The DVD logo doesn't mean anything. Warranty of fitness does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT mean that customer assumptions must be met. It means that a factual representation on the product or an obvious physical trait must function as intended.
It does not mean that baseless logos (the DVD logo has no certification behind it--it is NOT like the CD Audio logo) must mean what customers assume them to mean. Again, as I have said, you do have a misrepresentation claim against SONY, but warranty of fitness is a claim for merchants and is totally separate from inaccurate customer assumptions.
Labeling is a separate issue and not part of my statement. Since the DVD label technically doesn't mean anything, you have an advertising issue. I agree that Sony should have a giant disclaimer about compatibility on their discs, but again, the discs function as Sony intended them to and happeny to work on most players. The assumption that anything carrying the DVD logo means that it works in a DVD player is a faulty one. Software titles carry the DVD logo and do not work in a DVD player, and even use of the DVD video logo does not preclude a Draconian DRM scheme being used in addition to it (unlike the CD Audio case).
If you buy a particular saw blade with a counter-serrated edge for masonry work and use it to cut lumber, you'll be quite upset with the results. That saw blade LOOKS like other saw blades generally, but it does not perform the same as a multi-purpose blade. The labels often do not provide much information beyond the type of saw that it fits. If you buy the wrong blade, even though it fits in your saw and is labeled as a saw blade, it is still "fit for purpose" even though it didn't work to your expectation.
The "fit for purpose" argument has been used unsuccessfully against DRMed audio content as well. The digital audio download may at face value not indicate what devices it is and is not compatible with, instead relying on user knowledge to determine compatibility. Assuming that because a digital file works on your computer that it will work on your portable player of choice is not a compelling legal foundation for a warranty of fitness claim. It is a liability issue for other reasons (for the manufacturer), but warranty of fitness is for merchants/retailers.
Sony is not doing its part to ensure that consumers can make the correct determination, but that is not a "fit for purpose" argument. To say it is reflects only confusion about consumer law. The problem is one of labeling and informing of the customer, with an onus on the manufacturer alone. "Fit for purpose" protections assume a compatibility standard of care. They are particularly tricky with software content--it can be fit for purpose without being universally compatible. The problem you describe is one of disclosure (primarily that Sony does not disclose that its discs may not be playable on certain hardware but also that the DVD player hardware does not disclose its own limitation). The DVD logo unfortunately does not mean anything like the CD logo does, so the logo does not in fact make any sort of enforceable claim.
In short, customer assumption about compatibility does not correlate to warranty of fitness status on the product. If you create a product called "iCassette" which is nothing more than a tape deck adapter, people will assume that it will work with an iPod. If for some reason it was incompatible with an iPod, it does not violate a warranty of fitness if it never claimed iPod compatibility. You do have a misrepresentation issue there, however, and probably a trademark conflict, but not all customer confusion is lumped under implied warranties.
EXACTLY! Who was held responsible for those CDs? Sony! Who had to provide redress to customers? Sony! Who also had to accept returns and reimburse retailers for the product? Sony!
The retailer wasn't the solution there, either. Thanks to a settlement agreement, reimbursement was ordered (following the process I mentioned earlier in this thread). Absent any such court order or settlement agreement, like the current case, Sony gets to keep all of its money. So instead of buying Sony discs, ripping them, and returning them, someone needs to take SONY to task and not just screw retailers out of the money.
No, that's a supplier-manufacturer liability issue. The ONLY retailers who have a problem are the ones who left the contaminated food on the shelves after being notified to remove it. Retailers have not received any such notice to remove these DVDs. If they did receive such a notice and ignored it, they would be liable, but still not for the same issues as the manufacturer itself.
The manufacturer of the dog food has a strict liability to ensure that products meet specifications. Retailers and distributors have nothing to do with that liability phase and cannot (and are not, as your example illustrates) be held accountable for those problems.
Failure to follow recall guidelines is a punishable offense; absent any recall notice, stores are not responsible. Pet shops have little to worry about in the way of legal responsibility with the pet food issue so long as they complied with all instructions. DVD retailers have not violated any instructions by stocking these products.
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.
That only works with Wal-Mart. Most retailers (even large chain stores) do not have the leverage necessary to pull that sort of operation. Retailers pay up front for commodity purchases--they pay at the maintained wholesale rate issued by Sony. Anyone smaller than Target has the option of purchasing DVDs, and no favorable pricing negotiations.
Sony is one of any number of large corporations with flat-rate pricing. They will not accept partial payment, and retailers simply cannot afford not to carry Sony titles as a matter of principle. There are no magic market forces at work about any sort of "business relationship" that gives any one company preferential treatment here. It's just another one of the many downsides to the *AA cartel. You can buy them or you can not buy them, but you can't send them a check for 90% of the asking price and not expect them to ship you 90% of the product.
