[HN Gopher] France moves to shield its book industry from Amazon ___________________________________________________________________ France moves to shield its book industry from Amazon Author : 80mph Score : 72 points Date : 2021-10-26 21:18 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | AniseAbyss wrote: | Just switch the epubs or learn English and import books. | | French wankers information wants to be free. | president wrote: | Why not? Didn't China move to shield pretty much every industry | from overseas ones? | oh_sigh wrote: | What is the origin of the law that bans free book deliveries? | throwaway789257 wrote: | France has a long history of attempting to protect its cultural | industries, including film and publishing. | | It's not wrong. There are other things that are important aside | from customer purchasing power. | | Amazon is using its economies of scale to drive out smaller | businesses. It is not unique in that. But the industries that | Amazon affects may be unique to the nations that wish to preserve | them. | | Most centralization incrementally kills local industry, including | the local culture industry. TV, railroads, chain stores, Wal- | mart, you name it -- they are all killing something local. | idiotsecant wrote: | >Most centralization incrementally kills local industry, | including the local culture industry. TV, railroads, chain | stores, Wal-mart, you name it -- they are all killing something | local. | | This is probably true, but also probably inevitable. As the | world shrinks we lose local flavor but gain a more commonly | held homogeneous culture. I'm not sure that this is new, just | faster than it was before. | xattt wrote: | > railroads | | Would you be able to elaborate on this or was it hyperbole? | Personal experience is where there is passenger rail service | are inherently more interesting. | markus_zhang wrote: | > Most centralization incrementally kills local industry, | including the local culture industry. TV, railroads, chain | stores, Wal-mart, you name it -- they are all killing something | local. | | Although I agree with this, but I don't think it is necessarily | a bad thing for the customers. Some industries are best | centralized and some are not. For the business of selling books | I think it's best to have a lot of sellers. | supertrope wrote: | In the United States Robert Bork advanced the "consumer | welfare" philosophy of anti-trust policy that allowed for | monopolies that provided lower prices or better | products/service even if competition is crushed. In the | European Union loss of competition is a harm per se. | threatofrain wrote: | With regards to big players and economies of scale, it's | notable that on the other side of the exchange we have more | people brought into the fold than ever, whether we're talking | about books, movies, or apps. Otherwise there wouldn't be any | leverage by which to squeeze out smaller entities. | | In modern times, this is an incidental cost of access. | | There's also some understandable doubts about the long term | results of this tradeoff, as it is suspected that the final | stage of this play is to raise prices again, thereby squeezing | access up to some "optimal" equilibrium. | Hokusai wrote: | > Most centralization incrementally kills local industry | | And it makes the world more fragile and less diverse and | interesting. Capitalism is founded on the idea of many | producers competing for many customers. | | Amazon model steps as middleman so producers have only one | buyer, and consumers have only one seller. That gives them a | lot of power to control prices, and what is produced or | consumed. | reissbaker wrote: | I'm curious whether French independent bookstores have been | harmed much by Amazon. In the US, Amazon has probably actually | been a boon -- the number of independent bookstores has grown | dramatically over the last decade, in part because Amazon | squashed the previous era's giant book retailers like Borders and | Barnes and Noble, who had been crushing independent bookstores. | Waterluvian wrote: | Not a big fan of Amazon but I also find it ridiculous and self- | sacking to fixate on obsolete ideas. If you have to force a | business to exist, maybe it doesn't need to exist. | passivate wrote: | I don't think books are obsolete, many people still enjoying | reading them, and buying them. Also, there are plenty of | government subsidized programs that are popular with people. No | economic model can perfectly match our sensibilities. We as a | society protect things that we think need protection. It's | really as simple as that. | coolso wrote: | It's forced obsoleting. Forced existence is the pushback. There | are better methods though I agree. When we finally bring more | manufacturing back to the US I think that'll be a natural way | to put a damper on Amazon's harm to our country | matheusmoreira wrote: | Yeah. So many problems caused by businesses who simply refuse | to die. Their time has passed but they simply refuse to go away | and let humanity move on. The entire copyright industry for | example. | reissbaker wrote: | _The entire copyright industry for example._ | | You mean like... books? | WalterBright wrote: | I was in B+N last summer, and as I recall they had 6 full | shelves of "Trump Is Bad" books. I amuse myself by collecting | them, and have 36 so far (all different). I pick