Slashdot Mirror
New Sony DVDs Not Working In Some Players
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that the most recent DVDs released by Sony — specifically Stranger Than Fiction, Casino Royale, and The Pursuit of Happyness — have some kind of 'feature' that makes them unplayable on many DVD players. This doesn't appear to be covered by the major media yet, but this link to a discussion over at Amazon gives a flavor of the problems people are experiencing. A blogger called Sony and was told the problem is with the new copy protection scheme, and they do not intend to fix it. Sony says it's up to the manufacturers to update their hardware."
Welcome to Digg 2.0... this appears to just be SONY / Toshiba players having issues playing a disc that works on other players. It's clearly not some new DRM scheme if it works on existing players. =)
If I post a blog saying how stupid slashdot has become with any stupid meme is the OMG truthyness. Why not post about the possible Red Ring of Death from the Guitar Hero II patch too? I love how the internet and blogs are being used to spread a bunch of half-assed rumors like this. At some point you have to take a step back before hitting that 'OMG sumbit story to digg/slash', and see if it's even a valid concern or some asshat marketing firm/fanboy.
There was supposed to be a patch for that back in 2004, but it keeps getting pushed back while we work to develop new weapons technologies, and to fix all those bugs in our middle east release. It could be another year or so before they announce a date.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
How is it defective? The problem with your view is that the customer is not the arbiter of defects. The manufacturer is (whose hand may be forced by a court or a regulatory body, but no one else). Sony obviously does not view these products as defective, and so no return policy mandates that they be accepted.
If a company put shit in a bag and called it beef jerky, you wouldn't sue the store who sold it to you; they were completely uninvolved. They received a case of beef jerky from JERKY INC. and sold it. Customers got sick and complained, but who has liability? JERKY INC.
The store would accept all returns and keep records for the lawsuit against JERKY INC. and would be reimbursed at some point by court order. But what if the "defect" isn't illegal? You have angry customers who want their money back, and a company who has committed no technical crime who won't give the money back to the retailer to give to the customer. So the refund comes out of the retailer's pocket (or the refusal to issue refunds damages their revenue). Either way, the retailer loses and both the customers and the bad guy keep their money. The bad guy just keeps doing it, and the customer keeps fucking buying products made by the bad guy.
The customer does not get to decide if products work as they "should." The only parties who have any legal authority are regulatory bodies, the manufacturers themselves, and courts. Neither customers nor retailers have any authority in the matter to do anything other than make a complaint.
As the product is delivered exactly as it was produced by the manufacturer, it is not defective. The retailer has no legal obligation to accept a return of one of these discs.
The retailer chose to sell the product and misrepresented what they were selling. It is the retailer's responsibility to ensure that the products they sell match the descriptions they provide.
How is the retailer supposed to know that Sony put bullshit copy protection on some of its DVDs? It is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the products they provide meet the standards they advertise. The retailer has zero liability, unless their own description differs from that of the manufacturer. Sony is the only party misrepresenting anything; the retailer has no obligation to fact-check the claims on product packaging. None.
The customer is completely blameless. They were told they were buying a DVD, with the clear implication that it would play in a DVD player. It does not. The retailer sold it to the customer. The retailer must correct their contract breach with the customer and then seek redress from their supplier.
The retailer bought them with the understanding that they were DVD discs. Do you expect them to do a content analysis of the discs to ensure that they fully meet DVD standards? If you buy software from OfficeMax that says it will protect you from viruses, and if your computer gets infected, you don't have any right to redress from OfficeMax. The disc contained an intact copy of the 0s and 1s comprising the product. The retailer has not breached any contract with the customer--it sold a "Casino Royale" DVD to the customer. Sony provided that DVD with copy protection that makes it incompatible with some players. Retailers must only accept refunds for damaged, incomplete, or demonstrably defective products (not based on customer perception, but on physical evidence--if you exchange a DVD that doesn't play, and none of its replacements play, chances are it's your player). Retailers do not police advertising claims on product packaging. If you're not happy with potato chips, you send the bag label to Lays and they refund the purchase price. That's how the real world works.
Having written a number of sales policies in my day, I beg to differ. I think you just don't understand them as well as you think you do. Provide citations for your interpretation if you think you're right. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative.