Slashdot Mirror
Wired Strongarms Subscribers?
yali writes "Wired has apparently been sinking to some rather low tactics with ex-subscribers. Namely, siccing a collections agency on them. If you let your subscription run out, you might get one of these. Nerds beware." From the article: "First came the usual letters warning McMillan, 36, that his subscription was up and that he wouldn't get any more copies of Wired unless he ponied up some cash. Then Wired's correspondence took a different turn. In May, McMillan received a letter from North Shore Agency, a leading debt-collection firm. The letter, headed 'Please Respond,' said he owed $12 for his Wired subscription."
cc: attorney general
cc: better business bureau
I'm not paying your fraudulent bill. Stop harassing me.
It is your responsibility to read your subscription agreement.
If you agree to a renewing subscription and do not pay it, you have only yourself to blame.
If you ignore any request for payment from any company even if its fraudulent you again have only yourself to blame if you do not challenge it.
Vermifax
Logout
What's new here? The fact that Wired (or rather, an agent of Wired) does this? People have received letters like this from other magazines for decades. I wouldn't be suprised if Wired has been sending these out for the last 10 years.
In all honesty, Wired probably doesn't manage their subscription service. They hire some 3rd party to do it for them.
I remember when PC Gamer, Next Generation, Boot, etc used to send these out all the friggen time--- TO CHILDREN!
I don't like it either. It's one reason I only have 2 magazine subscriptions. The other companies have pissed me off...
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
What are you gonna do then, sue them?
They face pissed-off people all the time and have the right tools ( legal tactics ) to handle them.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Now check out what North Shore Agency promisses their customers,
The limits of liability are galling:
What can you do if you believe a debt collector violated the law? You have the right to sue a collector in a state or federal court within one year from the date from the date the law was violated. If you win, you may recover money for the damages you suffered plus an additional amount up to $1000. Court costs and attorneys fees also can be recovered. A group of people also may sue a debt collector and recover money for damages up to $500,000, or one percent of the collectors net worth, whichever is less.
So how many thousands of dollars can be made by abusing thousands of people? Yet the limit is $500,000. Disgusting.
I'm sure I've only scraped the tip of the iceburg here. I've never been served one of these letters and am unaware of anything on my own credit record. Be aware however that bad credit will cost you dearly when you try to buy a car, house or anything else you can't buy outright. Is that teeth enough for you?
If this story is true, it's deplorable. Wired is not, I hope, so stupid as to burn the world's good will $12 at a time.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Ah, but you fail to grasp the true beauty of capitalism. I'd put out ads everywhere ATFFC products were sold saying:
"Bought a Bobbie's Bits product? Embarassed to cash the refund check? I'll pay you fifty cents on the dollar in cash for your refund cheque."
Then I'd take them into my bank by the hundred weight without a shred of self consciousness. Bring in one, you're a pervert. Bring in a thousand, you're a businessman.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Slipping in an autorenewal is sleazy and I won't consider subscribing after reading the story. I'm already fighting to cancel several autodeductions now. It's a game companies have come up with to make it as hard as possible to cancel. A percentage will give up or not notice and keep paying. I've beenb steadily cutting back on subscription or membership services for this very reason. They may overall come out ahead with these tactics but they are loosing customers as well. You can blame the customer but it's like saying the Nigerian scammers aren't at fault their victums are to blame. They may have been guilible but it doesn't make the behavior less criminal. It may not be a crime but it is underhanded.
You should have been told when you rented that there are penalties for returning late. Blockbuster is not being "greedy" by expecting you to conform to contract terms.
If you returned the movie on time, their charge is fraudulent (like Wired's). If you were late, suck it up and pay, or let them tarnish your credit.
You are not legally entitled to screw corporations just because they want to screw you.
I've seen a few people here claim something to the extent of "it's his own fault, he should have read the fine print" and personally I have to say that's garbage. We live in a society that is absolutely inundated with "fine print". You almost can't avoid it no matter where you go. Much of it is confusing and hard to understand. To make matter worse, a good portion is repetitive info reworded slightly from "fine print" to "fine print" thus worsening the signal to noise ratio drastically.
