French Fine Amazon For Free Shipping 578
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."
Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
The entirety of French economic policy falsely assumes wealth is a zero-sum game while completely overlooking the fact that the wealthy will flee if their tax burden is high compared to the rest of the developed world.
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:4, Insightful)
But that would make me look like an idiot wouldn't it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I went there, and was treated like shit. I spent 8 1/2 months traveling in Europe, and spent a good deal of time in many different cities and countries. I always did my best to learn some of the local language, customs, food, etc. I was treated well almost everywhere I went - except France. They were rude at alm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares whether they'll allow our words in their language? They're proud of their language, and they have strong ideas of what is and isn't a French word. So? Are we only friends with people who use English words?
We're going to base our opinion of an entire country on the actions of some teenage hooligans?
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
"French companies were involved in illegal oil deals with Saddam - in violation of UN treaties - and was one of the primary reasons the French"
- Well the US never sold anything to Saddam did they? Like arms for instance when Iran was considered a much greater threat?
"The French are adamantly opposed to allowing any "English" words to become used in French conversation and thus insist on creating 'proper' French words to avoid the inclusion of non-French words into daily use"
- This depends on who you mean by 'the French'. I didn't RTFA but it's likely to be another pronouncement by L'Academie Francaise whose job it is (surprise surprise) to protect and promote the French language. Not exactly Kristallnacht, is it?
"Thousands and thousands of non-French servicemen gave their lives to help France fight for it's independence after being quickly taken over by the Nazis - when the latest war started in Iraq, how did young French people show their "support" for all of those dead servicemen? By painting swastikas on their tombs and overturning their headstones."
- Yes and thousands and thousands of French servicemen gave their lives fighting the Nazis in WWII and the Germans in WWI. Many thousands, including women and children also perished in the underground resistance during WWII. Don't tar the whole country on the basis of a few disaffected pseudo-Nazi youths. Fer chrissakes, they paint swastikas on graves in Israel. It proves nothing. And please remember that the French were there in both wars from the start - they didn't saunter in reluctantly after a few years and claim all the credit, unlike a certain North American country I can think of.
I'll tell you why the Americans hate the French - it's because the French have history and culture, philosophy and art. They have a cuisine which is based on rather more than saturated fat and corn syrup. They don't roll over and beg whenever the US clicks its colonial fingers (how I wish the UK were the same). And the French themselves are attractive, intelligent, reliable, honourable people. That's why the Americans hate them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, it sounds like the court went out of their way to find a definition that would allow them to bully an American company in order to protect French book sellers.
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
That law forbids booksellers from offering discounts of more than 5 percent off the list price, and Amazon was found to be exceeding that discount when the free shipping was factored in.
Wouldn't that mean the cover price on the book itself? I don't see how shipping and/or tax would be included in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon.com already bought the books so the publisher already has their money and so would the authors. Whatever price they decide to sell them should be up to Amizon. If they want to cut their profits and leave money on the table it is up to them to make that choice. I would guess the law was passed to help the Mom and Pop err um. Mummaire and Pappaire (Yes it is most likely spelt wrong and problably only used in Quebec French) Shops to insure they can compeat with the big guys. But shouldn't the restriction occure between the publisher and retailer to insure that the large company cannot buy bulk orders at a higher discount forcing the company to sell the books at simular prices.
There are pleanty of non-evil reasons to sell books at a discount, for example some time books are updated or are not popular so they will sell them heaviliy discounted to get them off the inventory. (selling at a loss or break even pricing) Because of Bulk Shipping I bet Amazon Get good rates for shipping. So where it would cost $2 to ship a book it will only cost Amazon $0.50. Thus making this law even more flawed.
As I said I am sorry if I sound to American, but I tend to beleave in a free market echonomy, with its ups and downs.
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question for Amazon's lawyers is why they don't relate the "free shipping" to "free parking" at a mall...that *should* wipe out the argument and put it in perspective
... but IANALMLAFL (...Much Less A French Lawyer)
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Informative)
As a publisher I can tell you the breakdown is roughly something like the 25% for printing, 25% for the author/publisher, 50% for the distributor. When amazon gives a discount it is from its own share (the 50%).
Dumping means selling less than the cost to print (>75% off the cover price). In the US the laws are designed for the benefit of the consumer. Lowering prices are encouraged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a rather general statement, and most people who say things like this haven't thought about the details.
They are only thinking of one specific case where they think it's great, but usually you find something where they don't want a free market after all.
Many already don't want a free market when it comes to such still rather ordinary stuff like organs, but forbidding bribes might as well be considered hindering a completely free market...
There's nothing wrong with a trade in organs if you aren't stea
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TANSTAAFL, shipping costs money, no miracles here, especially that Amazon is not a mailing company, so it's not like they could ship it on their own, and they are no charity to donate the service completely free of charge.
The customer gets to pay for the shipping, that's one thing that is certain. Now which part of the price the shipping comes from is the question. Amazon could discount a $8 book by $2, then add $2 of their real costs for shipping a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real beef [01net.com] (link in French, sorry) the Syndicat de la librairie française has with Amazon (and other online sellers) is twofold. By not charging delivery costs (In France and I think Germany, there is no minimum order for free delivery costs if you only buy books), they are
Actually, the real beef... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actually, the real beef... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually, the real beef... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "culture" at risk here is the culture of inefficient small bookstores.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, bu
This isn't protectionism. (Score:3, Insightful)
And the agricultural policy is not French, it is a competence of the EU [wikipedia.org]. 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 fluctuatio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's the French who block any major changes to CAP, because it so strongly benefits French farmers at the expense of other European citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) I might give them, but it's pretty iffy. 1) I don't buy -- even at the discounts Amazon gives on books, rarely do they ever sell them at a loss. If that's the case, then not charging shipping doesn't create a loss. This is a case of a government trying to manipulate the definitions to fit their needs, in this case: money.
