Harvard Bookstore Claims Book Prices Are Copyrighted
from the you-can-claim-it,-doesn't-mean-it's-true dept
A few years ago, we had a story about a store that was kicking people out if they caught them comparison shopping via a mobile device. Obviously, a store can kick out anyone they want to, but perhaps a better approach is to actually focus on better serving the customer so that when they're done comparison shopping, they still want to buy from you (either because you have the best price, or you offer some additional convenience or service they can't get elsewhere). This issue seems to be coming up again, but with a new twist. alex writes in to let us know that the bookstore at Harvard is kicking people out for taking too many notes about pricing (via Boing Boing). When confronted about this, the store's president actually claimed that book prices were the store's "intellectual property." Of course, just because you say something is your intellectual property, it doesn't mean it is. Unfortunately for the bookstore, the law is pretty clear that you can't copyright facts -- and whether the bookstore likes it or not, prices are facts. The store certainly has the right to refuse service to anyone, but that doesn't mean that it's smart for business or that copying down prices infringes on any kind of intellectual property. Update: To clarify, there are apparently a few different bookstores at Harvard. This particular one is the Harvard Coop, run by Barnes & Noble and the University. There is another bookstore, called The Harvard Book Store that is independent and has nothing to do with this story.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, facts
Companies: barnes and noble, harvard
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not quite
If you mean legally, that's not quite true, at least not in the US. There are several reasons for which it is illegal to kick someone out. For instance, a store cannot decide who it wants to do business with on the basis of race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite
But more to the point, stores don't need a reason. They are private property, and the owners / authorized agents of the owner can decide at any time that someone needs to leave, for no reason at all. That is why you will often see signs posted in stores stating that "This establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone". Those signs aren't really necessary legally, but they make court visits go more quickly. Sure it's bad for business, but it's not illegal by any means. As long as you are smart enough to not specify your reasoning, there's nothing that the other person can do, other than drain resources by forcing one to fight unprovable claims in court.
Furthermore, I don't know of any federal anti-discrimination law that applies to commerce. As far I know, those only (and originally) apply to employment, and then were extended to education somewhat. A quick google just now also did not turn up anything to support the idea that refusing to do business with someone because of their race is illegal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not quite
Good luck trying to convince a court that you had no reason.
That is why you will often see signs posted in stores stating that "This establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone".
As far as I know, such signs are usually posted by self-important proprietors to try to intimidate people and make themselves feel important and carry no legal weight what so ever.
As long as you are smart enough to not specify your reasoning, there's nothing that the other person can do, other than drain resources by forcing one to fight unprovable claims in court.
Not true. Many discrimination cases have been brought on the basis of behavior and patterns despite the defendants verbal denials. The laws against discrimination outlaw the discriminatory act whether the actor admits to it or not.
Furthermore, I don't know of any federal anti-discrimination law that applies to commerce. As far I know, those only (and originally) apply to employment, and then were extended to education somewhat. A quick google just now also did not turn up anything to support the idea that refusing to do business with someone because of their race is illegal...
Wow. That would make it perfectly legal for bus companies to make blacks ride in the back. I think you're somehow stuck in some kind of 1950's time warp. If you want to Google, then try "Rosa Parks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not quite
"Wow. That would make it perfectly legal for bus companies to make blacks ride in the back."
As far as the bus thing goes. Thats a public service... Big difference. If you opened a private shop however and at any given point wanted to throw someone out just for the fun of it... legally you could.
"As far as I know, such signs are usually posted by self-important proprietors to try to intimidate people and make themselves feel important and carry no legal weight what so ever."
As far as those signs go.. true they may not legally hold alot of weight, but the mere fact that it is there is like a warning label. It lets the customer being thrown out know they can do it. Like the previous poster mentioned, the point is to avoid them taking a frivilous lawsuit to court letting them know up front that they can legally kick you out.
"Not true. Many discrimination cases have been brought on the basis of behavior and patterns despite the defendants verbal denials. The laws against discrimination outlaw the discriminatory act whether the actor admits to it or not."