them up at the | thrift store for a buck or two. | | I started a Biden collection, but only one book so far. Things | that make you go hmmmm.... | tpush wrote: | Presumably there are more "Trump is bad" (weird | simplification, but ok) books than ones on Biden because a) | Trump has been president longer and b) Trump's actions harmed | more people. | Shadonototra wrote: | It's more than just a "business" | | The reason of the downfall of our civilization is because of | that specific problem, you think about everything as a | business, including countries | konschubert wrote: | This will make all online book sales more expensive, not just | Amazon's. | pier25 wrote: | Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is actually protecting | the small book stores, right? | | Big stores like the Fnac could offer the same shipping prices as | Amazon (and maybe they're already doing it). | | Publishers don't care much who is selling the book as long as | it's selling. | | Obviously this only applies to physical books. Ebooks only | account for about 15% of books sold in France unlike the US where | it's close to 50% [1]. | | [1] https://imgur.com/edK0YWP | arthurcolle wrote: | Oh wow, Amazon is such a threat! Whatever will Larousse and | Hachette do... maybe remain competitive? </3 | downWidOutaFite wrote: | For 2019, before the pandemic, parent company Lagardere made | about $200 million on $7 billion in revenue. Amazon made $11B | on $280B in revenue. So 40-50 times bigger. | | In the last 4 quarters Lagardere lost $376M on $4B in revenue. | While Amazon exploded to $29B on $443B in revenue. So more like | 100 times bigger. | hh3k0 wrote: | Yeah -- just make no profit for two decades until everyone with | shallower pockets bled out, stupid. | | It's called competitiveness, baby, and it's easy peasy lemon | squeezy! | [deleted] | coldtea wrote: | I'd rather not have them race to the bottom to "remain | competitive". | | I also rather not have the book industry of a country dependent | on the whims (and VC/bottomless pit of money to stay | "competitive" while they crush a market) of an American | company. Even more so one with no culture and no respect for | the book as a work of the spirit whatsoever. | | So there's that. | newsclues wrote: | There certainly has been a fair bit of consolidation in the | publishing industry, other than Amazon becoming the dominant | retailer. | arthurcolle wrote: | Consolidation is traditionally viewed as anticompetitive, | believe it or not. | coldtea wrote: | And it's usually the end result of competition with | behemoths like Amazon, believe it or not. | arthurcolle wrote: | They could have sold books online earlier, they chose not | to. | fallingknife wrote: | > More than 20% of the 435 million books sold in France in 2019 | were bought online | | I am very surprised at how low this number is. | Bayart wrote: | Discovery on Amazon is pretty bad. I've never picked a book | there after having serendipitously finding my way to it. But | I've done exactly that in bookstores countless times. | | The only websites that give me an experience remotely similar | are those of old, specialized publishers. Case in point (in | French) : | | - https://www.lesbelleslettres.com/collections | | - https://www.droz.org/france/section/Collections | | - https://www.honorechampion.com/fr/29-champion | jjgreen wrote: | I'm not: French bookshops are really rather good. | themodelplumber wrote: | I wonder how many of the hard copies were bought as gifts or | purchased by wandering tourists looking for a paper companion. | r00fus wrote: | All for a way to protect small businesses which actually pay | local taxes vs. Amazon which doesn't pay taxes in the US at all - | but not sure a minimum ship price is the best approach. | | Isn't there a better way, perhaps based on physical presence? | caslon wrote: | Is there a word for laws that disproportionately affect people in | rural areas so that a government can play protectionist for urban | companies? I hate Amazon as much as anyone, but in this case | they're definitely not _wrong_ , even if they're probably lying | about their reasoning. | WalterBright wrote: | > I hate Amazon as much as anyone | | The fashionable thing to say, indeed! | | Yet the anyones are all covertly buying from Amazon, working | for Amazon, and investing in Amazon. | coolso wrote: | I've cut back on my Amazon purchases 90%. It's been nice | visiting actual stores and getting something same-hour. | Sometimes I pay a dollar or two more. But buying local(er) | feels good for my soul. It's nice not having to wonder if | every single positive review is real or fake, or if real, if | it's accurate. It's also nice not having to sift through | direct-from-China products with extremely strange names and | poorly written box descriptions. | | Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. You can hate | something and still use it. Especially if that something | actively made it much harder to not use it. It's the same | with made in USA goods. Most people crave them. But thanks to | our government and corporations, it's difficult to do it - or | at least, do it affordably. Does that mean people prefer made | in China? Or that they're just posturing when they say they | don't like made in China? No. | saurik wrote: | Is this somehow supposed to be inconsistent? One normally | doesn't hate Amazon because