Re:Discounting the price of a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Documentation from Amazon will easily prove claim #1 to be false (there's no way they're selling at a loss), and IMHO only someone out to get the company would claim #2, since shipping is OBVIOUSLY an ancillary service that adds no value to the product besides what consumers ALREADY expect from the sales contract. This is a good example of gross judicial abuse, takes the law where it was never meant to be applied, and amounts to legislating via judiciary.
Re: (Score:2)
What I think is interesting though, is that the seller in the brick-and-morter store is also offering free shipping. He has taken the books from the wholesaler to his warehouse, broken up the pallets and delivered them to his stores, and kept his stores warm and well lit, at no additional cost to the buyer above the price of the book. In other words the MSRP of the book includes enough profit to completely cover the cost of his distribution channel.
When Amazon ships the book from a central warehouse to th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly I don't think they want to bully american companies...This is just an company facing another absurd/bureaucratic european law.
At first... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What possible reason (Score:2)
Quite sad really.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite sad really.
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankfully, Amazon fills the gap. However, browsing a decent, well-stocked book store is a far more pleasant experience than browsing Amazon.
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Insightful)
This is paradise for book-buying, regardless of whatever romanticized ideal of the independent bookseller you cling to.
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 whe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 som
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What possible reason (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(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).
As someone who did all the perfunctory research into starting a bookstore, I can certainly tell you this is true.
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
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just about expensive shelf space though - if you want a niche book you can ask the bookstore to order it for you, but I bet you'd get nowhere asking a supermarket to do the same (bear in mind this law predates the likes of Amazon).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What possible reason (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Net Book Agreement Wasn't A Law (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Here's one reason (Score:2, Interesting)
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 be
Re: (Score:2)
"The idea is to protect the small bookstores. By having the same price everywhere small bookstore can compete against big business and offer diversity in book offer and not only the 200 most sold books."
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.
Find a niche and fill it. Otherwise,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 onl
Re:What possible reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Ob (Score:2, Funny)
Captcha: steaming (like a fine mug of frosty piss)
European Mindset? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that difficult: you'll find a brief summary in this post, http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=422664&cid=22092262 [slashdot.org]
Lowering the prize is not always the best for consumers, in the long run.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because smarter people pick up the tab. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:European Mindset? (Score:4, Insightful)
Loss leaders (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
Not screwed up at all. That's economics. I once read an article a couple years ago (back when the price of gas started going up quickly) about two gas stations in a price war. All of a sudden, one of the stations dropped it's price below cost, and the other station couldn't compete. What did the station that couldn't go below cost? Why they pulled up a tanker to the other station and started buying their gas below cost for their own station. I believe the article stated they got to $400 of fuel before t
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this is that the original law is more or less old, and probably it has been legislated because of pressure from special groups, in this case book publishers and book retailers. I really don't think that there is bigger logic here. If you look French or German legislation, especially tax and work legislation, they are just bloated and have too many special cases. Thought this seems to be same situation in every big country.
I really think that there is no real basis for this law and it should be c
Re:European Mindset? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've hit the nail on the head. But this problem is potentially much worse in many European countries. Why? Because they are considerably smaller markets than the USA. For instance, if you are a publisher of obscure books in the USA, you have a huge market - enough to support your company producing obscure books. But in much smaller countries, it is much harder, so these type of law are essentially there so the smaller publishers and booksellers don't get wiped out.
What works well in the USA won't necessarily work well in other countries where the business environment is very different, and as you point out, sometimes their are bigger issues than saving the customer a dollar (or euro).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the well-being of local economies includes the well-being of local providers. Wal-mart ends up being the analogue of out-sourcing for supermarkets. And we all know how happy out-sourcing makes people...
Re: (Score:2)
But it is because it encourages regions enslaved to Wal-Mart (especially low-density, low-population regions) to be consumers not entrepreneurs. Great, you force them to only buy from you by offering a low price, but this just encourages lazy, weak-willed individuals who will lose community-minded aspects of goodwill and local bartering modes and instead create a community AROUND the mass consumerism of a in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They get to be lazy and we get their cash. Win-win.
granted (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly appears to me that this is an attempt to protect those stores against Amazon. Whether or not this is good for the consumer is an open question. I love to browse at bookstores -you find things you might otherwise not find. But frankly, I buy the vast majority of my books from Amazon because the price and shipping deals are often just to good to pass up. The thing is, if the local bookseller doesn't provide sufficient value in services to make up for the price difference, there is little any
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Sarkozy may have a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah! (Score:2)
It's insane because I, like you, know absofuckingloutely nothing about the situation!
Re: (Score:2)
People hear about France's stupid laws all the time. Then you actually GO there and find out that these laws are clinging on to all sorts of things that the French are rightly proud of.
The food is excellent, and kept at a high standard by the government (appelation controllee), the architecture is beautiful, the way of life is relaxing, the roads are clean and well maintained. School chi
It is just a question of etymology (Score:5, Funny)
Fffmmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Them French sure have a lot of time on their hands (Score:2)
My country, my rules (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Amazon should think about it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Great Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
The price of socialism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As much as Americans like to kick the French... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's dumping (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Alaska Jack
No discussion of Amazon's actions (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
France: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, No Free Shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid laws or Gallic protectionism?
It appears you are trying to create a false dichotomy. Cancel or Allow?
Or, to put it more obviously, maybe this law isn't stupid, and maybe this has nothing to do with national protectionism but concurrence protection (yes, we don't quite like the United States' "Only the strong survive" economic model, for that model prioritises the interests of a few over the general interest).