Slashdot Mirror
EU's Online Shoppers Get an Extended "Cooling Off Period"
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes with word of a new extension to European consumer protection laws: Previously, anyone who bought a product online was allowed seven business days during which they were able to change their mind and return the product for a full refund. This 'cooling-off period,' during which a refund can be requested without being required to give a reason for the cancellation, has now been extended to fourteen calendar days from the date on which the goods are received. Online retailers and providers are now also banned from 'pre-ticking' optional extras on order forms, such as those adding insurance to the cost of a purchase. For the first time, laws have also been introduced to offer a cooling-off period for digital content, including music, films and books, as BBC News reports. Consumers may now cancel an order for digital content within fourteen days, but only if they have not downloaded it.
Consumers may now cancel an order for digital content within fourteen days, but only if they have not downloaded it.
RTFS
While I welcome these protections I wonder how music, movie and eBook charts will come. You could buy thousands of copies, never download them and then get a refund after that week's charts are in. Could be useful for protest songs like the recent celebration of Thatcher's death.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Based on my personal experience, this is not new.
The "desist" period has been two weeks for quite a while in many online retailers.
(Very convenient when discussing over an RMA.)
"are now also banned from 'pre-ticking' optional extras"
Now do the same for free software ?
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
anyone who bought a product online
So this clearly refers to ONLINE PURCHASES. Ones where you are depended on the seller's description and require that to be accurate: neither over-selling the product nor lying about its state, condition or fitness for purpose. In these cases the seller clearly has an advantage and this extension tot he law is meant to rebalance the trading positions.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
We seem to be missing an important point of copyright law here... it's hard to take away a copyrighted work such as a movie that only needs to be seen once. Theaters have refund policies for "this movie sucks"... but too much of that and a would-be popular movie becomes nonexistent.
You can delay an offer to sell you make better than you can delay a "must act now or you'll regret it!" situation.
In many cases, you don't know what you're buying on the internet until you receive it. For example, the product looks/works good on the website, but not in real life. It's hard to determine from the website info and pic that the product is good. The size could be wrong (shoes for eg).
I think this is great for online shopping, but also likely to be abused in some cases.
Yep, that's the point where a return policy goes too far.
But, but, but... I thought copying wasn't stealing!!!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well, there's an exception according to the summary that if it's digital content, you can undo that sale for fourteen days, but lose that right if you actually accept delivery. An "I didn't like it!" is great info for bad ice cream, but we can't trust you if you say that about a bad song.
Personally, I would rather see the EU mandate heated toilet seats.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And how many people are so completely desperate to return a comic book that costs a few cents? People who're that cheap usually are also that lazy that they rather download it, in the end saving the dealer money.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And here's the point where I dare say that it will work out. People in Europe tend to be different than people in the US. We don't look for loopholes and try to rip off anyone just for the sake of ripping them off. To give you an example.
Just around the corner from here, there's an "open bookcase". One of many in this town, I may add. It's basically a box full of books. You take books you no longer want there and put them in and take books you'd like to read out. As far as I know, there is no way to track these books. You could take them and go and sell them in a yard sale. You could actually make a few bucks that way. Still, people not only just take the books they want to read, they also bring books to stock the bookcase.
While people around here go through the roof if they think you try to slight them or even go to insane lengths to make sure you pay if you try to rip them off, they usually play by the prisoner's dilemma winning strategy: Cooperate and copy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
For once the EU does something FOR the customer and still people bitch. Amazing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I certainly don't expect anyone to make a law to help ...
A buyer should have no more rights ... than a seller.
... a law to voilate [sic] others' rights just to save me from my foolishness!
You know how I know that you're American?
you are depended on the seller's description and require that to be accurate: neither over-selling the product nor lying about its state, condition or fitness for purpose.
Offline sellers have impulse sales, sales staff pressure, faster arrangements for financing and delivery of large items (less time for consideration), packaging to obscure a product and make claims the (re)seller is not liable for, obscure rules about returns (timing, requirements), a perceived 'place in the community' merely from physical presence and longevity, and more advantages.
This law is nothing but the EU being used to slow down online retail so it can be co-opted by the established retailers.