they are successful, but because | they are too successful. This is like claiming making fun of | someone who says they hate cigarettes or alcohol because they | are "covertly" still using both all the time, or someone who | says they hate the food at their school cafeteria despite | "covertly" eating it... this "you don't get to say you hate | something if you use it" take is ridiculous. | coolso wrote: | Didn't you hear? Losing your US-manufacturing job so | everyone can buy cheap throwaway Chinese goods with loads | of fake reviews is actually good for the economy, or | something. You should be made fun of for thinking | otherwise. | WalterBright wrote: | My meaning is a bit subtler than your interpretation. I was | commenting on the practice of virtue signalling. | | For example, Seattle rebuilt and renamed the old Key Arena | into Climate Pledge Arena. While I am a more ardent | environmentalist than most (my virtue signalling duly | noted) this name is a local pinnacle of vacuous virtue | signalling nonsense. | bduerst wrote: | Just FYI, _Virtue Signalling_ is a pejorative that | implicitly marginalizes and accuses someone of abnormal | behavior. The GP here is calling that out even if you | didn 't specifically use the term "virtue signalling" in | your original comment - the behavior here is entirely | normal. | | The phrase's roots come from the alt-right looking for a | replacement for SJW accusations not being taken | seriously: | | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#.22V | irt... | denimnerd42 wrote: | yeah I mean I love amazon personally. sometimes things go | wrong but same as any business. | throwaway6734 wrote: | Yep Amazon is mostly great | HarryHirsch wrote: | Where is Amazon great? The catalog is awful, the search | function is awful, the recommendations are awful and the | reviews are fake. Trouble is, it wasn't always like that, | but somehow the shitty state of the site benefits Jess | Bezos. | bduerst wrote: | Nah, we've successfully reduced spending on Amazon by >90% in | our household. | | There are still some obscure items that, due to the sheer | spread of Amazon, are incredibly difficult to get anywhere | else, online or off - but that was Amazon's original market | benefit to begin with. You could always get that weird book | on Amazon that you couldn't get in the book store. | WalterBright wrote: | Resistance is futile. | bduerst wrote: | I really wasn't that difficult, and more to the point, | there are people who are saying they're using Amazon less | and are really using it less. | saddlerustle wrote: | Good for you. For me, after the local grocery store went to | shit, with Prime Now and Amazon Fresh I've shifted almost | all our spending to Amazon. | bduerst wrote: | Yeah, we were lucky in that we had a couple good options | locally for produce other than Whole Foods too. The | Safeway has gotten really bad, and the mail services I | tried were all over the place. | TrainedMonkey wrote: | Specific quote is: > Imposing a minimum shipping cost for books | would weigh on the purchasing power of consumers. | | The other side is a bit more complex, but Amazon is definitely | subsidizing shipping costs from their yearly subscription and | seller fees. The argument is that this is unfair to smaller | companies which don't have capital to burn... and that is kind | of true? I think there are valid points on both sides. | yellow_lead wrote: | Predatory pricing | threatofrain wrote: | I'm being sly, but I do think that _utilitarianism_ can fit | this situation, as I presume urban power in a republic comes | from population size more than geographic placement. | woodruffw wrote: | I can't read the full article thanks to the paywall so maybe | I'm missing it, but: where is the urban protectionism here? | | More generally, my limited understanding of French politics is | that they have a _very_ strong agricultural interest that 's | disproportionate to the populace, similar to the US. The | limited news I read about French domestic politics indicates | that their government generally accommodates and subsidizes | non-urban citizens, much like ours does. | | Edit: Here's the (Amazon) quote about rural concerns: | | > Amazon said the legislation, adopted by parliament but not | yet enacted, would punish those in rural areas who cannot | easily visit a bookstore and rely on delivery. | bduerst wrote: | Reuters doesn't use paywalls. Is it blocked in other | countries? | woodruffw wrote: | Oh, this was my mistake. It's not a paywall, it's just | asking me to register to continue to read for free. Says | something about my advertising blindness. | | (I'm in the US, visiting from a US IP address.) | TeMPOraL wrote: | Perhaps we need a new term for this, encompassing both | paywalls and "registration walls". | | "Dating wall" perhaps? Whether it's asking you to pay up, | or just to register an account, it's still asking you to | enter into a relationship with the content provider, and | you bounce off because you'd rather not have that | relationship. | | Relationships are a burden, there's only so many one can | keep track of. | _jal wrote: | I just call them, "Nope." | | I'd really like a plugin that will override styles on | links to sites on a list I get to keep. | [deleted] | jsnell wrote: | People living in the cities will now be able to buy a book | significantly cheaper than someone