You continually fail to realize that it is the CUSTOMER who has a problem with SONY's products. The retailer is nothing more than a distributor. If you have a problem with your potato chips, you don't take them back to the supermarket. You write Lays and send them the bag label, and they claim they'll refund the purchase price. If you have a problem with your new Kitchenaid hand mixer, Kitchenaid handles the warranty repairs (outside the 30-day return period, which is a convenience to allow for instant gratification for broken products). If your TurboTax software eats your refund or miscalculates the total, it's not Best Buy's problem. If your physically-intact disc won't play because Sony put dumbshit DRM on it, it should not be the retailer's problem, either.
The difference being that the discs aren't unmerchantable on a per-unit basis, but on the aggregate. Retailer return policies are for one-off problems, not for class issues. A court of law is the proper resolution of this issue, and not abuse of customer service policies. You can't return a bottle of Advil because it didn't get rid of your headache--but if you have reason to believe there's something wrong with the Advil, you can certainly take that up with the pharmaceutical company.
The discs work as designed. They don't work as advertised (being that they are labeled DVDs), but retailers are not responsible for the claims made on the packaging of products they sell. Your ability to return a defective DVD is intended solely to allow for the replacement of manufacturing errors. Otherwise, you could buy and rip all of your DVDs and then return them because "they don't work on my Linux computer." No one has ever found that DVDs *must* play under Linux.
This absolutely is an advertising issue along with an implied warranty of fitness issue. But the retail customer service remedy is not the correct one. It's the easiest way for customers to get their money back, but it merely treats the symptoms and harms an uninvolved third party.
The retailer sold a product that does not work as it should. The retailer is ethically, morally, and in most countries legally required to correct the situation by either replacing the deficient product or refunding the purchase.
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.
And yes, the disc is still defective. A DVD movie that doesn't play in a significant amount of DVD players may well be what the "manufacturer intended" but I'm sure he the manufacturer could intend to package a turd in a box, call it beef jerky, and it would be as he intended it, doesn't make the product a piece of shit.
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 product is not defective. Really. It's a bullshit product, yes, but it is not defective. That's like returning "antique finish" furniture for being damaged. Sony intended for this copy protection scheme to be on the disc. The consequence is that it is incompatible with some players.
That has zero to do with the retailer, and they have no obligation to accept the return. They do it anyway, because it's good customer service and because customer backlash would be massive. But you, the customer, and Sony, the bad guy, have backed them into a corner. Sony won't pay for the disc (since it's not damaged or defective) and customers demand a refund (since it won't work in their player). The retailer gets the honour of eating the cost of the disc and both of the other parties go home with their money.
Sony is at fault for not indicating that these discs are incompatible with some DVD players. The retailer had no way of knowing this, either. The customer thinks the disc is defective because it doesn't play (but the customer has no legal power to designate anything as defective).
You assume that YOUR BELIEF of its defective nature is deterministic--it isn't. Contrary to the claims of the "defective by design" campaign, customers have no legal power to label something as defective, merely because it isn't what they wanted. The disc functions exactly as intended. There is no legal redress available to the retailer, because they have merely accepted the discs as a part of good customer service (they are *not* required to take these discs back simply because they have a retarded copy protection scheme that makes them incompatible with some players--that is not a defect, which is a legal condition which can only be identified by a court, regulatory body, or the manufacturer).
It is manipulation of good faith customer service, plain and simple. "Fit for purpose" does not cover "I assumed it would work, since it looks like other products that do work." Sony did indeed misrepresent itself to both retailers and customers, since it made no notice that the product was different and might not work.
But there is no retailer liability for that. None. Retailers could refuse to accept the return if they have a compatible player to test them on (to verify that they do play on compatible devices), but it would result in horrible backlash.
The customer screwed himself. It's not that complicated. You have a beef with Sony. Take it up with Sony. Your local retailer did not put copy protections on Sony's discs, and they don't have any control over it. Sony simply won't reimburse retailers (the products are not damaged or defective), and I'm not sure what kind of fantasy world you live in where retailers can afford to accept returns without manufacturer reimbursement.
Further, if Sony won't pay for the returns, the stores can't afford *not* to carry Sony titles--they'll just bleed even more cash for not having a full selection of titles. Your "retailer boycott" only works if all the retailers dump Sony (instead, it'll just drive up sales for the retailers that continue stocking Sony). You're just passing the buck: "I don't want to bother with anything, so I'll just make the retailer deal with it, even though I'm the dumbass who bought the shitty disc in the first place."
