altered photo

Parallel Importation of Books

(picture licensed under a CC-BY licence from Ian Wilson)

The Productivity Commission has recommended that the laws enforcing the parallel importation restrictions (PIRs) be repealed.

If Australian publishers meet certain conditions, the Copyright Act 1968 effectively bestows upon them a monopoly in the local book market. Booksellers in Australia are restricted from imported a cheaper version of the book, and must buy it from an Aussie publisher instead (if available).

On the whole, this means that Australian publishers wield considerable market power, and arguably make supernormal profits as a result.

I just bought a book from The Book Depository (UK) for $34.40 plus a $2 international transaction fee on my credit card. The Book Depository charges in pounds and does NOT charge for shipping. At the local second hand book store across the road from my office, the same book goes for $40. At Borders further down the road, it's $59.95. Ouch.

Even if you accounted for foreign currency exchange differences, it seems to me that the Australian book retailers are charging a lot more for these books that our overseas counterparts. Presumably, that's because they have to buy it from Aussie publishers. When it comes to the relationship between booksellers and book publishers, booksellers appear to be the price takers.

An interesting quote from the Senator Carr on Printnet reveals something about these margins (or supernormal profits). He says (and presumably the printing/publishing industry agrees) that the margins the publishers make from best sellers are used to invest in more risky and unknown Australian authors. That is, the (supernormal) profits are used to invest in some authors which produce "cultural externalities" which would otherwise not be commercially successful.

Graeme Connelly (CEO of Melbourne Uni Bookshop) reckons "much of the argumentation by publishers (to the Productivity Commission) has frankly been rent-seeking."

Allan Fels made an interesting remark about the (then) Prices Surveillance Authority 1989 report recommending the repeal of PIRs on books. "It made a terrible mistake. It said there were two problems. Never give a politician two problems. Cos they'll take the easy one and solve it. We said that (a) there was a delay in books getting to Australia and (b) the prices were too high."

In 1991, amendments were passed requiring Australian publishers to supply the books within 30 days of publication in order to receive PIR protection. This solved the delay problem, but did not affect prices.

One other thing about Senator Carr: he thinks that the publishing and printing industry should be *tin foil hat on* "protected" *tin foil hat off* because we need the excess capacity in Australia to ensure the maximum dissemination of ideas. That is, despite the internet providing almost no barriers to dissemination, we still need books (and hence the decision makers and gatekeepers, publishers) to get the ideas out there.

I dunno about that, it might be true, it might not be. Something tells me, if we lift the PIRs, although the publishers can kiss some of their supernormal profits goodbye, they'll be just fine.

Let's maximise consumer surplus!!

The Gospel and Intellectual Property (rival goods)

I've just finished reading "The Future of Ideas", a not so recent book by Lawrence Lessig. It talks about rivalrous goods and non-rivalrous goods.

A rivalrous good is one where my use of the good (say, a car), will rival your use of the same car. We cannot drive it at the same time. Most physical objects are rivalrous to some extent. A public park is non-rivalrous, until it gets really crowded, when my use and enjoyment of the park is negatively affected by your (and the thousand other people) use of the park. It will then become rivalrous.

Intellectual property, and knowledge in general, has the character of being non-rivalrous. If I learn something from you, say a recipe for chocolate brownies, you do not need to unlearn it. My use of the recipe does not rival your use of the recipe. Although, if we shared one oven, hopefully we can use the same recipe, otherwise the use of the oven will be rivalrous!

ANYWAY... I was thinking about the Gospel (aka Good News), and how people tell other people about Jesus. One of the great things about the good news of Jesus, is that, if I know it in my head, I can tell you all about Jesus. I do not need a leaflet, or a pamphlet or a bookmark to tell you about it. Leaflets may be finite (and their use rivalrous), but the gospel itself is not rivalrous. Millions of people tell millions of other people about Jesus all the time, and the gospel will never diminish in it power.

Interestingly enough, one might say that the act of telling people about Jesus, actually enhances my ability to tell more people. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Also, websites tend to be regarded as non-rivalrous, as MANY people can visit a website at a time. Although they do have their limits, as Denial of Service attacks can overwhelm a website by visiting it from many computers simultaneously.

So, non-rivalrous news (the good news about Jesus), from an almost non-rivalrous source (a website) - try Two Ways to Live.

A new nerd convergence: MAKE and copyright

And you thought taxified Harry Potter titles were an unholy nerd alliance? As it turns out (from SMH) Amazon, who sell the Kindle and the e-books that are read on it, made a booboo. It turns out that they were selling books by George Orwell (like 1984), but after they were sold and downloaded to individuals' Kindle, it turned out they didn't have the rights to do so, and Amazon apparently snuck in, and deleted the e-books from everyone's Kindles and refunded the money, without decent notification.

Enter MAKE, a print and online magazine dedicated to DIY and lots of cool nerd stuff like electronics. For example, there are LOTS of Wiimote hacks on Make. KipKay, a popular online DIYer regularly makes videos for MAKE. Very cool - for example:



Anyway, it seems MAKE have published (through their blog) a "workaround" in order to get the Orwellian books back on the Kindle. "How?" you ask? One word, "copyright". In Australia, Orwell's books have entered the Public Domain because copyright in Australia (for literary works anyway) is life of author plus 50 years. In the US (where Amazon wasn't allowed to sell the books) the term is life of author plus 70 years. Nothing quite like a bit of copyright arbitrage. Of course, you actually HAVE to be in Australia to download the book (from an Aussie Uni site). A US resident will probably still be infringing copyright if they carry out the workaround unless they're in Australia.

Read the MAKE "workaround" here.

