backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 155 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 21 at 10:48 PM
France tells Amazon to stop shipping books for free or pay up; Amazon pays up

Amazon.com, one of the largest stores online, offers several features that entice buyers to purchase there, such as "one-click purchasing" and free shipping on many items. While Amazon's multiple attempts to patent "one-click purchasing" has drawn no small amount of ire, the offer of free shipping has been lauded as a beneficial attribute -- until now.

Amazon.com's French website Amazon.fr currently stands in violation of a 1981 French law prohibiting certain discounts on books. The ruling by the French High Court contained two fines -- a one-time lump sum payment of €100,000 to the French Bookseller's Union, and a fine of €1,000 per day until the offending "free shipping" promotion is ended. While the proverbial gavel banged on December 12th, a "grace period" until mid-January gave them time to "correct the problem" and respond.

Amazon indeed responded -- but with defiance rather than compliance.

The 1981 Lang Law in France prohibits several type of discounts on books, including "loss leaders" -- selling a book below cost -- and offering a discount of more than 5% off the list price. With the "free shipping" discount factored in, France officials found Amazon in violating this law; but rather than raise their prices and risk losing customers, Amazon decided to hold fast.  The company opted to pay the €1,000 per day fine.

Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos wrote an email calling attention to the fact that "France would be the only country in the world where the free delivery practiced by Amazon would be declared illegal" and invites customers to sign an online petition stating their support of free shipping.

While Amazon's fight may seem noble, the current value of the fine is fixed for thirty days only. At that time, it will be "adjusted" ... and likely in an upward direction.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
f the effing French
By anotherdude on 1/18/2008 12:26:52 PM , Rating: 3
nuff said




RE: f the effing French
By mcnabney on 1/18/2008 12:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Typical European competitive actions. If you can't beat foreign competition, fine them.


RE: f the effing French
By cochy on 1/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: f the effing French
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/18/2008 12:58:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The same law applies to all companies operating in France from what this article says. So it's not about foreign competition.

It sort of does though. The law states that a place cannot sell books on a loss leader. This typically means less than MSRP or at least less than what everyone else is selling at.

Maybe the rules are different in France -- here in the U.S. selling things at below cost is considered predatory pricing on the macro.

Of course, there's also the argument that Amazon is not selling books below cost, and that the free shipping is factored into its business model. After seeing some of Amazon's warehouses, I'm pretty sure they're still making money even on the free shipping items. There's not a single person in there, it's all run by robots.

From the background I read, this really does scream "my local French bookstore can't compete, let's drum up a lawsuit based on an antiquated law."


RE: f the effing French
By BMFPitt on 1/18/2008 1:34:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Maybe the rules are different in France -- here in the U.S. selling things at below cost is considered predatory pricing on the macro.
Here in the US, the "French Booksellers Union" would be an illegal price-fixing monopoly.

Predatory pricing is usually considered as losing money in order to cause your competitors to lose more. Amazon makes money selling what they sell, they just have a more efficient business model.


RE: f the effing French
By Zelvek on 1/18/2008 3:00:41 PM , Rating: 5
Then how do you justify the MPAA and RIAA?


RE: f the effing French
By Ryanman on 1/18/2008 3:07:58 PM , Rating: 5
We don't. Everyone despises the MPAA and the RIAA and the vast majority of tech savvy users do eveything they can to hurt those organizations.


RE: f the effing French
By Zelvek on 1/18/2008 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
yet they are still legal entities in your own country making you no better.


RE: f the effing French
By Spuke on 1/18/2008 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
yet they are still legal entities in your own country making you no better.
Not the same thing. We didn't vote them into existence. You think we would voluntarily vote for organizations whose sole existence is to sue us?


RE: f the effing French
By Strunf on 1/18/2008 7:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
The "Bookselling association" in France is not mandatory, you may not be part of it if you so wish.

It's EXACTLY the same thing as RIAA, an organization that exist to "protect" the interest of its members.


RE: f the effing French
By BMFPitt on 1/19/2008 11:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "Bookselling association" in France is not mandatory, you may not be part of it if you so wish.
Really, now? You should probably let Amazon and the judge know they can just opt out, then.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "...making you no better."