The previosu poster was saying if you did it once. Yes if you make a habit of doing it and form a pattern they can link to discriminating against a specific, sex, race, religion etc... you could make a case but that is very hard to do and if you never specify your reason you can always concoct one that makes it seem like you had legitimate reason for doing it....again I believe that is all tied to employement, as far as business goes even if you can make a pattern out of it... it is the right of the private business owner to run their business as they see fit... even if its morally (but not legally) discriminitory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite
Actually, the previous poster said no such thing. Now you're just plain lying so there's really not much point in talking or listening to you any more. In fact, you're whole argument boils down to claiming that you can get away with discrimination by lying about it. That's not surprising coming from a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite
f you mean legally, that's not quite true, at least not in the US.
It's not quite false either. There's a big misunderstanding in the US that discrimination is illegal in the US. It is in fact, not illegal all the time.
You can have a private members only business and you can discriminate all you want for whatever dumb reason you want(see private golf clubs etc). You just can't be a business that serves the public and then discrimnate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation(some times).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh sure, but prove thats why they kicked someone out..
you can pretty much throw someone out for any reason under the sun as long as you don't show a habit of discrimination based on race creed sex or religion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Take care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Given it would be a poor business practice to deny service to say people under the age of 30. Or maybe the uppity stores on Rodeo DR not selling to anyone with an income of less then six/seven figures, but isn't that their freedom too?
As for comparison shopping, I use to work for a national department store (Target), my job was to take a palm pilot to the other department stores (Walmart/Kmart) and get all their prices. I knew if I was caught they would throw me out. They knew if we caught their "shoppers" they would be thrown out. As far as I know this practice is still in effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
I read once in the LA Times about a clothing store on Rodeo Drive that would send a limo to your house to pick you up, but that was only after they pulled your credit report, to make sure you could actually afford the clothes they were selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
Only if you refused to leave when they asked you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
That's the purpose of the sign, to give notice that you are not welcome there if you do that. No further notice is need at that point. The same as if you got caught on property with posted no-trespassing signs, they don't have to then ask you to leave in addition to the signs before pressing charges. At least in my state anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
If the kids at Harvard want to see a rude business owner, they should come down to NYC and go to a Korean Green Grocery and walk around for 5 minutes without buying anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will backfire
Or, just realize the campus bookstore is hostile toward students trying to save money and boycott them altogether. Except for local packets and professor-produced textbooks, there is almost nothing unavailable online somewhere cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This will backfire
> can't get the ISBN from your syllabus
> or professor.
Or from Amazon. All you need is the title and author and look it up on Amazon. They provide ISBNs in their listings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This will backfire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They weren't kicking people out!
Interesting how you can link to your previous item and claim it was a report about "kicking people out" when in fact you had to back down from that original claim. The original item clearly ends with the admission:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They weren't kicking people out!
The original story was based on what a single store had started doing. The update was that the corporate parent later said that there was no corporate policy towards doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the you-can-claim-it,-doesn't-mean-it's-true
Is that another one from the you-can-claim-it,-doesn't-mean-it's-true dept? Its a dangerous claim that has caused many problems historically.
How about "A store can prohibit almost any behavior on it's premises" instead? I say "almost" because even that probably has limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refusing Service
The laws that restrict businesses from refusing service to people of race/religion/sex/handicap apply only to businesses that receive federal funds in one way or another. If your business touches federal money in any way those laws apply to you and you are liable to get sued if someone knows what they are doing when they get refused service.
If you are a private business owner on your private land you do have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you are a private business owner on your own private land you can put up signs that say "No Niggers or Fags or 'Dirga Dirgas' allowed" and the law can't do a thing about it. Of course you will probably get rocks through your windows every day but it's completely within your right to do so.
There is a major law of note that does not allow just ANY private business to do the above. If your business would fall under the category of providing "public accommodation" then you MAY NOT discriminate based on race, color, religion or natural origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 explicitly protects those categories. Any restaurant falls under this category, things like private clubs do not. Even if a restaurant is a private business on private property it is sill considered a place of "public accommodation" and therefore falls under the restrictions of the Civil Rights Act of 1963.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refusing Service
Not if you're dealing with the public. See US Code TITLE 42. Being on private land doesn't put one above the law either.
