Would you be here trotting out that line of reasoning if the MPAA claimed movie revenues were down? Would you say that just because they were down, that it doesn't prove that file sharing has (or will in the future have) a detrimental effect on the "industry?"
Hardly a fallacy when it happens, the review of a Phil 101 page notwithstanding. And we're not talking about civi disobedience here--this isn't a sworn officer making an arrest, it's an unjustifiably suspicious private security guard trying to falsely detain someone on flimsy grounds. As far as it "being necessary to prevent shoplifting," I'm sure that if you spend a few minutes thinking about it, there are much more unobtrusive means at merchants' disposal to do so.
It's unfortunate that you don't think this is worth fighting over. Perhaps if things get worse, you'll come around.
I agree with you that the security monkey should leave the customers alone unless that list is met, and also am in the habit of keeping on going past the beeping sensors. However, it looks like that list is more of a safeharbor from claims of false arrest and what's needed for an airtight case resulting in a conviction, rather than a list of practices required by law.
One precaution I do take is to make sure never to keep on walking when I've paid cash. Who's to say that an unethical company wouldn't stoop to lying to the police? At least having paid with a debit or credit card, there's a record that can be subpoenaed, even if my receipt is stolen from me.
I suppose the claim references the Internet, in which case this would probably be a moot point. IANAL and all that, but in the 1970s, I recall seeing in magazine inserts preprinted checks that could be used to donate to a charity (something like Save The Children, IIRC). You had to write the routing transit number and account information at the bottom, sign, and mail.
I'll second your recommendation of Nicked_and_Dimed. I hope that besides motivating, it helped you empathize with those working in those jobs. As for me, I'm a much better tipper now.
I assume your lawyer has since subpoenaed the surveillance tapes? And if they were conveniently lost or destroyed, he can hopefully use that in your defense--and drag in a Best Buy exec to swear that they were destroyed as per normal policy that they have heretofore been following. (IANAL)
I hope you have contacted news agencies that cover your local area--Best Buy needs to have their goon drop the charges and apologize to you.
You are so grossly informed I don't know where to begin. Stores do not have a "right" to search all bags in the store unless they obtain consent or prominently post such a policy. Needless to say, they'll do neither, because if they did, those with money to spend would take it elsewhere.
While they may indeed "summon" the police for refusing to allow them to search you as you exit the store, the police aren't likely to take any action. And by the time they get there, you'll be gone with your merchandise and receipt. If they are foolish enough to physically detain you, you might even make some money out of the deal.
Sheep that put up with these practices don't deserve the freedom our forefathers paid for in blood.
You know what acquiescing to these requests like you apparently are advocating is called? Being a sheep. It demonstrates that these abuses are tolerated, and gives incentive for retailers to crank it up a little more.
Maybe this little anecdote will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales due to the bad publicity their security thug's miscondut generated and they won't be so arrogant next time. My responsibility to help a retailer's loss prevention is to not steal from them. Once I've bought an item, it's mine, and contract to the contrary, I am not subject to search by some twenty-something yellow-shirted goon, thank you very much.
It's irritating that that case didn't get more national publicity. Or maybe it got plenty, but people are such sheep they keep shopping there. Like the ones that cheerfully allow themselves to be searched by the "door guard" on the way out--they make me more angry than the stores doing the searching.
The point is that if they want to watch the store, they need to do that in an unobtrusive manner that doesn't inconvenience me, the customer. If they still want to have these sorts of policies, they can feel free to clearly advertise them so people will know what they are getting themselves into.
While I'm not looking for a reason to sue, I will defend my rights.
Because most electronics stores in the States claim they'll match a competitor's price. Offering the lower price as a mail-in rebate means it isn't subject to matching, so the stores have a tacit "gentlemen's agreement" to offer the loss leaders in that manner. That, and there's a good chance the customer will forget about the rebate after having been enticed by the "after rebate" price. At least one State, Connecticut, has sensibly made advertising of "after rebate" prices illegal unless the rebate can be obtained on the spot, in the store.
The hell I am agreeing to anything. If they truly feel that "I am agreeing to something," why don't they post a sign saying entry constitutes consent to search? I'll tell you why: most people with any money to spend would take it somewhere else.
And the whole "probable cause" bit doesn't apply here--we're not talking about sworn LEOs, but about private security guards. I guarantee you that if I *ever* am physically accosted after purchasing my items, I'll be ringing up a shyster that very day about a mutually profitable business proposition after I finish filing assault charges against the security guard.
That second $17 charge was a fraudulent charge against your card. You gave them the card for the one transaction--if they had wanted to settle the EP issue, their time to do that was when accepting the return of the DVD. I'm not an expert in credit card merchant agreements, but that was probably a violation. But since Best Buy is so big, it's not as if their acquirer would cut them off over it.
Return it, eat the 15% penalty, then dispute the penalty with your credit card company under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Even if you don't get your 15% back, you'll have the consolation of having cost them a fine and some time. eBay would easily lop of 15% when you figure the differential between what someone would pay for something new and used, then eBay's and Paypal's cuts.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to outlaw Furbys and Coke cans on base--but it's less ridiculous than having to say, "Well, no sir, General, we hadn't considered that possibility. Yes, sir, I agree that I am grossly incompetent. Sir, I will get that regulation promulgated right away, sir." Even worse is the outside chance that there could be a breach and having to answer to the press.