Record companies freely choose to join the RIAA, and artists freely choose to sign with RIAA-affiliated bands. In the US, there are thousands of artists *not* with these

In France, however, you don't have the choice to not be affected by the Lang Law....even if both author and publisher wish not to be.


RE: f the effing French
By Strunf on 1/18/2008 7:59:11 PM , Rating: 1
OMG what a dumb anology...

In France you're not forced to be part of any association either... just like in the case of the RIAA if you so wish you can go all by yourself, however unions make it easier to protect yourself and that's why they exist.

"In France, however, you don't have the choice to not be affected by the Lang Law"
Lang Law is a law enacted by the government, if you guys in the US have the choice to be affected by a law or not, good for you but in most countries the law is the same for everyone.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 11:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "OMG what a dumb anology..."

Had you read the thread, you'd have seen you're agreeing with me; trying to draw an comparison between the Lang Law and the RIAA is indeed "dumb". The two are in no manner analogous.


RE: f the effing French
By JoeBanana on 1/19/2008 5:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
He was trying to make an anology between "bookselling association" and RIAA not RIAA and Lang Law.


RE: f the effing French
By B3an on 1/20/2008 6:47:17 AM , Rating: 4
Just give up. The vast majority of the people on here are americans. Whatever you say that points out something remotely bad about there country will fall on ignorant deaf ears and get rated down, while bad things about over countries will get rated up - as perfectly demonstrated. You cant get through to these xenophobic people that think they're are above everyone else.


RE: f the effing French
By theapparition on 1/21/2008 7:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The vast majority of the people on here are americans.

Yes they are. And most americans have pride in their country, just as you have in yours. But don't dismiss other's opinions. For all it's faults, the US is still looked at as THE model of democracy. That can't be disputed.

quote:
Whatever you say that points out something remotely bad about there country will fall on ignorant deaf ears and get rated down, while bad things about over countries will get rated up - as perfectly demonstrated.

Whenever I see a law that limits my selection, adds inconvience, and increases my cost, I'm going to fight against it. Doesn't matter what country your from, you should be able to see that. If for some reason, I want to support the local bookstore, since they provide better service or ammenities, that is my choice. Not one for the government to force on me, reguardless if that law was in the US or France. It just so happens this law is French, and as such, they should be taken to task for it.

quote:
You cant get through to these xenophobic people that think they're are above everyone else.

Your talking about the French, right?
I don't know even where to begin, but no other EU country has passed as many laws requiring French quotas on everything from TV, radio, movies, media, and even food content. In the US, there are plenty of stations that broadcast completely in Spanish. My cable company offers over 200 channels in languges other than "English". There are pleny of foreign cars on the road, and our trade deficit speaks volumes on to our lack of xenophobia.


RE: f the effing French
By frobizzle on 1/21/2008 10:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
no other EU country has passed as many laws requiring French quotas on everything from TV, radio, movies, media, and even food content.

That's absolutely true so what is the problem with your point? Perhaps the French government is making an effort at protecting their citizen's jobs by limiting the influx of foreign goods? How is that so bad? Maybe if the morons in Washington took half as much interest in trying to preserve American jobs, there wouldn't be this dependence on China! You want to argue NAFTA is a good thing? Maybe for Mexico it is, maybe for the greedy US corporations it is but for the American citizens out of a job, NAFTA (and all the other so-called free trade agreements) is a tragedy!

Before you start dissing me, understand I am an American but totally fed up with the way our government is constantly selling out its people!

(Okay...let the mod-down begin! LOL!)


RE: f the effing French
By rcc on 1/21/2008 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 1
That's really quite funny. If an American hints at anything that doesn't support a "global" economy he/she/it gets roasted. Now you're bitching at them for the opposite. Whatever. : )

As far as NAFTA and China go? Ask the Dems, they dun it.


RE: f the effing French
By mindless1 on 1/21/2008 10:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you are only referring to crowds on certain websites, because in my experience it is usually the opposite that many Americans do support a non-global economy (when it comes to losing jobs, but then back to a global one when they go to Walmart to get their cheap Chinese made goods).


RE: f the effing French
By BMFPitt on 1/18/2008 3:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then how do you justify the MPAA and RIAA?
With millions in bri...campaign contributions.

But seriously, the equivalent would be the MPAA forcing Best Buy to sell at no less than 95% of the list price (I believe this is still $35 per DVD.)