The customer is only screwing the retailer. Just like people like to complain about class-action lawsuits only benefiting the lawyers, this rip-and-dump buying strategy only hurts retailers. It does not hurt Sony one bit. If you made an initial purchase of a Sony product, Sony got paid. If you return the disc for "not working" and Sony receives its undamaged and functions-as-intended discs back from the retailer, Sony doesn't cut the retailer a check. Sony keeps the money, retailer loses the money. You'll kill the retailers, not the beast.
From Sony's point of view. It is delivered exactly as it was made.
The only reason that manufacturers reimburse retailers for returns is if they are defective or damaged. Sony isn't going to consider their own discs either of those, and so will not reimburse retailers for them. Sony MEANT to include this copy protection. Customers may not like it, but that doesn't make it defective. The whole "defective by design" campaign has apparently gotten people to forget that consumers have no legal power to label anything as defective.
I know this is Slashdot, but reading comprehension has really gone down the tubes.
I'm not aware of any download service which doesn't simultaneously upload which is currently in use to distribute movies. If you're aware of an exception, then you'd be absolutely correct.
The customer is at fault. He is doing business with a dishonest party. He is also too lazy to seek a remedy FROM the dishonest party (all the retailer did was offer the crap product for sale; you're the one who bought it--it can't be the retailer's fault any more than it is your own).
In a sane society, people take responsibility for themselves and don't go out of their way to save a buck no matter who he screws in the process. Retailers are collateral damage. You're the one that chose to buy the defective product (you can argue that you didn't know about the ARCCOS crap, yes, but how is the retailer supposed to know? the veil of ignorance protects both parties). You are no less to blame than the retailer, and your actions result in harm only to the retailer, and do not translate into forcing the "bad guy" (Sony) to correct its actions. After all, Sony gets to keep its money, and maybe somewhere down the line, they have to give a free DVD to affected customers. The retailer has yet to reimbursed for the returns, and doesn't get free stock to compensate.
No, because when you buy the disc at the store, Sony makes its money. When you return it to the retailer, Sony keeps its money.
Even if the retailers band together sufficiently to complain, the reparations cost Sony less than they cost the retailer--because the consumers have already given Sony their money, but the retailer has been bleeding cash.
Sony would only be responsive if they weren't making money at all (i.e. the discs sit on the shelves, the retailers don't order new stock, and customers don't hand over any money for them). But as long as consumers buy the product initially (even if they return it the same day), the only person getting screwed is the retailer.
There's not a damn thing wrong with the disc. It is exactly as Sony intended it to be shipped, and having been involved in law suits about trying to get purchases reimbursed by the manufacturer (not everyone is a Walmart or a Target, and you'd be fairly surprised how little leverage most individual retailers--even chains--have over suppliers), it's not as simple as you make it seem.
Retailers can't "not carry" Sony pictures, because people will notice the gaping holes in the collection and buy them elsewhere--the general public might be annoyed with Sony, but they're not going to stop buying their products. The retailer has to carry them, or they will suffer reduced sales elsewhere (because most people will shop where they have a full selection). The manufacturer won't eat their own products that work exactly as designed unless the PR gets really bad (like the CD rootkit) or they're forced to recall them by a regulatory body.
Stores could get pissed off enough not to carry Sony products, but it's rare for a retailer not to have to accept getting reamed. The store's anger is not often greater than the consumer desire to purchase them. If they can't break even, they'll have to sit back and take it (even Target).
In any case, you're still just advocating passing the buck. The retailers have zero to do with Sony's poor product choices--and as long as people continue to buy them in large numbers, they'll still be on shelves. The only way to get Sony to act is to avoid buying them in the first place, which means that retailers won't have to order new stock and Sony won't be making money from anyone.
You would be within your rights to be in possession of that downloaded copy (as long as you maintain ownership of the DVD as long as you keep the copy), but you would still be guilty of distribution of copyrighted material (a crime in the US; a civil liability in most of Europe) by participating in the download process.
In other words, you're still not free and clear, but at the same time, it's unlikely that any court would find in the plaintiff's favor since you did buy the DVD (unless you did the "good" thing and let the download continue to seed for hours/days after completing, in which case you would clearly be distributing content illegally and even a sympathetic court would have no real alternative but to side with the prosecution).
It's not the retailer's fault, and you've created a situation where most retail outlets will have to eat the cost of that disc--they can't resell it, and there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be reimbursed for it.
You might enjoy your flair for the dramatic, and it might make you feel high and powerful to make a scene in a store, but the product works as intended from the manufacturer and the retailer made the sale in an appropriate manner. All you're doing is taking advantage of decent customer service and contributing to increased animosity between retailers and customers.