The article feinted towards them, but that was hardly a prominent mention. That issue merited at least a paragraph. Oh, and while you might "save up" a quote, I don't think I've reached that level of pathetic yet. Maybe if I hang around here a bit longer, I'll make it:).
In particular, it fails to mention their efforts to hobble consumer devices, including but not limited to ATRAC and Magic Gate. And no article about Sony's interaction with technology is complete or accurate without a mention of one of their senior executive's Churchillesque rant against peer to peer networks:
"The [music] industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams," Heckler said. "It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what."
We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [ISP]. We will firewall it at your PC.
Remember that when you buy Sony, you support the people whose management said these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops . . . didn't catch that another ID was logged in. Please see the other reply.
Would you be here trotting out that line of reasoning if the MPAA claimed movie revenues were down? Would you say that just because they were down, that it doesn't prove that file sharing has (or will in the future have) a detrimental effect on the "industry?"
If only that were the case! Loved the post, wish I still got mod points :).
It's unfortunate that you don't think this is worth fighting over. Perhaps if things get worse, you'll come around.
One precaution I do take is to make sure never to keep on walking when I've paid cash. Who's to say that an unethical company wouldn't stoop to lying to the police? At least having paid with a debit or credit card, there's a record that can be subpoenaed, even if my receipt is stolen from me.
I suppose the claim references the Internet, in which case this would probably be a moot point. IANAL and all that, but in the 1970s, I recall seeing in magazine inserts preprinted checks that could be used to donate to a charity (something like Save The Children, IIRC). You had to write the routing transit number and account information at the bottom, sign, and mail.
I'll second your recommendation of Nicked_and_Dimed. I hope that besides motivating, it helped you empathize with those working in those jobs. As for me, I'm a much better tipper now.
I hope you have contacted news agencies that cover your local area--Best Buy needs to have their goon drop the charges and apologize to you.
While they may indeed "summon" the police for refusing to allow them to search you as you exit the store, the police aren't likely to take any action. And by the time they get there, you'll be gone with your merchandise and receipt. If they are foolish enough to physically detain you, you might even make some money out of the deal.
Sheep that put up with these practices don't deserve the freedom our forefathers paid for in blood.
You know what acquiescing to these requests like you apparently are advocating is called? Being a sheep. It demonstrates that these abuses are tolerated, and gives incentive for retailers to crank it up a little more.
Maybe this little anecdote will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales due to the bad publicity their security thug's miscondut generated and they won't be so arrogant next time. My responsibility to help a retailer's loss prevention is to not steal from them. Once I've bought an item, it's mine, and contract to the contrary, I am not subject to search by some twenty-something yellow-shirted goon, thank you very much.
It's irritating that that case didn't get more national publicity. Or maybe it got plenty, but people are such sheep they keep shopping there. Like the ones that cheerfully allow themselves to be searched by the "door guard" on the way out--they make me more angry than the stores doing the searching.
While I'm not looking for a reason to sue, I will defend my rights.
That, and I'll bet the fine print of the service plan excludes batteries.
Because most electronics stores in the States claim they'll match a competitor's price. Offering the lower price as a mail-in rebate means it isn't subject to matching, so the stores have a tacit "gentlemen's agreement" to offer the loss leaders in that manner. That, and there's a good chance the customer will forget about the rebate after having been enticed by the "after rebate" price. At least one State, Connecticut, has sensibly made advertising of "after rebate" prices illegal unless the rebate can be obtained on the spot, in the store.
And the whole "probable cause" bit doesn't apply here--we're not talking about sworn LEOs, but about private security guards. I guarantee you that if I *ever* am physically accosted after purchasing my items, I'll be ringing up a shyster that very day about a mutually profitable business proposition after I finish filing assault charges against the security guard.
Got a case cite for that?
That second $17 charge was a fraudulent charge against your card. You gave them the card for the one transaction--if they had wanted to settle the EP issue, their time to do that was when accepting the return of the DVD. I'm not an expert in credit card merchant agreements, but that was probably a violation. But since Best Buy is so big, it's not as if their acquirer would cut them off over it.
Return it, eat the 15% penalty, then dispute the penalty with your credit card company under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Even if you don't get your 15% back, you'll have the consolation of having cost them a fine and some time. eBay would easily lop of 15% when you figure the differential between what someone would pay for something new and used, then eBay's and Paypal's cuts.
Have you approached the press with this? I make a point of not stopping for the door nazis. I noticed that CompUSA doesn't even have them anymore.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to outlaw Furbys and Coke cans on base--but it's less ridiculous than having to say, "Well, no sir, General, we hadn't considered that possibility. Yes, sir, I agree that I am grossly incompetent. Sir, I will get that regulation promulgated right away, sir." Even worse is the outside chance that there could be a breach and having to answer to the press.
That's an easy one. If my bank did that, I'd show up, produce the ID, then proceed to close the account(s).
The article feinted towards them, but that was hardly a prominent mention. That issue merited at least a paragraph. Oh, and while you might "save up" a quote, I don't think I've reached that level of pathetic yet. Maybe if I hang around here a bit longer, I'll make it :).
Remember that when you buy Sony, you support the people whose management said these things.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that this "Secunia" derives funding from a common source with SCO.