Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#41

Post by rayiner »

freehunter wrote: post #32
chaddeshon wrote: post #25

It is great that students will be able to get cheap text books. But, are we not concerned that the court seems to be throwing out a law passed by Congress in an area where the Constitution grants them explicit power to act merely because they think the law is a bad idea? Title 17 of the U. S. Code Section 602(a)(1) “Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title,…

That's the whole point of the Supreme Court and of the balance of powers. Congress is free to pass whatever law they want, it's up to the Court to decide if the law is valid or Constitutional. If the Court thinks the law is a bad idea, they're free by all means to throw it out, that's the reason they exist.

"It's a bad idea" is a very different thing than "it's unconstitutional." It shouldn't even need to be said, but this is a mistake that is pervasive on HN.[1] There are infinite shitty ideas that are nonetheless Constitutional.

The Court is empowered to throw out unconstitutional legislation. It is not empowered to throw out Constitutional legislation that happens to be a bad idea.

[1] On everything from campaign finance to drone strikes, nobody bothers drawing the very important distinction between "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#43

Post by sageikosa »

jivatmanx wrote: post #6

Excellent for the native textbook industries of these countries.

But not necessarily for the students in those countries. Presumably low-cost and market-recognized quality are factors that have kept American textbooks in distribution in foreign markets (and domestic producers out of those markets). In their absence, one might think that prices will rise, quality will fall, or both; at least in the short run.

If these countries are relatively free of government collusion with established (or establishing) producers, then ultimately competitive pressures could rectify that as market demand gets satisfied; but in the short run prices up, quality down.

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#44

Post by impendia »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #9

The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition. In general the whole textbook industry makes me sick. But fact is that lecturers are entirely responsible for it. The publishers can only do what the lectu…

I am a lecturer in a math department. I also despise the textbook industry.

Would you please recommend what I might do, subject to severe limitations of (1) time and (2) political clout within my department?

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#45

Post by gameshot911 »

pc86 wrote: post #2

I'm glad, obviously. You should be able to do whatever you want with something after you purchase it. But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court.

Honest question: What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? For example, if a phone company sells me a smartphone with the agreement that I do not unlock the phone, should I still be able to do whatever I want with the phone (unlock it) after it is in my possession?

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#46

Post by darkarmani »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #9

The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition. In general the whole textbook industry makes me sick. But fact is that lecturers are entirely responsible for it. The publishers can only do what the lectu…

> The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition.

That's fine if they do that. That's what they should have be doing all along instead of trying to destroy the first sale doctrine using foreign distribution.

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#47

Post by usea »

caseysoftware wrote: post #38
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #9

The publishers will just make sure to produce a different textbook between different regions now. Just re-order the chapters a little and re-order some questions/assignments. So even if someone ships in the foreign book it will be as useless as a previous edition. In general the whole textbook industry makes me sick. But fact is that lecturers are entirely responsible for it. The publishers can only do what the lectu…

Don't even bother reordering the chapters.. just change a few of the homework/exercises listed in the book. A cursory check will confirm to people that they have the same version and then it bites them later on. At my undergrad, there were some profs concerned about files of old tests.. the obvious solution is to vary the test. The more subtle solution is to use the same test but switch which numbers are where. It st…

If the publisher did this, not only would they lose the sale at the higher price but they'd also cause confusion and mistrust among the students and teacher. There's zero upside.

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#48

Post by SEMW »

DannyBee wrote: post #20
binarycrusader wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court does not "side with" any particular party (ideally); they "side with" a specific interpretation of the law. If you read both the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion, you'll see that the dissenting opinion is strictly based on interpretation. The supreme court not only attempts to interpret how to apply the law, but determine what congress' intent was when enacting the law.

Actually, at least 2 justices specifically do not determine congress's intent, because they do not believe it matters. If you look, you'll see they often specifically refuse to join in footnotes/etc that cite congressional intent or history.

It's possible they're still trying to determine congress's intent in a sense, they just give a more objective meaning to 'intent': i.e. what a reasonable person reading the statute would think that congress meant by the words they used. (As opposed to what they actually, subjectively meant, per extrinsic evidence like statements made in congress).

That's the way intent is read in contract law: it's judged objectively (from the position of a reasonable person in the position of the parties at the time of contracting), subjective intentions don't matter. [Edit: while true of English contract law, this is apparently not accurate for US contract law: see DannyBee's reply]

(I'm only guessing - I'm an English law student, so not familiar with US supreme court justices, so could be completely wrong on what they're doing. [Edit: yup, I was.])

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#49

Post by darkarmani »

gameshot911 wrote: post #45
pc86 wrote: post #2

I'm glad, obviously. You should be able to do whatever you want with something after you purchase it. But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court.

Honest question: What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? For example, if a phone company sells me a smartphone with the agreement that I do not unlock the phone, should I still be able to do whatever I want with the phone (unlock it) after it is in my possession?

> What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption?

Everything is sold with particular assumptions. Consumers often use their purchases in ways the seller didn't foresee.

Re: Supreme Court sides with student in case over textbooks

#50

Post by pc86 »

gameshot911 wrote: post #45
pc86 wrote: post #2

I'm glad, obviously. You should be able to do whatever you want with something after you purchase it. But it just makes me sad this had to get to the Supreme Court.

Honest question: What if the good was only sold to you with a particular assumption? For example, if a phone company sells me a smartphone with the agreement that I do not unlock the phone, should I still be able to do whatever I want with the phone (unlock it) after it is in my possession?

Anyone who signs an agreement should be bound by that agreement assuming the other party did not act in bad faith.

I think it's important to stick to text books though and not venture into software or cell phone territory because it's a very safe bet that no contract was ever signed and no agreement was ever entered into other than "here's my money, give me that book."

Post reply on HN