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 1:43:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "From the background I read, this really does scream "my local French bookstore can't compete, let's drum up a lawsuit based on an antiquated law"

France's Lang Law was originally passed in 1981 for just that reason: to protect French bookstores from competition from large international Supermarket chains that were just beginning to offer discounted books. Rather than being designed specifically against foreign competition, it's more intended as a punishment for success-- a clear theme in French legislation.

Interestingly enough, one of the original justifications for the law was that Supermarkets could offer only a limited number of books, and thus it was needed to "protect consumer access" to a variety of books. Now we see the law being used to hinder the vendors with by far the largest selection of books: Internet vendors.

Faites attention ce que vous souhaitez...


RE: f the effing French
By Oregonian2 on 1/18/2008 1:47:42 PM , Rating: 5
In France, the bookshop around the corner would have survived the coming of Fox Books.

:-)


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 2:00:50 PM , Rating: 5
I also want to point out France is the same nation that, in 1996, passed a law to shut down radio stations which were primarily playing American rock music. It requires 60% of the content played to be European, and 40% to be directly in French.

France also has a similar quota on French films shown in theatres.


RE: f the effing French
By misuspita on 1/18/2008 5:10:13 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think that the law stating that X% airplay should be in own language or European music is a bad thing.

I live in another country, but here (Romania) the law is the same. And I like it. Because the radio is not what it used to be. Music from the people for the people. Independent stations airing whatever the DJ's thought it's good. Scratch that. Nowadays, after the Networks came in and bought everything, all we listen to the radio is the saaaaame bull**** over and over again. 10 songs in "heavy-rotation". All day. Every station. Only the little ones play something different, but they do not have coverage or a network to be heard on the road. And since all the networks are foreign, if it weren't the law, all day I'd hear only Rihanna, 50 Cent , Timbaland, etc... or whatever artist the networks "promote". Mostly from USA. NOT Romanian! I don't have anything with said artists or with the fact they're from the States. I'm sure I would actually love to hear them if they wouldn't suffocate us every freakin' hour, every freakin' day. So actually the law here does good, protects romanian artists and also let people hear something else. Sometimes, that is...

So, yeah, it's a protectionist measure, from the Music monopolies that came and bought the radio in my country. :)


RE: f the effing French
By PitViper007 on 1/19/2008 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 3
It's not really different here in the US. A vast majority of radio stations here are owned by one company (Clear Channel) and they've limited the music played to basically the top 40 of whatever genre that station happens to play. It's a big reason I don't listen to the radio much any more.


RE: f the effing French
By theapparition on 1/21/2008 7:34:07 AM , Rating: 3
It doesn't work that way.
People think that companies somehow "force" their products and will upon the consumers. By playing "american" music, you are somehow holding "Romanian" music down? Not true.

Radio station play what they want for ratings. Ratings bring in advertising revenue, which means money. How do they get ratings? They attract listeners. If listeners want that american top 40 crap, then so be it. They'll play whatever is in demand to get those ratings. If you don't like what their playing, you switch to a station you do. The Romanian people have spoken, and by majority (but for government quota) prefer top 40 repetitous junk. So you've noone to blame but your own people for what they choose to listen to.

It is no different here in the US. American Idol is the #1 TV program. I can't stand it, and think the whole thing is a joke (BTW, american idol is based on a british show--and they call the US xenophobes!). As much as I dislike it, it is vastly popular, and what is popular sells. Period.


RE: f the effing French
By Adonlude on 1/18/2008 6:33:17 PM , Rating: 5
Hell, I wouldn't mind that law in America! Give me 1% or less spanish radio and TV stations please.


RE: f the effing French
By Polynikes on 1/18/2008 2:33:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The 1981 Lang Law in France prohibits several type of discounts on books, including "loss leaders" -- selling a book below cost -- and offering a discount of more than 5% off the list price.

That made me throw up in my mouth a little. Wow. I am so glad I'm living in a country with proper freedom (including a much more free market). God forbid someone sells an item below list price.


RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/2008 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
Slight correction... not below MSRP but below MAP (minimum advertised price).

In the case of french booksellers, this would equal MSRP*0.95 . In the case of manufacturers like Bose in the US, it is actually equal to MSRP.