First, I was like "Yay, I'm more protected as a consumer now!" Then I realized we've already had this for two years around where I live. ;/
Ezekiel 23:20
Might that town by any chance be Bonn, Germany? Sounds familiar. OTOH I suppose quite a couple of places do that
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
The change to digital data is welcome.
At least in the UK's interpretation of this EC directive (the Distance Selling Regulations), digital downloads were NOT excluded. The purchase could cancel the purchase at any time up to 7 days after purchase and receive a full refund. Technically, you could download a software package or a movie, and then change your mind and claim a full refund.
While the Distance Selling Regulations specifically excluded copyright material such as computer software, movies, music, etc. - they do so only in physical form i.e. CDs, DVDs, etc. Downloads are treated as a "contract for a service" which do not fall in the scope of this very limited exclusion.
The ambiguity over digital downloads has caused a lot of heartache for a couple of small software developers that I know - albeit not enough to try to take it to court. I'm not sure that there is any caselaw actually addressing this loophole in the current system.
meanwhile in the US we've been enjoying 30+ day return periods from Amazon
we have free book exchanges too but people leave crappy books so its not usually worth it.
we also have a thing called libraries which are free and have 10s of thousands of books.
america's a great place bro. should check it out some time.
just dont shop from places with bad pictures, descriptions, or with bad return policies.
in other words stick to amazon.
don't need a draconian government to pull this one off we do it free stateside because It Makes Sense.
It seems the law is really not needed. What would you estimate the percentage of use cases to be, where the content is not downloaded immediately upon ordering or paying?
I'd guess that less than 1% of all digital content purchases would be in that category. That is to say, I'd guess that 99+% of all digital content purchases would be downloaded immediately.
What do you think?
Plus, this doesn't include subscription services like Netflix, so the more I think about it, the more I think that very few digital content transactions would fall into this scenario.
So why worry about it...
If it was legal to pay whatever the employer wanted to pay, the average McDonalds worker would be making 45 cents an hour. It doesn't matter how little the amount is, you will always find someone desperate enough to work for literal peanuts, therefore market pressure alone can't raise wages. If market pressure can't do it, the law has to (or it will never get done).
There are things that MUST be done (like making sure everyone is housed, fed, and healthy) that market pressures have no incentive to do. You employer doesn't care if you you are starving or sick, because when you become too ill to work, he can just replace you. It's the government's job to FORCE the employer to provide proper wages for his employees, because he has no other incentives to do so beyond legal repercussions
You have 3 options:
A) Provide a minimum wage so that everyone can afford food and rent. (current US method)
B) Drastically raise taxes to provide food and housing directly to the people who need it. (socialist method)
C) Just let the starving and homeless people die (Tea Party/Libertarian method)
... teaching us why online retail in EU will collapse.
From TFS: This 'cooling-off period,' during which a refund can be requested without being required to give a reason for the cancellation, ...
In other words, "I changed my mind and I want my money back; never mind that the product is exactly as desribed and functions perfectly." This new law is specifically to cover buyer's remorse, not cases of defective product or packing/description.
It's specifically to cover buyer's who are purchasing items that they cannot physically see at the point of sale.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
I've never heard of it happening either.
The article states that customised items aren't covered by this law and I'd have thought that laptops with optional extras like an SSD would be in that category.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
(Looks around, spies American flag on top of building across the way.)
Thought I might have woken up in Dreamland where we got invaded by Canada. No such luck.
Our friggin library has free book bins. So do two of the coffee shops. This is hardly the descriminator between civilized Europe and the Wild Wild West of America.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
In addition to book exchanges like you describe, here in southern Florida in the US we have a "Santa's helper" table every December, right alongside the road. It has a cool tent and everything. The idea is for people to anonymously leave presents for the needy. People can take what they like if they feel the need. It always seems well stocked.
I'm not sure your image of America is exactly complete. Having done a lot of business with EU companies, I'm not sure your image of Europe is entirely complete either.
