The story so far:
The Productivity Commission is investigating whether or under what conditions imported editions of English-language books should be allowed to compete with Australian editions. There are two main reasons for the inquiry having been set up: the suspicion that a broad range of overseas editions are not being made available to local consumers quickly enough; and a belief that overseas editions are or would be cheaper than local versions.
The commission is the government's free-market facilitator. It likes nothing more than sinking its teeth into anti-competitive or inefficient arrangements that impose undue burdens on consumers and taxpayers. So the mere fact that the book industry was referred to it by the government was a clear indication that, at the least, 'reform' of some kind was expected.
The commission knew next to nothing about the industry when it embarked on its 'study', but that didn't bother it. After all, it has all-purpose economic-analysis skills at its disposal, as well as bullshit detectors that have stood the test of time.
So the commission launched into its typical inquiry process by calling for public submissions. It received over 270; many of them were detailed and thoughtful, and presented evidence as well as arguments to make their case.
There were eloquent submissions from some of Australia's best-known and most successful authors. There were powerful submissions from publishers large and small. There were impressive submissions from industry bodies such as the Australian Booksellers Association, the Leading Edge group of independent booksellers, the Australian Publishers Association, and the Copyright Agency of Australia.
Over 95 per cent of the submissions opposed allowing parallel imports.
There was also overwhelming evidence that new books from the US and UK were readily available in Australia (although not as quickly as some booksellers would like). There was persuasive evidence that the prices of local editions were, in the main, cheaper than US editions (although this inevitably fluctuates with the $A-$USD exchange rate).
The only exception to the latter point came from the jerry-rigged 'Coalition for Cheaper Books', a front run by Dymocks, whose submission was distinguished by the way it sneered at publishers and used dodgy figures from a frictionless universe.
In other words, the basis for the inquiry was shown to be unwarranted. There is no withholding of new titles. There is no consumer rip-off.
As well, the submissions revealed that there is almost no constituency for the abandonment of territorial copyright or the introduction of parallel imports. The industry submissions made it clear that they regard the retention of territorial copyright as essential to the existence of Australian publishing. Even booksellers support this point-- around 65 per cent of booksellers by market share came out against the mooted reforms.
This was extremely inconvenient for the commission. It has a hatchet-job to do, but it doesn't have the evidence to justify wielding the weapon.
So what does it do? The commission has just produced a 'discussion draft' that tries to square the circle.
It concedes that the timely and wide availability of books is not a problem, and doesn't even argue that local editions are more expensive than imported books would be (the most it says on this subject is that the existing parallel-import restrictions 'put upward pressure on prices' -- whatever that means). It even buys the industry arguments about the central importance of territorial copyright.
Nevertheless, it's in the business of removing impediments to the operation of free markets. So its central draft recommendation is that territorial copyright should apply only for 12 months from the date of first publication of a book in Australia. 'Thereafter, it says, 'parallel importation should be freely permitted.' And after five years, the industry should be investigated again.
This has to be the most cynical, insouciant, and bizarre recommendation that the Productivity Commission has ever made. It pretends to retain territorial copyright while setting up conditions that would effectively destroy it -- and the Australian publishing industry.
Why? Because it is unworkable and absurd. How can publishers acquire rights to books from the United States that have a duration of one year? How can publishers sell rights to books by Australian authors, knowing that a year later they will face competition from the very editions they've licensed? Why would publishers market foreign-sourced books, bring authors out to tour, and maintain backlist stocks, if their rights could be taken away from them in one year?
Read my lips: copyright means copyright; investment needs certainty; commitment has to be reciprocal.
None of the submissions even hinted at such a reform. This is a crazy idea that has been made in Canberra, by a commission that has learned just enough about the book business to be dangerous.
You get a hint of the contortions that the commission is engaging in by looking at how it deals with a fundamental political problem. The United States and the United Kingdom are the countries where our parallel imports would come from, but they don't allow them in their own territories. This is not exactly the level playing field beloved of neo-liberal economists. The commission, sensitive to this potential impediment, is therefore carefully misleading about US and UK laws on this subject: it describes these two biggest English-language territories as 'also having parallel-import restrictions, although without time requirements for first publication'. This is a cute, elongated way to obscure the fact that the UK and UK don't limit parallel imports -- they prohibit them.
You also get a hint of what a manipulative game the commission is playing when you realise that it handed its interim report to selected media before posting it on its website, or alerting those individuals and organisations who have a direct stake in this debate, and who put so much thought and effort into writing submissions. The media were not allowed to show the document to 'third parties', or to seek comments from them, before writing their pieces. Accordingly, reports such as The Sydney Morning Herald's travelled around the country and the world, unencumbered by alternative points of view.
Who knows what the commission is really thinking? If it intends its central recommendation to be taken seriously, it's seriously deluded. If it has floated this for it to be punctured, consider it done. My worry is that what lies behind it is the naked intent that it's trying to hide.
Now we're all meant to continue this punch-and-judy show by making further submissions, before a final recommendation is made to government in May.
This is what passes for public policy-making in Australia in 2009.
Henry Rosenbloom