In any case, laws like this shouldn't exist.


RE: f the effing French
By Christopher1 on 1/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 5
> "I assume you don't live in the US, cause the same thing happens here."

Oops-- Leegin vs. Kay's is an entirely different matter. The French law allows the government to mandate specific prices. Break the law, and you can face government-imposed fines or even potentially jail time.

The Leegin decision, on the other hand, doesn't relate to any law at all. It merely allows the manufacturer of a product to set a minimum price. If a vendor chooses to sell for less, the manufacturer has the right to suspend future shipments. It's a contractual issue, not a criminal matter.

Sell a product for under the MSRP in the US, and the government can do nothing to you at all. One system respects liberty; the other does not.


RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/2008 3:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, you're saying that the French government decides the price of the books? Sorry, but that's just too funny.

Also, whether this is a contractual or criminal matter makes no difference to the consumer. The net effect is the same.

This problem occurs in the US, and it occurs in France (and a lot of other countries too).


RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/2008 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 1
Oops, I thought you said decides instead of mandates.

Well... in the case of "mandating", it is no different than the US "mandating" the price via contractual law. The problem is that such extensions to contractual law should never exist in the first place, and they really are no different than the French law in the case of the bookseller union.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 3:32:46 PM , Rating: 3
> "it is no different than the US "mandating" the price via contractual law."

Of course it is. You sell something, you "mandate" the price it's sold at. That's freedom. When the government mandates the price, that's socialism.

In the US, some *other* person or company can decide not to follow that pricing structure, and sell for less. In France, it cannot.

Only the government can mandate laws, and therefore only a government can restrict freedom. Despite the Leegin case, there is no "minimum legal price" for clothing in the US....thousands of other manufacturers sell for less.


RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/2008 3:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
Your comparison makes no sense.

Take Bose speakers for example (I'm using them cause I'm not familiar with specific clothing brands). When Bose sets a price, retailers cannot sell for less. Sure, there are other speaker manufacturers, but it doesn't change the fact that all Bose speakers with model number XYZ must sell for price ABC.

It is exactly the same with the French and books. If the price of book ABC is XYZ, that book cannot be sold for less than 95% of the XYZ price. Sure, there may be other books at the lower price, but you still cannot buy book ABC for less.

Just as you say that there is no minimum legal price for clothing in the US, there is no minimum legal price for books in france either. It is all based off of MSRP.


RE: f the effing French
By straycat74 on 1/18/2008 3:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you missed the point between Government and a corporation.


RE: f the effing French
By BMFPitt on 1/18/2008 3:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is exactly the same with the French and books. If the price of book ABC is XYZ, that book cannot be sold for less than 95% of the XYZ price. Sure, there may be other books at the lower price, but you still cannot buy book ABC for less.
But in the US it's Bose that is making these demands. Bose doing it only makes business better for Onkyo. In the case of French books, Radio Shack and Tweeter get together to have the government force everyone else to have their same inflated prices.


RE: f the effing French
By Murst on 1/18/2008 4:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in the US it's Bose that is making these demands. Bose doing it only makes business better for Onkyo. In the case of French books, Radio Shack and Tweeter get together to have the government force everyone else to have their same inflated prices.

Not so.

Bose would still be forcing Radio Shack, Tweeter, and everyone else to have inflated prices, just as they do now. There is really absolutely no difference between the effects of the laws.

The only difference is in the practice of these laws. Whereas in the US it is only a few manufacturers that impose minimum prices, all books in France have a minimum price.

However, the fundamentals in the legal system allow for both of these to take place, and they're both wrong. There should not be anything that prevents a retailer from selling a product that they bought from a manufacturer (at least on the basis of price). That is true capitalism. Anything else where the minimum price is enforced is definetally not capitalistic behavior.


RE: f the effing French
By pomaikai on 1/18/2008 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
There is a huge difference. This has nothing to do with fixing the price of one item or company. They are fixing the lowest price on everything. Nothing can drop below 95% MSRP. Thats like a government saying you cannot offer have a sale more than 5% off any speaker, not just bose.

This is nothing like the RIAA or MPAA. When was the last time you seen a sale cap on CD or DVD in the US.