Actually, there is another way - which I have thought for some time is the way to go - distributist ownership of land, complete free market capitalism for everything else. Basically you would get to own your share of the land free and clear with no taxes and fees - if you wanted to own more you would have to come up with some arrangement with someone else. There are a few ways this could be done - one way would be to every year divide the right to own land a few years in the future (for example, in 2014 you divide up credits for the right to own land in 2024) and then let people buy and sell the credits freely. I would keep the current system of land titles and such - but for a title to remain valid the owner would need to come up with the credits for the square footage of land he/she owned. If land became unowned there would be a system to claim it. If you had an average amount of land - you would own it free and clear and not have to worry about it - if you owned less than average, you would receive a constant stream of income from those who owned more. A big problem with the current system is that everyone has to come up with cash every month for a place to lay his head. It is illegal to pitch a tent somewhere and sleep in it without paying someone. Even if you own land you have to come up with a few hundred dollars every month for taxes or the government auctions it off ( here in Oregon the government keeps the entire sale price, not just the back property taxes). If people did not all have to essentially pay rent to someone - they would have a lot more leverage in negotiating with employers. Food and other necessities are not to expensive if you live simply - if you eat mostly grains and prepare your food yourself you can sustain life for a few dollars a month - I have personal experience in this area, there was two year timespan when I was growing up that my father was unable to bring in an income - he was completely unwilling to go on public assistance - and he fed a family of six for less than $70 a month in today's dollars. We lived on wheat, corn and soybeans, pinto beans were a luxury and we had a year round garden - and we got eggs when the chickens were laying (the chickens foraged for their own food. We did not have a mortgage, but it was a struggle to come up with the $2800 a year we needed for property taxes.
If you're stupid enough to buy 'gold' online, go right ahead.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Don't worry, that made my head hurt too!!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That doesn't sound like something that happens a lot. Do you always make decisions based on extreme events?
It happens a lot here in Germany, people ordering e.g. clothing (several trousers, shirt, etc.) and only keeping the ones they like, sending the rest back again. It really is pretty common, people use the right to return merchandise bought online as a replacement for trying out various items at a shop. A big reason for that is that until yesterday, the SELLER had to pay postage for the returns, so there was no penalty for the buyer if he ordered more than he actually needed. Guess we will see soon if the new law (buyer has to pay for the return shipping) servers as a deterrent. For the same reason, it was also not unusual for people to order e.g. a digital camera, use it for a week (e.g. to take photos at a wedding/birthday/...) and then send it back for free. I remember reading reports about Amazon, Zalando (another big online shop in Germany) etc. "throwing out" customers because of a return rate which was too high. E.g. here is a thread (in German) in which customers discuss this, and their general opinion seems to be "I order x items and return half of them, that's normal because I want to try out": http://forum.glamour.de/thread...
Another thin - I always wondered why even items which usually are not returnable for hygienic reasons (e.g. underwear, towels, stuff like that) ARE returnable when bought online. There was a TV documentary a while ago on German TV in which online shops explained why the return rights hurt them a lot - online shops for electronics etc. can just restock the stuff, maybe at a reduced price if it already has been opened, but items like underwear etc. CANNOT be restocked, they (by law) have to be thrown away. So it really makes not much sense for an online shop to sell stuff like that if it is so easy for customers to return the items - the shop has to pay for postage AND loses the money for the items because they cannot be sold again.
No, "This product doesn't look as good as it did in the airbrushed picture on your website."
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
People in Europe tend to be different than people in the US. We don't look for loopholes and try to rip off anyone just for the sake of ripping them off.
Umm, have you ever been to Italy? Or much of eastern Europe (particularly touristy parts or "bad" parts of big cities)?
To give you an example. Just around the corner from here, there's an "open bookcase". One of many in this town, I may add. It's basically a box full of books. You take books you no longer want there and put them in and take books you'd like to read out.
Yeah, my doctor's office has one of those. The local public library does too. I live in the US. What's your point again?
As far as I know, there is no way to track these books. You could take them and go and sell them in a yard sale. You could actually make a few bucks that way.
Yeah, here's the thing -- most Americans, like most people in most parts of Europe, are basically good-natured folk. Most people are not out to deliberately scam other people. And why ruin a nice public resource like this for a few bucks?
