factory closed. There was work to keep the town together when the Interstate threatened to move all the stores 5 miles out of town. But when Wal-Mart came in, no amount of fight could save it. The only thing that kept the town from complete collapse is something I mentioned in my second sentence. 10 years ago, living 2 hours from where you work was nuts. Today, it is much more common. Rochelle was saved from being a perfect poster-child of your destroyed economy by farms of crappy homes holding commuters. What amazes me is that they went so far out, could buy 10 acres of farmland for $100,000 and build on it, yet spend $300,000 to $400,000 on new-build neighborhoods packed in on less than 1/4 acre and think that's spread out. I've seen similar things in small towns in Texas. The Wal-Mart sells things for cheap, pays little, and lowers the average income of the town when they roll through. It doesn't end up in riots, but there are some places that are very affected by the big box stores.

Re:Discounting the price of a book?

[Dun Malg]

I've always wondered why Americans (I assume you're American) are so anti-French, especially when they helped you get independence from Britain etc, right? (Correct my poor history knowledge)

The "they" that helped during the revolutionary war was the French Monarchy, looking to make life difficult for England--- a monarchy which not all that long after found itself headless. It wasn't some altruistic effort of the french people to help.

Really, if you want to understand the antipathy you have to stop pointing to a single event 240-odd years ago and start looking at France's more recent behavior. A classic but little-known example is that of Vietnam. Prior to WW2, Vietnam was a French colony (French Indochina), full of French-run rubber plantations. When the Japanese invaded in WW2, the French colonial government officials either ran or declared themselves Vichy allies. The Vietnamese people fought a guerilla war against the Japanese, led mainly by Ho Chi Minh. While a communist, HCM was also a great admirer of th US founding fathers and the priciples of the right to self government. The US provided covert aid to HCM during the war. After the war ended, HCM petitioned Truman to support the independence of Vietnam. The fucking French, though, wanted their rubber colony back and threatened to pull out of NATO unless the US pledged support for the French colonialism. The US needed NATO to work, so they had no choice. That pretty much put the US on the wrong side, and culminated in a 12 year unwinable war.

It's pulling crap like that that makes people hate the french.