Every country has screwed up laws. Now that everything is international we can all see that everyone is just as screwed up as we are.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 5:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "Bose would still be forcing Radio Shack, Tweeter, and everyone else to have inflated prices, just as they do now. There is really absolutely no difference between the effects of the laws."

Bose can only affect the price of Bose products. They could have the same effect simply by raising the price they charge the retailer. And their effect on other products would still be zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

There is a vast difference in the two cases which everyone but you seems to realize. A company cannot "force" another to set a specific price. In your example, Bose can't put Tweeter executives in jail for undercutting prices...all they can do is exercise their own freedom by denying to sell to Tweeter in the future.


RE: f the effing French
By ElFenix on 1/18/2008 6:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
to be fair, the book publisher sets the price, and then book retailers can't set a price below 95% of that price.

the crucial difference between a US contract action for violating MAP and the french law is that only the parties to the contract can institute a breach of contract action. that is, only Bose can sue its retailers for violating the MAP provision that the retailer agreed to. retailers often do sell before the MAP, just take a look at any fry's ad, you'll commonly see a 'Price before discount.'

the french law seems to allow anyone to complain, or the government to initiate the action itself.

furthermore, the leegin case does not say that all MAP restrictions are legal. it says that MAP restrictions will be analyzed under a 'rule of reason' test to determine if they violate anti-trust laws. MAP restrictions could still be found to be illegal. it could be that there is no situation where they are legal, just that the lawyers have to make more arguments than the per se illegality of the previous regime.


RE: f the effing French
By PitViper007 on 1/19/2008 11:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
Of course there's a difference. With Bose determining the price of their products, that price ONLY affects Bose products. With the French law, THE ENTIRE BOOK INDUSTRY is affected. Pretty straight forward to me.


RE: f the effing French
By mindless1 on 1/21/2008 10:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
There have been exceptions in the US, like milk prices.


RE: f the effing French
By Polynikes on 1/21/2008 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see fines being levied by the government when Amazon.com sells items below MSRP (or MAP, or whatever it is) in the US. There is a huge difference between what's happening here and what's happening in France.


RE: f the effing French
By omnicronx on 1/18/2008 2:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sort of does though. The law states that a place cannot sell books on a loss leader. This typically means less than MSRP or at least less than what everyone else is selling at.
Correct me if I am wrong, but would having to translate the books into french, allow these french companies to set the MRSPS as they please?
Whats stopping them from knowingly setting MSRP's higher with full knowledge that other non french companies won't be able to use their normal business strategies.

If amazon was taking a loss on these books, why would they shrug off the fines and continue to keep selling books with free shipping.


RE: f the effing French
By eye smite on 1/18/2008 1:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
I'm kinda with the first guy on this one. Just for grins, amazon should make all books bought and sent to France be published in the german language. Just to set a fire under their pants and piss them off. It's ok for them to act chilidish and no one really complains or holds them accountable, but if america does something they don't like, the whole EU gets up in arms about it. So why not, piss em off, it's healthy.


RE: f the effing French
By ZoZo on 1/18/2008 1:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
If Amazon does that, everyone will just turn to FNAC or Alapage. So they can try, it won't matter much.


RE: f the effing French
By Spuke on 1/18/2008 2:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Amazon does that, everyone will just turn to FNAC or Alapage. So they can try, it won't matter much.
If it doesn't matter, why bother to "compete" in that type of environment? If the French people prefer smaller bookstores, let them have the smaller bookstores.

I honestly think it's a waste of time and resources for an American company to do business in ANY country that you are not welcome.


RE: f the effing French
By ZoZo on 1/18/2008 2:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
FNAC and Alapage are not smaller bookstores, they are large online retailers, and are direct competitors of Amazon.


RE: f the effing French
By Spuke on 1/18/2008 2:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the correction but it really doesn't matter. It's still an environment hostile to foreign business and I think it's retarded for Amazon to continue to do business there.


RE: f the effing French
By Spuke on 1/18/2008 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Since I got a one does that mean that we SHOULD continue to do business in hostile environments?


RE: f the effing French
By saiga6360 on 1/18/2008 3:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
If it is profitable? Sure.


RE: f the effing French
By pomaikai on 1/18/2008 5:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hostile would mean that everyone but amazon can sell books under 5% MSRP, but this law applies to all books being sold in France. Nothing is hostile, it just keeps amazon from offering cheaper books than anyone else. All there doing is benefiting the company and screwing the consumer. Sounds like it could actually pass as a US law. Hopefully MPAA and RIAA dont hear about this.

