Big week for parallel imports last week:
(1) the US Supreme Court declared US law applies a doctrine of international exhaustion for copyright material
(2) Adobe, Apple and Microsoft fronted the Australian Parliament to explain why digital “things” cost so much more in Australia than elsewhere (i.e., the USA).
Apple’s defence said, amongst other things, it was the price it had to pay to the owners of Australian copyright – lovely chart here. Other reports (with more analysis) here and here (which may be challenges Apple’s explanation a bit for its own products).
That didn’t really work as an explanation for Adobe, which gets lambasted here.
Perhaps, just maybe, treating digital downloads as a single global market might lead to some lowering of prices, but the beauty of digital delivery (from the content owner’s perspective) is that you can set your price and the customer can buy or not.
Is there a link between (1) and (2)?
In his analysis, Prof. Goldman sets out a number of reasons why he thinks Kirtsaeng, while it may provide some good news in terms of lower prices, will have only a short term effect.
(I suppose we can trumpet the fact that our technological protection measure protections don’t extend to protecting region coding (here and here), although I do wonder how one would prove that was the purpose of the (ac)tpm.)