But there are always going to be those who will take advantage of others (where is worst?... I don't know, but my personal experience is northern Europe is better overall than the US, but Italy and some other parts are more questionable), and the internet makes it easier, because most people find it easier to treat others badly when they don't have direct contact with them.
It happens a lot here in Germany, people ordering e.g. clothing (several trousers, shirt, etc.) and only keeping the ones they like, sending the rest back again. It really is pretty common, people use the right to return merchandise bought online as a replacement for trying out various items at a shop.
That's not an example of abuse of the system, it's an example of the system working in just about the only way it can work.
People wouldn't be willing to buy clothes online if they couldn't send back what didn't fit or look good on them.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
People in Europe rip off US people in rent a cars.
With there any transmission problems are blamed on operator error — whether it’s true or not.
The system you are describing is basically the current semi-socialist US system of high(ish) taxes on high income, and high welfare on low income, except you are basing it on amount of land owned, instead of income.
The problem is that, in switching to this system, the one group that will feel most harmed by this change is the people who currently own the most land, which also tends to be the same people flooding the government with lobbyist money, meaning that this will likely never happen (without some sort of peasant revolt anyway).
It's the same thing standing in the way of any significant social reform. The people in power want the system to stay broken, because it's the brokenness of the system (and their exploitation of it) that gives them that power in the first place.
You really want to fix the problem for good? Make voting power unequal, and inverse to land ownership. The more land you own, and the more money you have, the LESS voting power you get. Make power and wealth mutually exclusive.
You could even go as far as adding poverty to the requirement of being president. Not only do you need to be US-born, you also need to have lived in 400 sqft apartment (or less) and eaten nothing but food-shelf and soup kitchen for a minimum of 2 consecutive years (during your adult life).
B) Drastically raise taxes to provide food and housing directly to the people who need it. (socialist method)
You don't need "drastic" tax rises. All of Europe uses this model (the ECHR gives everyone the right to shelter for example, meaning if you are homeless the government must put a roof over your head) and it really isn't expensive. In fact it is arguably cheaper than the alternatives.
No-one wants to be reliant on the government for shelter. What they provide is terrible, no-one wants to live there. It does give people a chance to get back on their feet though.
The problem with just relying on a minimum wage is that it only works if there is a supply of affordable housing for those people. Even then if it isn't high enough that they can work reasonable hours you end up with the US situation where people have two or three jobs and no time to look after their families, plus all the associated health problems that ultimately cost the state money to deal with. In the UK most working-age benefits are paid to people in work who simply don't earn enough. In other words the taxpayer subsidises low wages for the benefit of corporations.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
28.3 grams less you mean?
How much is that in iotas?
So along with English, you also failed Driver's Ed?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Both deprive revenue to the creators and distributors of content. So arguing that copying is not stealing is disingenuous. It's true, but it completely misses that both actions have the same effect This is why copyright exists -- to protect the rights of the people who produce content to be reimbursed for their efforts.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
gifts
The argument that copying isn't stealing has not been brought to the table by those that oppose copyright. Quite the opposite, copyright proponents were actually claiming that it WAS stealing. Knowing fully well that they were talking bullshit, but it simply is a great way of emotionalizing the discussion. Now they'll have to deal with it being called what it is: Bullshit.
Sorry, but if you bring some argument to the table, make sure it holds some water because one thing you can be sure of, your opponent will piss on it, so if it doesn't and you get wet, it's YOUR fault.
In a nutshell, if the industry doesn't want to deal with the argument that copying isn't stealing, they should not have started it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Obviously your money.
Speak for yourself. If a movie is actually good I want to own/keep it, so that I can watch it again at a later point without having to pay again.
Manuals are not big in the USA So when people from there go over seas the rent a car people like to try that scam.
What scam? Pretending that it's normal people know how to drive stick?
Guess what: In Europe, it is.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does this mean Europeans will have to wait an extra week for shipping?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
In my country in EU, we don't even use pennies. Smallest coin is 5 eurocents and all purchases are rounded up or down.
Hmmm... Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Both deprive revenue to the creators and distributors of content.