The dumb part is that shipping has nothing to do with the price of a book. MSRP is MSRP, Shipping is an added charge at checkout. Shipping should not be in the equation for 95% of MSRP.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 4
> "Nothing is hostile, it just keeps amazon from offering cheaper books than anyone else."

You're missing part of the picture. At equal price points, Amazon operates at a competitive disadvantage to brick-and-mortar stores. After all, getting the book instantly, without shipping charges, and no wait is better than drumming your fingers for three days waiting on the postman.

Amazon can only counter that convenience with a lower price. When lower prices are illegalized, it certainly is hostile to Amazon.


RE: f the effing French
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
FNAC sells the majority of its product in brick and mortar stores.

Alapage was, until a couple of years ago, majority owned by the French government, which makes it a rather special case.


RE: f the effing French
By BMFPitt on 1/18/2008 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the French people prefer smaller bookstores, let them have the smaller bookstores.
I suspect that your average Frenchman supports this as much as your average American supports farm subsidies.

It's just that over there a larger percentage of the population gets a kickback for their particular industry, so they won't throw the bums out for doing things like this. Here in America, we don't throw the bums out who give out corporate welfare because we're just plain apathetic.


RE: f the effing French
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/18/2008 1:11:06 PM , Rating: 1
If thats the way they want to run their country, so be it.

But I am sick and tired hearing people from Europe cry about having to pay higher prices than other parts of the world.


RE: f the effing French
By jajig on 1/18/2008 1:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone complains about having to pay high prices. If my retail experience is anything to go by those that pay the lowest prices complain the most.

I'm sure Amazons French customers aren't the ones complaining about free shipping too.


RE: f the effing French
By jtesoro on 1/18/2008 11:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'm taking the same stance as you on this one.

If the French government/people want to remake France into a backward nation, let them. "Survival of the fittest" applies to countries as well. If they become irrelevant and drop off the map with their policies, it's their problem.


Not worried
By Sylar on 1/18/2008 12:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Won't be long until the French surrender yet again. viva le free shipping.




RE: Not worried
By mal1 on 1/18/2008 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Lol...Google "french military victories" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky. Or if that's too much work:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html


RE: Not worried
By ZoZo on 1/18/2008 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 6
"viva" is Italian. It's "vive" in French.


RE: Not worried
By thornburg on 1/18/2008 3:03:12 PM , Rating: 3
Um, nice comment... but how exactly is it a six?


RE: Not worried
By cochy on 1/18/2008 4:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
I might be completely crazy, but for some reason I remember the exact same post a few months ago that also got a 6. Maybe I'm nuts, it is Friday afternoon.


RE: Not worried
By mikefarinha on 1/18/2008 4:56:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Um, nice comment... but how exactly is it a six?


Because the French government mandated that French language which is misrepresented must be corrected and highlighted or face a fine.


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
If it wasn't for the French, possibly the United States would not even exist. Ever heard of the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay? A decisive and very important French victory in the American Revolutionary War. And the total surrender of France in World War II was on paper only, in practice the Free French Forces continued to fight Nazi Germany until the end of the war.


RE: Not worried
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Ever heard of the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay? A decisive and very important French victory in the American Revolutionary War."

We returned that favor, with interest, in 1944:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Paris


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
With 'we' I assume you mean the allies as a whole, not just the American troops? Implying that "America saved Europe" is not being entirely truthful. Americans take far too often all the credit for the liberation of Europe, and forget, or ignore, the fact that many other countries fought the Nazis. Understand me well, American involvement was incredibly important, but American involvement alone did not result in the fall of Nazi Germany. The failure of Operation Barbarossa was even more important, and ultimately ended the war a couple years later.


RE: Not worried
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 3:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Don't attempt to change the subject. Certainly the US involvement in the liberation of France was more significant-- and more current-- than the French involvement in the Revolutionary War.

In any case, your implication that criticism of contemporary French policies are out of line because of actions taken three centuries earlier is fatuous, to say the least.