living in a rural area. | And a bookstore in a city will be able to outcompete a rural | one, since they'll have more local sales but the rural | bookstore will not be able compete on price for the mail | orders. | woodruffw wrote: | I guess my point with this is twofold: | | * Accepting Amazon's claim: this strikes me more as the | _removal_ of a rural subsidy (cheap delivery to hard to | reach places, Amazon skipping out on every tax they can to | lower prices) than the imposition of an urban one. Maybe a | distinction without difference economically, but it 's an | important political distinction. | | * Not accepting the claim: wouldn't this _support_ rural | bookstores? Amazon 's conceit here is that people want | convenience, which a local rural bookstore surely provides | over an urban one for rural dwellers. Whether they | "compete" with urban bookstores is sort of a red herring, | given that (small) bookstores _qua_ businesses tend to be | labors of passion that aren 't looking to edge out some | distant urban competitor. That doesn't mean they can (or | should) go broke, just that the economics aren't | necessarily a dog fight between rural and urban. | jsnell wrote: | A rural bookstore won't have sufficient density of local | customers to be viable. They need to make additional | sales from somewhere. That "somewhere" has to be mail | order, where they maybe could be competitive due to lower | costs. But now they can't actually compete. | | (This is all purely hypothetical, and explaining how the | statement could be true. Probably it isn't, since there's | no way an indie bookstore competes on price with Amazon.) | mullingitover wrote: | Seems like a harsh but fair move on France's part to stop | unfairly subsidizing rural areas. Honestly living in rural | areas should cost more - maintenance of infrastructure, | power, etc are significantly more costly for rural areas in | a way that's not nearly accounted for by their tax base. | spoonjim wrote: | If you don't have incentives for rural living you 1) | depopulate your food production labor base and 2) don't | have people in a place that will defend it with force. | mullingitover wrote: | This probably sounds crazy, but I think the best way to | incentivize food production laborers is to pay them a | fair wage. | | Rural areas have a mix of the estates of the top net | worth individuals and the laborers who work there. The | wealthy are subsidized along with the working class. It | makes more sense to stop subsidizing the rural areas | entirely and then pay the working class fair wages. | | As for defending the rural areas with force, that's the | whole point of having a national military - it's not like | we're going to forcibly conscript everyone just because | they happen to live in the region. | ur-whale wrote: | To all posters who harp on the "this is stupid" theme: I do | agree, but saying this is imo short-sighted. | | Much more likely, we're witnessing a good old-fashioned lobbying | effort bearing fruits at the expense of the consumer and in favor | of a small but politically connected group of businesses. | belval wrote: | This seems to be incentivising the customer to shop in-person | instead of online and seems spectacularly uninspired, they could | have simply waived taxes on books for companies headquartered in | France? Or really anything that isn't simply forcing the customer | to pay shipping? | fallingknife wrote: | That would probably violate trade agreements. | amelius wrote: | And laissez-faire was a French invention. | ekianjo wrote: | Bastiat is unknown in France. | coldtea wrote: | It was one of those inventions you gift to inferior cultures... | tpush wrote: | Can you please not start a dick measuring contest between | cultures in these comments. Thanks. | intricatedetail wrote: | This is stupid. It will prevent local business from using "free" | shipping. Better way will be to just ban Amazon until they start | paying right taxes. | sokoloff wrote: | _If_ they're not paying the right taxes, why not just prosecute | them for violating tax laws? | intricatedetail wrote: | In my country such thing is discretionary for IRS. They would | have to request accounting books and go through probably | billions of transactions. Plus political pressure. | phtrivier wrote: | It's funny that we still pin Amazon against bookstores - I was | under the impression that Amazon is shipping _everything_ those | days, and that books are not what most people go to Amazon for | any more. | rafaelturk wrote: | My experience tells me that the practical outcome of this new | regulation is that shipping will become more expensive for books. | | It will not prevent customers to stop shopping online, so no | effect for legacy bookstore.s | | Like most goverment proposed solutions: This will actually create | a new problem not fix the origintal intented cause. | Shadonototra wrote: | Maybe that is not a problem, and will force people to actually | get to meet with people | | Dematerialized everything has its problems too | | But why bother with the social aspect of things, we are all | enslaved consumerist robots anyways.. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | Most government proposed solutions create new problems instead | of fixing the original? Do you have any data to back that claim | up? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-26 23:00 UTC)