Uh huh. The discussion was of "stores" in general, not private clubs or homes. US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 126 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 12181 specifically includes "a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment" as "public accommodations". That pretty much covers "stores", doesn't it? Clear enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refusing Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusing Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusing Service
qz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusing Service
Even if that was true (and it isn't) the Coop is neither on campus nor restricted to students enrolled at the college. It's across the street from Harvard, and it's open to the public. It was a much better place before they handed it over to Barnes & Noble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusing Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refusing Service
> refusing service to people of race/religion/
> sex/handicap apply only to businesses that
> receive federal funds in one way or another.
> If your business touches federal money in any
> way those laws apply to you
No, that's the test for applying antidiscrimination laws to colleges and universities. The test for a commercial business is whether its business affects interstate commerce or not. And since the Supreme Court essentially ruled in the New Deal era case Wickard v. Filburn that a person's mere existence affects interstate commerce, there's virtually no way one could run a business and not meet that standard in today's world. The end result is that antidiscrimination laws apply to *all* businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything Related To Harvard......
Harvard's motto: "Do as I say, not as I do"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Spoken like a true bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fine then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey You People Guessing About Legal Things
It in fact is illegal to refuse service by discrimination. Of course this is difficult to prove, but it is still illegal. Look up the gosh darn Federal Civil Rights Act.
And to answer this:
No. And you are crazy if you think Wal-Mart doesn't engage in the same practices. All they can do is give you the boot. If you refuse to leave that's another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serving Customers vs Controlling Customers
When will businesses realize that they are in the business of serving customers not controlling customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the same with employment law, sure, a lot of people are employed under at will provisions, but does that stop people from taking shots at companies and winning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harvard Bookstore? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harvard Bookstore? I don't think so.
The Coop is run by BARNES & NOBLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harvard Bookstore? I don't think so.
The policies at the Coop are set by Barnes & Ignoble, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best bet is to just not shop there at all - Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
As for prices being facts the way these things change they are more philosophies. I buy a book at $50 3 months later it's worth $5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't he wasting my tax money when the fire department has to put out his building when it's on fire because of his discrimation or when we maintain the road leading to his business or when he calls the police when someone broke in his store? If on the other hand his store was on the center of his property without public access and he signed a letter saying that he would use no police, ems, fire social service, etc, and his store was open to invitation only customers, then I wouldn't have a problem with him doing what he wishes. Otherwise, he is using my tax money to discriminate.
What bigots don't understand is that laws like these protect ALL of us by having a country that is livable. Go ask anyone in the middle east or elsewhere that has discrimination as its norm and see how much easier it is to live in their world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all know...
How much could the discipline of mathematics have changed in 4 months? Most of these "new editions" are literally nothing more than the chapters being put in a new order, sample questions being changed, and new cover art.
After my second year I found an Edward McKay across town and never set foot in my campus bookstore again for textbooks. The problem is now that students have wised up and start shopping around for the best price campus bookstores are scared of the competition. This is copyright nonsense is just a smokescreen meant to add some legal weight to their own store policy of writing down prices.
Now let me ask this: Can't you get in legal trouble for claiming a false copyright? Not only do they not have said copyright but such a copyright does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really, if a clear pattern can be established that's all you need. By kicking out *every* disabled person that comes into a store a pattern would be established. Discrimination can be either explicit or implicit, in either case it is actionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And just think if "internet" stores played that kind of game. They would be decreasing in importance instead of gaining.
While brick and mortar business are losing business it's NOT just because of price, but also because of better customer service. Online stores are offering two way shipping, free shipping on returns, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We were never promised (and most of us would never want) "TRUE freedom" or maybe a better term is "total freedom", because your freedom stops when it interferes with mine.
The store owner that discriminates against teenagers wants his freedom to do so, but he wants to take away the freedom of a mob of teenagers from taking what they want from his store for free and leaving him dead.