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't attempt to change the subject. Certainly the US involvement in the liberation of France was more significant-- and more current-- than the French involvement in the Revolutionary War.
More current, yes. More significant? That's debatable. Without French involvement in the American Revolutionary War, and by altering history that much, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps we would never have seen the rise of Nazi Germany.

quote:
In any case, your implication that criticism of contemporary French policies are out of line because of actions taken three centuries earlier is fatuous, to say the least.
I'm not saying that criticism of current French policies is out of line, on the contrary, I disagree with the prohibiting of free shipping myself. My response was aimed at the previous poster saying "Won't be long until the French surrender yet again".


RE: Not worried
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2008 5:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "and by altering history that much, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps we would never have seen the rise of Nazi Germany."

So now comes a veiled insinuation that colonial America may have been responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party?

Sorry, but you just slipped off the deep into into puerile hyperbole.


RE: Not worried
By osalcido on 1/18/2008 5:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what he said at all


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So now comes a veiled insinuation that colonial America may have been responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party?
You're taking this hypothetical discussion waaaay too seriously. But to answer your hypothetical question, no, not responsible, because a country is not responsible for anything by merely existing, a country is only responsible for its (intentional) actions.


RE: Not worried
By mal1 on 1/18/2008 3:02:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ever heard of the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay? A decisive and very important French victory in the American Revolutionary War.


That would be the second rule of French warfare:

"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 4:05:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
Paradox. How can America fight, if it doesn't exist? =)


RE: Not worried
By JustTom on 1/18/2008 4:19:57 PM , Rating: 1
That assumes there would be no United States if France had not intervened, something impossible to prove one way or the other.


RE: Not worried
By Qi on 1/18/2008 4:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That assumes there would be no United States if France had not intervened, something impossible to prove one way or the other.
Nope, I'm saying that the United Stated did not exist when the French were fighting in the American Revolutionary War. The Battle of the Chesapeake Bay took place in 1781, before the formal recognition of the United States in 1783.


RE: Not worried
By pomaikai on 1/18/2008 5:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
blah blah blah blah. If it was not for the first man and woman none of us would be here.

Get over it. You sound like children.


RE: Not worried
By rcc on 1/21/2008 2:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
As with most countries, we don't really care when someone else recognized us, it was a country formally in 1776, informally for longer.

And we honor the French for their assistance, but never doubt that the country would have formed and survived anyway. It would, however, certainly have taken longer.

No doubt the French Royalists of the time would have stayed well away from the Americas if they knew what the result of the US's example would have been for them in the next century.


No one says how "free" is to free.
By Mr Perfect on 1/18/2008 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 3
If the law simply says shipping can't be free, then couldn't they satisfy the law by charging a ridiculously low shipping rate? Instead of free shipping, offer one cent shipping(or whatever the French equivalent is).




RE: No one says how "free" is to free.
By jbzx86 on 1/18/2008 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 1
Hah, why is France always trying to be the first to do the dumbest crap?


RE: No one says how "free" is to free.
By amanojaku on 1/18/2008 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. France isn't the only country with this type of law. In theory it's a nice idea because it would protect small businesses, but the reality is quite different.

Let's say a book is sold by both Amazon and a small bookstore. Amazon, being a large global entity, can order a million books at a rate of 70% of the book's cover value (I'm making up numbers here.) The small bookstore, with only one location, gets 100 books at a rate of 90%. Amazon pays less per book, but the aggregate deal yields more profit. As a result of the reduced rate Amazon can sell that same book at 90% of the cover price while the small bookstore can at best get away with 95%. Which one are you going to buy? Obviously, Amazon's if shipping is free. Amazon makes a 20% profit and has more books to sell, while the bookstore gets 5% and runs out quickly.

By setting a flat price sellers cannot compete on price and are forced to compete in areas like customer service, availability, etc... The problem is that Amazon will still win considering their quantity discount. I see no reason why this law protects the little guy. France, wake up and smell the café (Français for coffee.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lang_Law


RE: No one says how "free" is to free.
By mcnabney on 1/18/2008 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
You need to re-read your economics book.

There are three aspects to a product:

Quality
Price
Service

Pick two.

A small bookseller does well with quality and service, but suffers on price. Amazon can deliver the price, but since there is no person to interact with they have trouble with providing personal customer service.


By cochy on 1/18/2008 4:31:11 PM , Rating: 2