Stealing maybe, but not copying, at least not most of the time. It mainly has to do with the price of the digital goods being acquired.
During an economics class I was taking, the vending machine outside was configured incorrectly to sell 20 oz soda bottles for 5 cents each, whereas the normal price was $1.50. During intercession, one of the students notices it and walks into the class and tells everybody about it. Pretty much the whole class then goes out and buys some sodas.
This is a classic example of how the price going down will increase demand. When the price of digital goods goes to zero, more people will pick them up when they otherwise wouldn't have even bought them to begin with. In such a case. no revenue has been deprived. Think about it: If they had to pay for it, they simply would have done without, or taken a substitute (e.g. doing something else with their time.)
So on things in general that are technically not true, but effectively are, is your position that they're bullshit?
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
You should know better than to call out an instance of non-USian holier than thouness on Slashdot.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
They are not even effectively true. Stealing is taking away a mobile object without the owner's consent with the intent to keep and to deprive the owner of its use. At least according to our laws over here, yours may be different.
The description falls short at the last part. Stealing requires that the owner no longer can make use of the object taken away. It's simply and plainly the unlawful distribution. And that's the problem with it: That we don't have a problem with that. So we needed to call it "stealing".
The main reason we don't have a moral problem with it is simply that we get told from the first time we get into preschool that it's not nice NOT to share with others. That sharing is good and that you should let others play with your toys, too. There are proverbs in a lot of languages dedicated to how sharing is good and how sharing your goodness multiplies it. Now how much more "morally" right is it when you don't even have to give up anything but just let others have fun and enjoyment too without "costing" you anything? Or rather, how morally wrong is it NOT to do it?
So the spin is to call it stealing. Because calling it "unlawful sharing" simply doesn't work out in our set of morals. But stealing, that's bad.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But isn't it also spin to call helping yourself to someone else's stuff "sharing"?
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Only if it wasn't offered. If filesharing tools simply made everything you have on your HD available to everyone, I doubt many would participate in the whole deal.
And just to nitpick, with filesharing tools you usually don't "help yourself" to anything, it is sent to you. Technically, you're not downloading, the other side is uploading to you (i.e. the transfer is initiated by the side having the content, not the one wanting it). But that's semantics.
I'm not really aware of any filesharing tools (outside the malware sector) that allows anyone to help himself to anything that isn't actively offered.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Both deprive revenue to the creators and distributors of content. So arguing that copying is not stealing is disingenuous. It's true
I'll make you a deal then.
If I ever happen to violate your copyright in the future, can you promise that you will sue me (and ONLY sue me) for "stealing"? I'll even allow you to use the proper legal name of "theft"
If you can promise that and never ever bring up "copyright violation" while in court, then I'll promise to never again mention how those two laws are not the same.
Deal?
I don't know how it is with video and audio content.
But, according to a previously published article, about 37% of Steam games never get played. And it's probably safe to assume they don't get downloaded either...
http://games.slashdot.org/stor...
Stealling deprives revenue.
Copying deprives potential revenue and may, in fact, boost revenue of a certain product.
Take an example a popular TV show:
Someone may ("illegally") download a few of the episodes of it, based on the advice of a friend. They love it and from that point onward they watch it on TV. The show gets another regular viewer and the creator gets all the revenue associated with it. See what the HBO has to say about GoT pirating.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
I hear gold is going to be $10,000/oz...
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
if you stop you have still started and that should be enough service is not the same as a product in this case and is covered by other laws/regulations, I think even when buying food has it owns laws/regulation
There are quite a few of those free book trade boxes in the US also. I found a site a while back called http://littlefreelibrary.org/ where they are organized so you can search for the closest one near you. You can also put up a new one if you want.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Making unauthorized copies deprives the copyright holder of nothing, directly. It can lead to a diminished demand for the product, which will cause lost revenue. (It can also lead to increased demand: when Baen Books started giving away electronic copies of books the demand for the books themselves went sharply up.) However, an unfavorable review diminishes demand for the product. This is in contrast to stealing, which deprives the owner of something (but can lead to increased demand for the product).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You see, your problem is that you understand economics and human action. We can't have that here.