So whose freedom is more important? Sure, we can allow people the "freedom" to discriminate based on race, but do we give that race the same freedom to riot and burn buildings?
Society is rules and concepts that by nature restrict certain "freedoms" in order to have order and better livability for all.
I would like the freedom to not work and steal for a living, but society in its wisdom as determined that stealing is not a “freedom” that we should uphold. For most people the same can be said for discrimination, otherwise we wouldn’t have laws against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are supposed to be smart kids, right?
Talking on your cell phone to a friend at home with a notepad.
Cell phone cameras.
Letter/number substitution cipher.
These are Harvard kids and they can't figure it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These are supposed to be smart kids, right?
These shops just want people to blindly believe they have the best value for the goods in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously I think we've gotten off topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No these are not supposed to be smart kids, they are mostly rich kids that there family get in. When you see the list of who graduated from there and Yale, smart isn't the first word that comes to mind.
They sprinkle in enough smart kids to help keep the scores up, but they are not the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry you did not enjoy your time at Brown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The odd thing is that the profits are divided up among all the members - who are students and alumni of Harvard and MIT. I wonder how much money I am losing for this policy?:)
But the bookstore itself is not private. In fact, it is teeming with tourists, albeit they don't often venture onto that floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coop, not Bookstore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least Brown can play football, but then again they are playing against daddy's boys in an "ivy (how sweet) league".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trespasing
Where are my civil rights in thsi case???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa
This is pretty outrageous. Campus bookstores (both university-affiliated and off-campus varieties) charge students more than they would pay if they were to find their books online. As this practice continues, more will seek their textbooks online.
If the brick-and-mortar bookstores want to remain competitive, they will have to adapt and hopefully lower their prices in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals aren't quite on board with that statement. CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994); CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999).
Then again, who expects journalists to know anything about the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or anonymous cowards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Info could be submitted by anyone, say last-years students or this years. Such info could include course name, instructor, book title, ISBN, author, store purchased from, price, date.
Hell, a simple Access database (or an open-source SQL database) would be plenty, and easy to implement.
Plus it would be GREAT to make such a statement to the powers-that-be at the publishing companies who are screwing students.
Additionally, they could publish cross-references for the editions. So when the 5th edition of the Calc book has moved chapter 3 to chapter 8, you could still use the previous edition.
What a nice solution without being adversarial. And since no profit is generated, it certainly would reduce whatever the legal implications would be (there may be some regarding chapter cross-referencing).
Now if this info is submitted as a paper every semester and becomes part of the libraries holdings, then publishing it on the web may be less legally problematic...
Thoughts anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bob's solution
In our case, however, this all went along swimmingly for the bookstore until they became fat and incompetent and thereby failed to order enough books (perhaps out of fear of losing money). Many of us rebelled (I went so far as to place a letter in my faculty file outlining in great detail how the bookstore had messed up my classes) and so far there have been no repercussions--but that's not to say there won't be any.
Whenever possible, I prefer to have mys students send a few bucks to Project Gutenberg (or some similar [shrinking] organization. If W W Norton (for example) thinks that they can continuously drop a paragraph, call it a new edition, give nothing for returning volumes and double the price the next soon-to-be worthless edition and do it for years and generations on end, this is about the only way one can fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
intellectual price property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refusing services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, now your gonna make them mad
Now what makes university/college book stores think, even for a second (many of which I will point out have strong liberal leanings and there usually support consumers rights), that they are going to stop, or should stop the students from comparison shopping. All they are doing is emboldening them. And that's the current state. So if we climb in the Way Forward Machine when electronic text books finally come on to the scene in full force, the students smugly strip out the DRM, get all their texts for free and call it payback. Nice. Way to go progressive forward thinking institutions of higher learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal vs. Civil
It seems to may (and I may be wrong) that people go to court and not the cops becuase it is a civil not criminal matter
I've heard of businesses and reputations being ruined because they denined service its not too often (if ever) you hear about a resturaunt owner being sent to prison for refusing to serve gays or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kick them out if you want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]