If you have a problem with a Sony disc, send it back to Sony with a copy of the receipt and demand a refund of the purchase price. Yeah, it's harder, and yeah it takes more time and effort, but that's what happens when you do the right thing.
Never mind the whole "rip and return" issue, which is exactly the kind of thing that put DRM on products in the first place. The laziness of customers (who won't do anything to fix a broken system, but will happily ignore the law merely because it suits them and is the easier thing to do, all the while justifying it in their heads) is the real reason we've been foisted with all this crap. But this is Slashdot, so God forbid the evil companies aren't totally to blame.
Number 1 is not categorically true of residential units (not that this thread ever limited itself to such). The contracts are generally rare, because most landlords and leasing companies use an "early termination penalty" as a boilerplate standard. They are not precluded from drawing up an unbreakable lease, however. Many will make this arrangement for luxury condos, particularly in LA and San Francisco, where monthly rents for one-bedroom units can and do exceed $6000. There cannot be a deadline for finding a replacement--the only mitigation measures necessary are the ones used to rent the unit in the first place (put the unit in available listings, answer inquiries about it, and entertain offers for leasing). Departing tenants certainly may assist, and landlords may actively recruit tenants, but this is not required. Nearly all leases have early termination provisions (must give notice and pay rent during notice period; forfeit security deposit/last month's rent; must pay $x penalty to break lease; must find replacement tenants), but those that do not should be renegotiated.
Who said anything about small claims court? If someone did have $28k to collect, they certainly wouldn't file in small claims court, where the limit is $7500. The landlord wouldn't file at all in all likelihood, because they would have found a replacement tenant on their own--perhaps filing for upaid rent during the notice period might occur. If, however, you sign a $28,000 lease and only pay the first $8000 of it, you will probably be evicted and then taken to court for the unpaid difference between last payment and eviction. The court indeed might order payment of the full term amount, but it's not likely in a personal residential case. The measure must remain in place, however, to protect landlords who depend on rent income for their own wellbeing. This is not usually true of the management companies (which are the dominant force in rentals in California due to the complex residential codes and the high dollar amounts of rent payments).
All that means is that the landlord has to list the property as vacant and make it available in his listings of available properties, respond to inquiries, and rent the unit if an offer is made. He does not need to seek replacement tenants. With the vacancy rates in most places, a unit will be rented within a reasonable time frame.
The requirement is in place to prevent landlords from refusing to rent the unit (and instead benefitting from the lower costs of collecting on an empty unit for an extended period).
I've brought my phone to six different service providers on three continents with no problems since I got it in 2005 (it's a Windows Mobile device, and the tradeoff is no access to the carriers' multimedia crap and ringtones stores--which I couldn't possibly care less about). I've never had a problem. When I had to return to the US for two months, I used Cingular's pay as you go service and had no problems whatsoever. I wasn't even charged for the SIM card or the activation. The device is even very plainly branded T-Mobile.
What you're looking for is "no strings attached" and it is not synonymous with "free." It's the same story in all kinds of business--there is a clear distinction between gratis and libre. Cell phones are gratis, but not libre. You don't pay for them directly, but you get them by paying for something else.
This is just like the free toothbrush that comes with some toothpaste. You're not charged anything for the toothbrush, but you can't just rip it off and not buy the toothpaste, because they're bundled together.
Well here on planet Earth, landlords who have signed lease agreements have the right to collect the total amount of rent agreed upon in the contract (the total dollar amount is always disclosed in California, for example "rent to be paid at so-and-so monthly for a total of $27,849 per year"). If you move out early and your agreement does not allow for breaking the contract at all, you're stuck until you pay every penny of that agreed-upon amount, whether you're physically present in the unit or not. The landlord does not have to rent the unit to anyone else, nor does he have to look for a replacement tenant prior to the expiration of your lease.
That's why you should never sign that kind of lease. The ones with early move-out penalties are far more desirable.
"That kind of mentality is almost the same as saying putting hot water in ice trays makes ice faster."
If your ice cube tray is the size of the earth, it just might. General temperature increases cause result in weaker gradients in the temperatures--less strength in these gradients kills the dynamo powering currents (in the air and water), producing less heat transfer. Motion that carries warm air and water to more distant latitudes diminishes as a result. Without a supply of warm air and temperate currents to certain parts of the world, it would indeed get colder, even as global average temperature increased. It would take quite some time for the temperature to increase EVERYWHERE on Earth.
Many parts of the northern and southern hemispheres SHOULD be colder, but warm tropical air and water provides a heat source. If that heat boosts temperatures, say, 6 degrees above what it would otherwise be, and climate change causes a 2 degree increase in the average global temperature and kills off that heat source, that region of the world would still end up 4 degrees colder on average, even with global warming. This effect eventually cancels out when global warming catches up, but that takes centuries.