The Lazy Susan Code of Conduct

For those unaware, myself and others have authored the "Principles of Yum Cha", otherwise known as 'The Yum-Charter". Principle 23 refers to the 'Lazy Susan Code of Conduct'.

Here it is, a living document, if you will:

The Lazy Susan Code of Conduct
1. Subject to the below clauses, the Lazy Susan ('LS') shall be revolved as fast as is necessary to eat Yum Cha.

2. If someone is retrieving a dim sim from the LS, you shall not revolve the LS to the extent that the retriever has difficulty retrieving the dim sim.

3. As a matter of best practice, you shall wait until the retriever has retrieved their dim sim before revolving the LS.

4. Chilli sauce saucers shall be distributed evenly on the LS.

5. Depending on circumstances, empty bamboo baskets shall be placed in the centre of the LS, OR on a part of the table close to trolley traffic.

6. The LS shall not be spun so fast as to cause any objects on the LS to move, or any sauce in saucers on the LS to spill.

Any others that should be there?

Censordyne and the Parody/Satire Exception

In case you haven't already noticed, the independent political campaigning group GetUp! have launched a TV ad against the Australian Governments plans for mandatory ISP level filtering of the Internet. They use the likness of the packaging for Sensodyne toothpaste and have called it Censordyne "good, clean, internet censorship".

SMH story here.

Apparently, GlaxoSmithKlein (owner of Sensodyne), is not a fan of GetUp's use of the likeness of the toothpaste brand. They are even thinking of legal action, as they weren't consulted about the use of the brand.

The first thing I think of is the parody and satire exception to copyright infringement in section 41A of the Copyright Act 1968. Basically, you can reproduce a substantial part of a work, and avoid infringement if:
* it is for the purpose of parody or satire; and
* it is a fair dealing

I suppose the question is, (and I couldn't find anything in the Explanatory Memorandum in the amending Act which introduced s41A):
Does the parody have to be a poking fun at the thing being reproduced? That is, does the exception only apply if GetUp were in fact poking fun at the toothpaste rather than something else like a Government policy?

If you remembered the anti-ads by the Footy Show, those were poking fun at the ads themselves, so it's an obvious parody. But if you are using a toothpaste brand to poke fun at policy, is that covered by the exception?

Then you have to consider the satire part of the exception. The Australian Copyright Council (fact sheet G083v03) makes a distinction between parody and satire, and regards the satire exception to be more strict in the sense that more elements have to be present before one can regard it as "satire".

Food for thought.

Harry Potter: the taxified version

My colleagues asked me the other day whether I had read any Harry Potter books. I didn't, not because I don't like Harry Potter, but because I generally read non-fiction books. I speculated, however, whether I would be more willing to read Harry Potter if the titles were something like "Harry Potter and the Tax Act".

We then sought to "taxify" the titles of the Harry Potter books. I don't know how to write "markup style" text, so I've done it in Word, and made it a PNG file. Here are the results: (the blue text was written by me afterwards, so I take responsibilty for the lameness of the sub-titles).

P2P - a legit business model?

Let's face it, P2P file-sharing arguably presents the biggest leakage to copyright revenue for traditional professional content, like music, movies and computer games. In Australia, iiNet is being sued by Roadshow Films (with backing from AFACT). Case ref: [2009] FCA 332.

Roadshow alleges:
* by a user making available a movie file via BitTorrent, the user is making the movie available to the public, thus infringing the "right to communicate to the public".
* by downloading a copy of the film onto their computer, the user has infringing the "reproduction right".
* by providing the facilities for this infringement, iiNet has authorised the infringement, which is an act of infringement itself.

So, in this case, the copyright holder (Roadshow) is probably sick of chasing down each and every infringer (the evidence submitted indicated that Roadshow had enough information to identify the infringers but wanted iiNet to do something about it [i.e. disconnect them]), and wants the ISP to take action, and failing that, the copyright holders takes action against the ISP.

Meanwhile, on the otherside of the world, The Pirate Bay is trying to get a legit business model up and running supporting the P2P method of file sharing.

SMH report here.

If this Pirate Bay thing works out (which in my pessimistic mind, it won't), maybe everyone around the world, including Australia and New Zealand can stop worrying about the "three-strikes and you're disconnected" idea that's been floating around for a while now. New Zealand tried it, and had to pike after a public outcry.

Story stub here.

(I love this site, they've disabled selecting text, it's a copyright holders site, how funny!)

Someone got causation and correlation mixed up again!

SMH reports that a visiting US professor reckons that KRudd's computers in homes strategy maybe counter productive.

SMH report here.

The report essentially says that "Yes, kids with computers at home tend to do better at school, that is, there is a CORRELATION between home computers and academic achievement." BUT the more important qualifier is that computers at home do not CAUSE kids to do better academically.

That is, a child might do better academically because their PARENTS are more educated or more well off, and these parents are also likely to have a computer at home. That is, A and B (academic achievement and computers) are caused by C (parents' background). Not B causes A.

Therefore, if you simply introduce B into a house (computers), it may not affect C (parents) who are ultimately the main cause of academic achievement (A).

This is exactly the thing that happened a while back in the US. According to Freakonomics (the book, not the blog), some President promised free books in the homes of every school kid because studies had shown that academic achievers at school tended to have more books at home. What the study didn't show was that the achievement may have been due to the parents' educational background. It was this background which caused both the child's academic achievement, and the number of books in the house.

Surprise, surprise, when the books arrived, nothing happened, because books don't cause academic achievement.

So, will the same thing happen with free or taxpayer subsidised computers in Aussie homes? Professor Vigdor says that in North Carolina, the introduction of computers actually made the results of some school students "significantly worse."

Are we ready for a taxpayer funded education devolution?