Thew supreme court says you can sell stuff that you bought.

[Jim Johnson]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/supreme-court-backs-student-dispute-over-used-textbook-sales-1C8932489

[WithoutAPaddle]

From the linked article:

The Software & Information Industry Association, the principal trade association for the software and digital content industries, said in a statement that it is "strongly disappointed" by the ruling.

"Today's decision will create a strong disincentive for publishers to market different versions and sell copies at different prices in different regions," the statement said. "The practical result may very well be that consumers and students abroad will see dramatic price increases or entirely lose their access to valuable U.S. resources created specifically for them.

"American publishers will face direct harm, because our markets will be open to a flood of copyrighted material that was intended for purchase overseas. By exploiting pricing models that are meant for students in undeveloped nations, importers both deny those students a full education, and threaten American publishers' ability to do business abroad."

Hard to say how this will play out.  The prediction here - or threat, if you will - is that the copyright holders will make fewer copies available at discount prices overseas.  The adverse consequence of two-tiered pricing discouraging making low priced drugs available in other countries is already a problem for the drug industry.  I remember back when Norvasc, the blood pressure medication, was still patented, that I saw it was readily available from Canada for less than half what it sold for domestically.

I don't think the final chapter has been written in this legal battle.   

[Jim Johnson]

From the linked article:

The Software & Information Industry Association, the principal trade association for the software and digital content industries, said in a statement that it is "strongly disappointed" by the ruling.

"Today's decision will create a strong disincentive for publishers to market different versions and sell copies at different prices in different regions," the statement said. "The practical result may very well be that consumers and students abroad will see dramatic price increases or entirely lose their access to valuable U.S. resources created specifically for them.

"American publishers will face direct harm, because our markets will be open to a flood of copyrighted material that was intended for purchase overseas. By exploiting pricing models that are meant for students in undeveloped nations, importers both deny those students a full education, and threaten American publishers' ability to do business abroad."

Hard to say how this will play out.  The prediction - or threat, if you will - here is that the copyriught holders will make fewer copies available at discount prices overseas.  The adverse consequence of two tiered pricing discouraging making low priced drugs available in other countries is already a problem for the drug industry.  I remember back when Norcasc, the blood pressure medication was still patented, I saw it was readily available from Canada for less than half what it sold for domestically.

I don't think the final chapter has been written in this legal battle.   

This is supposed goodwill through socialism.  If they can make a good and sell it cheap over seas, they can sell it cheap in the United States.  It's wealth redistribution crap at the expense of perceived rich nations.

[KBCraig]

This is supposed goodwill through socialism.  If they can make a good and sell it cheap over seas, they can sell it cheap in the United States.  It's wealth redistribution crap at the expense of perceived rich nations.

There's that. There's also charging what the market will bear, and different markets will bear different prices.

With both textbooks and prescriptions, high prices result from government-guaranteed market exclusivity, and from end users relying heavily on other people's money. If the textbook makers had their way, importing certain books would require a long review and permission process from the Education Department, same as medicines require FDA approval.

When Andy was attending Hendrix (an expensive "Kudzu League" private college), they had a very open policy on books. They didn't care where you got it, which edition you used, or if it was an electronic version. Getting accurate and current information was up to the student, not the professor's book contract.

[Jim Johnson]

This is supposed goodwill through socialism.  If they can make a good and sell it cheap over seas, they can sell it cheap in the United States.  It's wealth redistribution crap at the expense of perceived rich nations.

There's that. There's also charging what the market will bear, and different markets will bear different prices.

It sounds like they are charging some folks way to much, since their product can be purchased one place and then shipped and resold in another place for less than they are charging for new.

[WithoutAPaddle]

Intellectual property costs next to nothing to replicate, so the sale of a replication of any intellectual work for even a few cents will garner a profit, but such a pricing structure will not be sufficient to encourage future product creation.

When I went back to college in the fall of 1976, the entire United States math profession had gotten together and colluded on a Calculus book giving credits to about 200 professors, so as to keep them in the monopoly.  To force the students to buy new books instead of used ones, they changed the problems used in the book every year.