It's not that hard of a concept to understand, really.
Slashdot Mirror
The DVD logo doesn't mean anything. Warranty of fitness does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT mean that customer assumptions must be met. It means that a factual representation on the product or an obvious physical trait must function as intended.
It does not mean that baseless logos (the DVD logo has no certification behind it--it is NOT like the CD Audio logo) must mean what customers assume them to mean. Again, as I have said, you do have a misrepresentation claim against SONY, but warranty of fitness is a claim for merchants and is totally separate from inaccurate customer assumptions.
Labeling is a separate issue and not part of my statement. Since the DVD label technically doesn't mean anything, you have an advertising issue. I agree that Sony should have a giant disclaimer about compatibility on their discs, but again, the discs function as Sony intended them to and happeny to work on most players. The assumption that anything carrying the DVD logo means that it works in a DVD player is a faulty one. Software titles carry the DVD logo and do not work in a DVD player, and even use of the DVD video logo does not preclude a Draconian DRM scheme being used in addition to it (unlike the CD Audio case).
If you buy a particular saw blade with a counter-serrated edge for masonry work and use it to cut lumber, you'll be quite upset with the results. That saw blade LOOKS like other saw blades generally, but it does not perform the same as a multi-purpose blade. The labels often do not provide much information beyond the type of saw that it fits. If you buy the wrong blade, even though it fits in your saw and is labeled as a saw blade, it is still "fit for purpose" even though it didn't work to your expectation.
The "fit for purpose" argument has been used unsuccessfully against DRMed audio content as well. The digital audio download may at face value not indicate what devices it is and is not compatible with, instead relying on user knowledge to determine compatibility. Assuming that because a digital file works on your computer that it will work on your portable player of choice is not a compelling legal foundation for a warranty of fitness claim. It is a liability issue for other reasons (for the manufacturer), but warranty of fitness is for merchants/retailers.
Sony is not doing its part to ensure that consumers can make the correct determination, but that is not a "fit for purpose" argument. To say it is reflects only confusion about consumer law. The problem is one of labeling and informing of the customer, with an onus on the manufacturer alone. "Fit for purpose" protections assume a compatibility standard of care. They are particularly tricky with software content--it can be fit for purpose without being universally compatible. The problem you describe is one of disclosure (primarily that Sony does not disclose that its discs may not be playable on certain hardware but also that the DVD player hardware does not disclose its own limitation). The DVD logo unfortunately does not mean anything like the CD logo does, so the logo does not in fact make any sort of enforceable claim.
In short, customer assumption about compatibility does not correlate to warranty of fitness status on the product. If you create a product called "iCassette" which is nothing more than a tape deck adapter, people will assume that it will work with an iPod. If for some reason it was incompatible with an iPod, it does not violate a warranty of fitness if it never claimed iPod compatibility. You do have a misrepresentation issue there, however, and probably a trademark conflict, but not all customer confusion is lumped under implied warranties.
EXACTLY! Who was held responsible for those CDs? Sony! Who had to provide redress to customers? Sony! Who also had to accept returns and reimburse retailers for the product? Sony!
The retailer wasn't the solution there, either. Thanks to a settlement agreement, reimbursement was ordered (following the process I mentioned earlier in this thread). Absent any such court order or settlement agreement, like the current case, Sony gets to keep all of its money. So instead of buying Sony discs, ripping them, and returning them, someone needs to take SONY to task and not just screw retailers out of the money.
No, that's a supplier-manufacturer liability issue. The ONLY retailers who have a problem are the ones who left the contaminated food on the shelves after being notified to remove it. Retailers have not received any such notice to remove these DVDs. If they did receive such a notice and ignored it, they would be liable, but still not for the same issues as the manufacturer itself.
The manufacturer of the dog food has a strict liability to ensure that products meet specifications. Retailers and distributors have nothing to do with that liability phase and cannot (and are not, as your example illustrates) be held accountable for those problems.
Failure to follow recall guidelines is a punishable offense; absent any recall notice, stores are not responsible. Pet shops have little to worry about in the way of legal responsibility with the pet food issue so long as they complied with all instructions. DVD retailers have not violated any instructions by stocking these products.
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.
That only works with Wal-Mart. Most retailers (even large chain stores) do not have the leverage necessary to pull that sort of operation. Retailers pay up front for commodity purchases--they pay at the maintained wholesale rate issued by Sony. Anyone smaller than Target has the option of purchasing DVDs, and no favorable pricing negotiations.