Since the vast majority of people aren't lawyers (and probably lack the reading comprehension skills needed to read at that level); we can't expect people to thoroughly read through every single EULA, magazine subscription "fine print", etc. in order to know if any of the many convoluted, "lawyer speak", terms will screw you over in the end. This leaves average people to do exactly what most people do right now which is to "gloss over" "fine print" and hope for the best. In this particular case, Wired magazine took what would otherwise be generic "fine print" and slipped in a term radically different from what is the generally accepted method for handling magazine subscriptions. I feel that this should be looked upon as, at least, unethical and should, quite possibly, be considered fraudulent behavior.
What it boils down to is that we need to decide what kind of society we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where the only way you can avoid being fleeced by big business is to be a lawyer who devotes a large portion of his/her free time to religiously reading the "fine print" to every single product or service he/she buys or signs up for no matter how small or trivial that product or service happens to be? The burden here should fall on the businesses providing the product/service in question.
Individuals have, for the most part, very limited resources (time, money, intellect, etc.) with which to comprehend threats posed by "fine print". If the burden were on the individual then that person would have to expend that effort for every example of "fine print" he/she is exposed to. In comparison, businesses usually have more resources with which to develop "fine print" that doesn't include clauses that aren't generally known and accepted by the community the product/service is being sold in. They only have to expend the overhead once for every product/service they release. Any significantly unusual terms should be listed in a manner that draws attention to it so that potential customers will notice it.
Unfortunately, at the present time, we seem to live in a society that allows large companies (like the ones in the software industry) to create complex licenses like software EULAs that contain clauses hidden away in the middle requiring you to hand over you first born son or all your worldly possessions in exchange for using their newest Operating System. We need to push our government to enact consumer protection laws that stop this kind of abuse.
-GameMater
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Ah yes....Slashdot: News for Nerds. People who Should NEVER Give Legal Advice.
Don't throw out the letter, file it away in case this ever amounts to anything. While I too believe it probably has no teeth, would you take advice from a guy on the street named "Driftingwalrus" who told you to ignore something like this? No offense meant to parent, but I just think you should avoid taking legal advice from someone who is quite obviously not a lawyer.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Then I shall just deposit it in the ATM and forgo the teller!
Not that I would get an ass vibrator, mind you.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
I have a policy of paying late fees only if/when I actually go back and rent another movie.
Well, see, there's the problem. Blockbuster doesn't have to respect your policies, but if you rent a movie from them you have to respect theirs.
Here's a bulletproof plan for Wired: if someone hasn't paid for their subscription, don't send any issues! How fucking difficult is that? It's not like Wired is loaning people money or something. There is absolutely NO need for ANY magazine to use a collection agency EVER. Besides, a magazine subscription card is not a binding debt contract anyway. Wired should have their asses sued big for this scam.
There is definite proscribed conduct for collection agencies, but you are absolutely right that they often disregard it. What they count on is that the debtor does not even look at any mail that he thinks is a bill. What amazes me is how people can just ignore bills and collection efforts. A friend does collection work for a home heating oil company. She sends numerous letters leading up to a summons to court. Often people don't respond to anything, until they get a summons. Then they act like idiots in front of the small claims magistrate. All these people had to do was dispute the debt before it got to court and they would be home free.
At first, things are cool. Magazines stop coming after the subscription expires, nothing happens for three months. Then I get the letter from a collection agency. I owe BYTE magazine $1.36 for "underpaying my subscription". Pay up or else.
I shit you not. $1.38. They went to a collection agency for a fucking $1.38.
This letter came at a particularly stressful point in my life, and I was in no mood for this shit. At the time, I did not really understand how collection agencies and the law worked, so I simply bypassed the collection agency, called up BYTE magazine directly, and majorly unloaded on their customer support. The poor girl that happened to answer my call must have been new, for by the end of it I swore she was almost in tears, telling me to forget all about it, sorry for the inconvenience, blah blah blah, have a nice day.
I never received anything more from them or had anything bad pop up on my credit report.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Wow, thats some impressive misinformation.
I agree that you should not pay the collections agency in most situations. It is usually better to pay the company that you actually owe money to. However there are many cases where you no longer owe the money to the original lender. You in fact owe it to the collection agency as they bought the bad debt from the original lender for pennies on the dollar.
On top of this, neither will get the far past due debt "nixed" from your credit report, it will still be on there and will still affect your credit score.
A while back someone called trying to get me to switch to Sprint and offered me a free mag subscruption if I did.