Sony is one of any number of large corporations with flat-rate pricing. They will not accept partial payment, and retailers simply cannot afford not to carry Sony titles as a matter of principle. There are no magic market forces at work about any sort of "business relationship" that gives any one company preferential treatment here. It's just another one of the many downsides to the *AA cartel. You can buy them or you can not buy them, but you can't send them a check for 90% of the asking price and not expect them to ship you 90% of the product.
You continually fail to realize that it is the CUSTOMER who has a problem with SONY's products. The retailer is nothing more than a distributor. If you have a problem with your potato chips, you don't take them back to the supermarket. You write Lays and send them the bag label, and they claim they'll refund the purchase price. If you have a problem with your new Kitchenaid hand mixer, Kitchenaid handles the warranty repairs (outside the 30-day return period, which is a convenience to allow for instant gratification for broken products). If your TurboTax software eats your refund or miscalculates the total, it's not Best Buy's problem. If your physically-intact disc won't play because Sony put dumbshit DRM on it, it should not be the retailer's problem, either.
The difference being that the discs aren't unmerchantable on a per-unit basis, but on the aggregate. Retailer return policies are for one-off problems, not for class issues. A court of law is the proper resolution of this issue, and not abuse of customer service policies. You can't return a bottle of Advil because it didn't get rid of your headache--but if you have reason to believe there's something wrong with the Advil, you can certainly take that up with the pharmaceutical company.
The discs work as designed. They don't work as advertised (being that they are labeled DVDs), but retailers are not responsible for the claims made on the packaging of products they sell. Your ability to return a defective DVD is intended solely to allow for the replacement of manufacturing errors. Otherwise, you could buy and rip all of your DVDs and then return them because "they don't work on my Linux computer." No one has ever found that DVDs *must* play under Linux.
This absolutely is an advertising issue along with an implied warranty of fitness issue. But the retail customer service remedy is not the correct one. It's the easiest way for customers to get their money back, but it merely treats the symptoms and harms an uninvolved third party.
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.
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 product is not defective. Really. It's a bullshit product, yes, but it is not defective. That's like returning "antique finish" furniture for being damaged. Sony intended for this copy protection scheme to be on the disc. The consequence is that it is incompatible with some players.
That has zero to do with the retailer, and they have no obligation to accept the return. They do it anyway, because it's good customer service and because customer backlash would be massive. But you, the customer, and Sony, the bad guy, have backed them into a corner. Sony won't pay for the disc (since it's not damaged or defective) and customers demand a refund (since it won't work in their player). The retailer gets the honour of eating the cost of the disc and both of the other parties go home with their money.
Sony is at fault for not indicating that these discs are incompatible with some DVD players. The retailer had no way of knowing this, either. The customer thinks the disc is defective because it doesn't play (but the customer has no legal power to designate anything as defective).
You assume that YOUR BELIEF of its defective nature is deterministic--it isn't. Contrary to the claims of the "defective by design" campaign, customers have no legal power to label something as defective, merely because it isn't what they wanted. The disc functions exactly as intended. There is no legal redress available to the retailer, because they have merely accepted the discs as a part of good customer service (they are *not* required to take these discs back simply because they have a retarded copy protection scheme that makes them incompatible with some players--that is not a defect, which is a legal condition which can only be identified by a court, regulatory body, or the manufacturer).
It is manipulation of good faith customer service, plain and simple. "Fit for purpose" does not cover "I assumed it would work, since it looks like other products that do work." Sony did indeed misrepresent itself to both retailers and customers, since it made no notice that the product was different and might not work.
But there is no retailer liability for that. None. Retailers could refuse to accept the return if they have a compatible player to test them on (to verify that they do play on compatible devices), but it would result in horrible backlash.
The customer screwed himself. It's not that complicated. You have a beef with Sony. Take it up with Sony. Your local retailer did not put copy protections on Sony's discs, and they don't have any control over it. Sony simply won't reimburse retailers (the products are not damaged or defective), and I'm not sure what kind of fantasy world you live in where retailers can afford to accept returns without manufacturer reimbursement.
Further, if Sony won't pay for the returns, the stores can't afford *not* to carry Sony titles--they'll just bleed even more cash for not having a full selection of titles. Your "retailer boycott" only works if all the retailers dump Sony (instead, it'll just drive up sales for the retailers that continue stocking Sony). You're just passing the buck: "I don't want to bother with anything, so I'll just make the retailer deal with it, even though I'm the dumbass who bought the shitty disc in the first place."
The customer is only screwing the retailer. Just like people like to complain about class-action lawsuits only benefiting the lawyers, this rip-and-dump buying strategy only hurts retailers. It does not hurt Sony one bit. If you made an initial purchase of a Sony product, Sony got paid. If you return the disc for "not working" and Sony receives its undamaged and functions-as-intended discs back from the retailer, Sony doesn't cut the retailer a check. Sony keeps the money, retailer loses the money. You'll kill the retailers, not the beast.
How hard is that to understand, really?
From Sony's point of view. It is delivered exactly as it was made.
The only reason that manufacturers reimburse retailers for returns is if they are defective or damaged. Sony isn't going to consider their own discs either of those, and so will not reimburse retailers for them. Sony MEANT to include this copy protection. Customers may not like it, but that doesn't make it defective. The whole "defective by design" campaign has apparently gotten people to forget that consumers have no legal power to label anything as defective.
I know this is Slashdot, but reading comprehension has really gone down the tubes.
I'm not aware of any download service which doesn't simultaneously upload which is currently in use to distribute movies. If you're aware of an exception, then you'd be absolutely correct.
The customer is at fault. He is doing business with a dishonest party. He is also too lazy to seek a remedy FROM the dishonest party (all the retailer did was offer the crap product for sale; you're the one who bought it--it can't be the retailer's fault any more than it is your own).
In a sane society, people take responsibility for themselves and don't go out of their way to save a buck no matter who he screws in the process. Retailers are collateral damage. You're the one that chose to buy the defective product (you can argue that you didn't know about the ARCCOS crap, yes, but how is the retailer supposed to know? the veil of ignorance protects both parties). You are no less to blame than the retailer, and your actions result in harm only to the retailer, and do not translate into forcing the "bad guy" (Sony) to correct its actions. After all, Sony gets to keep its money, and maybe somewhere down the line, they have to give a free DVD to affected customers. The retailer has yet to reimbursed for the returns, and doesn't get free stock to compensate.
No, because when you buy the disc at the store, Sony makes its money. When you return it to the retailer, Sony keeps its money.
Even if the retailers band together sufficiently to complain, the reparations cost Sony less than they cost the retailer--because the consumers have already given Sony their money, but the retailer has been bleeding cash.
Sony would only be responsive if they weren't making money at all (i.e. the discs sit on the shelves, the retailers don't order new stock, and customers don't hand over any money for them). But as long as consumers buy the product initially (even if they return it the same day), the only person getting screwed is the retailer.
There's not a damn thing wrong with the disc. It is exactly as Sony intended it to be shipped, and having been involved in law suits about trying to get purchases reimbursed by the manufacturer (not everyone is a Walmart or a Target, and you'd be fairly surprised how little leverage most individual retailers--even chains--have over suppliers), it's not as simple as you make it seem.
Retailers can't "not carry" Sony pictures, because people will notice the gaping holes in the collection and buy them elsewhere--the general public might be annoyed with Sony, but they're not going to stop buying their products. The retailer has to carry them, or they will suffer reduced sales elsewhere (because most people will shop where they have a full selection). The manufacturer won't eat their own products that work exactly as designed unless the PR gets really bad (like the CD rootkit) or they're forced to recall them by a regulatory body.
Stores could get pissed off enough not to carry Sony products, but it's rare for a retailer not to have to accept getting reamed. The store's anger is not often greater than the consumer desire to purchase them. If they can't break even, they'll have to sit back and take it (even Target).
In any case, you're still just advocating passing the buck. The retailers have zero to do with Sony's poor product choices--and as long as people continue to buy them in large numbers, they'll still be on shelves. The only way to get Sony to act is to avoid buying them in the first place, which means that retailers won't have to order new stock and Sony won't be making money from anyone.
You would be within your rights to be in possession of that downloaded copy (as long as you maintain ownership of the DVD as long as you keep the copy), but you would still be guilty of distribution of copyrighted material (a crime in the US; a civil liability in most of Europe) by participating in the download process.
In other words, you're still not free and clear, but at the same time, it's unlikely that any court would find in the plaintiff's favor since you did buy the DVD (unless you did the "good" thing and let the download continue to seed for hours/days after completing, in which case you would clearly be distributing content illegally and even a sympathetic court would have no real alternative but to side with the prosecution).
It's not the retailer's fault, and you've created a situation where most retail outlets will have to eat the cost of that disc--they can't resell it, and there's nothing wrong with it, so they won't be reimbursed for it.
You might enjoy your flair for the dramatic, and it might make you feel high and powerful to make a scene in a store, but the product works as intended from the manufacturer and the retailer made the sale in an appropriate manner. All you're doing is taking advantage of decent customer service and contributing to increased animosity between retailers and customers.
If you have a problem with a Sony disc, send it back to Sony with a copy of the receipt and demand a refund of the purchase price. Yeah, it's harder, and yeah it takes more time and effort, but that's what happens when you do the right thing.