They had many diffrent publications to chouse from but the sales person was only intrested in having me subscribe to ESPN mag. I don't like sports and explained repeatedly I wasn't intrested in ESPN. I also wasn't intrested in changing my phone carrer. After being put on hold for about 30 minuts I hung up.
I never agreed to anything and certenly didn't agree to a subscription.
A year later I move and suddenly I'm receaving ESPN mag. I've forgotten the phone call. I just send it back with "Return to sender"
However famaly members keep pulling it out of the mail box and returnning them to me so they don't always get out.
Still for like 6 months I got a mag I wasn't intrested in never subscribed to.
Then I got a bill from a colection agentcy.
For a mag subscription to a mag I didn't want.
For the record the phone sales person didn't mention switching carrers. She just started with the free mag pitch and I went round and round with her on the fact that I don't like sports.
She also mentioned Wired but I already had a subscruption.
I don't actually exist.
So, just to be clear, your "legit question" is "They have people whose names sound middle eastern to me, isn't that a sign that they're supporting terrorists?"
/.," but you hope that anyone who doesn't see how "legit" your question is is in the next bombings.
And you don't want to "stir up SH*T on
Very nice.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Here's an idea to put a collar on them:
1) get together with as many other people you can find who are also recieving threatening letters from North Shore Agency. Use slashdot and google search to find these people.
2) Next find a lawyer who would be willing to file a Consumer Class Action suit against NSA for harassment and any other claims your lawyer can think of.
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Sorry, couldn't resist the in-joke. But I do seriously think contacting a lawyer on the possibility of bringing a Consumer Class Action suit against NSA just to shut them up is a good idea.
1- What the heck does this have to do with the article such that it was modded up in the first place?
2- If you indeed felt it necessary to post and applicable to the topic, you could have done it with a much less offensive tone.
There are quite a few gay slashdotters you know, who maybe do not appreciate the obligatory gay joke in the comments of every article.
I had a Wired subscription as well, and recently cancelled, however I can NOT believe how many freakin times I have recived a "bill" in the mail for another $40.00 CDN to continue my subscription. So I decided to call them up, and verbally cancelled and ensured that verbally it was cancelled. So it goes. Then I get another bill/invoice for $40.00 CDN, I phone them back and state, "I don't care whatever buttons you gotta punch to make it end up like this but, I dont want anything else, period, no offers, remove me from any lists I'm on, put your Privacy Flag on my account, and make sure my status is CANCELLED. Thank you."
I received one more card from them later on, stating everything was finally cancelled and have heard nothing since then. With this much hassle in cancelling your subscription I am *NEVER* ever re-subscribing to them again, besides, you can go to wired.com anyways, and just read everything thats in the magazine in full (yes - I've sat and compared the online version and the magazine version) - the only difference is the 70% of ads they plow into it and all their NEXFest promotional stuff.
I subscribed because the articles are very well written and researched, and thought I might support them a bit, but never again.
So, instead of just terminating the subscription as they said they would in the first letter, they got a collection agency to pay USD 12 up front? That's great. My answer would be something like:
Otherwise, it's just the same fraudulent scare tactic that seems to have become quite popular. Just don't give in as long as you have any proof that you're right (correspondence, conditions at the time of latest subscription renewal, etc.). Show the CA that they're being used in a criminal scheme and they'll get quite angry with their original customer.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
No, I can say for certain that retail banks want, no, need your business.
They may need my business, but they certainly don't show any sign of needing my happiness. Every change that a bank has made in the last thirty years appears scrupulously designed to annoy, intimidate, or otherwise bully "ordinary" checking/savings account customers. Some apparent exceptions, e.g. the inventions of the ATM, online banking and bill payment, seem to incidentally be a convenience to the customer -- but their real purpose is to decrease the cost of keeping tellers; and such accidental improvements are quickly followed by balancing degradations, like ATM fees, or unfriendly bill payment requirements or rules, or (most common) outrageously high fees for totally innocuous and non-bank-harming overdrafts.
The bank takes THREE DAYS to hold on to our money from my wife's GOVERNMENT PAYROLL CHECK before making it available to us. (What, do they think the government is going to skip town before making good on the check?) Why don't I get even ONE day to float a mortgage payment until my DIRECT DEPOSIT comes in, as it has, as regular as clockwork, for the last SEVEN YEARS?
Anybody else notice that collections letter is around THREE years old?
------------------------------
Ray Raspberry
raspberry@b3l33t.org