Never mind the whole "rip and return" issue, which is exactly the kind of thing that put DRM on products in the first place. The laziness of customers (who won't do anything to fix a broken system, but will happily ignore the law merely because it suits them and is the easier thing to do, all the while justifying it in their heads) is the real reason we've been foisted with all this crap. But this is Slashdot, so God forbid the evil companies aren't totally to blame.
Number 1 is not categorically true of residential units (not that this thread ever limited itself to such). The contracts are generally rare, because most landlords and leasing companies use an "early termination penalty" as a boilerplate standard. They are not precluded from drawing up an unbreakable lease, however. Many will make this arrangement for luxury condos, particularly in LA and San Francisco, where monthly rents for one-bedroom units can and do exceed $6000. There cannot be a deadline for finding a replacement--the only mitigation measures necessary are the ones used to rent the unit in the first place (put the unit in available listings, answer inquiries about it, and entertain offers for leasing). Departing tenants certainly may assist, and landlords may actively recruit tenants, but this is not required. Nearly all leases have early termination provisions (must give notice and pay rent during notice period; forfeit security deposit/last month's rent; must pay $x penalty to break lease; must find replacement tenants), but those that do not should be renegotiated.
Who said anything about small claims court? If someone did have $28k to collect, they certainly wouldn't file in small claims court, where the limit is $7500. The landlord wouldn't file at all in all likelihood, because they would have found a replacement tenant on their own--perhaps filing for upaid rent during the notice period might occur. If, however, you sign a $28,000 lease and only pay the first $8000 of it, you will probably be evicted and then taken to court for the unpaid difference between last payment and eviction. The court indeed might order payment of the full term amount, but it's not likely in a personal residential case. The measure must remain in place, however, to protect landlords who depend on rent income for their own wellbeing. This is not usually true of the management companies (which are the dominant force in rentals in California due to the complex residential codes and the high dollar amounts of rent payments).
All that means is that the landlord has to list the property as vacant and make it available in his listings of available properties, respond to inquiries, and rent the unit if an offer is made. He does not need to seek replacement tenants. With the vacancy rates in most places, a unit will be rented within a reasonable time frame.
The requirement is in place to prevent landlords from refusing to rent the unit (and instead benefitting from the lower costs of collecting on an empty unit for an extended period).
I've brought my phone to six different service providers on three continents with no problems since I got it in 2005 (it's a Windows Mobile device, and the tradeoff is no access to the carriers' multimedia crap and ringtones stores--which I couldn't possibly care less about). I've never had a problem. When I had to return to the US for two months, I used Cingular's pay as you go service and had no problems whatsoever. I wasn't even charged for the SIM card or the activation. The device is even very plainly branded T-Mobile.
What you're looking for is "no strings attached" and it is not synonymous with "free." It's the same story in all kinds of business--there is a clear distinction between gratis and libre. Cell phones are gratis, but not libre. You don't pay for them directly, but you get them by paying for something else.
This is just like the free toothbrush that comes with some toothpaste. You're not charged anything for the toothbrush, but you can't just rip it off and not buy the toothpaste, because they're bundled together.
Well here on planet Earth, landlords who have signed lease agreements have the right to collect the total amount of rent agreed upon in the contract (the total dollar amount is always disclosed in California, for example "rent to be paid at so-and-so monthly for a total of $27,849 per year"). If you move out early and your agreement does not allow for breaking the contract at all, you're stuck until you pay every penny of that agreed-upon amount, whether you're physically present in the unit or not. The landlord does not have to rent the unit to anyone else, nor does he have to look for a replacement tenant prior to the expiration of your lease.
That's why you should never sign that kind of lease. The ones with early move-out penalties are far more desirable.
"That kind of mentality is almost the same as saying putting hot water in ice trays makes ice faster."
If your ice cube tray is the size of the earth, it just might. General temperature increases cause result in weaker gradients in the temperatures--less strength in these gradients kills the dynamo powering currents (in the air and water), producing less heat transfer. Motion that carries warm air and water to more distant latitudes diminishes as a result. Without a supply of warm air and temperate currents to certain parts of the world, it would indeed get colder, even as global average temperature increased. It would take quite some time for the temperature to increase EVERYWHERE on Earth.
Many parts of the northern and southern hemispheres SHOULD be colder, but warm tropical air and water provides a heat source. If that heat boosts temperatures, say, 6 degrees above what it would otherwise be, and climate change causes a 2 degree increase in the average global temperature and kills off that heat source, that region of the world would still end up 4 degrees colder on average, even with global warming. This effect eventually cancels out when global warming catches up, but that takes centuries.
It's not that hard of a concept to understand, really.