Do you have that in writing???

[shadow1186]

So this lovely lady I got to deal with myself. I got called over to Guest Service because some lady had demanded to see a manager, oh joy, the good ones always start out this way....

So I get over there and this lady, mid-thirties with 2 kids in tow, is demanding a refund on an open dvd because she thought the contents were "innappropriate". Knowing I couldn't do it according to copyright laws, I asked to see the DVD, well it was "True Blood" and the cover looks like this....


Any sane person could see that this wouldn't be an "appropriate" show by most definitions. I'll admit I nearly laughed, but I told her we couldn't take the return due to federal laws, and of course she pulls the "Can I see this in writing" and I told her to flip her receipt over where it was clearly stated. She didn't like this one bit, and demanded to then see my manager, whom I called over and they told her the same exact thing to which she grabbed the DVD and left in quite a huff.

Oh well, I wonder if she's ever heard of the concept of "renting" and item to see if you like it before actually buying....probably not.

[CSR Kim]

ROFL...wouldn't you do research, if you'd never heard of the show before? True Blood is probably the last thing in the world I would let my kid watch. I certainly wouldn't pick up a DVD with that cover and assume it was kid friendly, and at the very least I would check the back of the freaking box to see what it was rated. That lady was a moron.

[jerkface11]

Hey at least the vampires don't sparkle.

[Crescent Cat]

I'm curious. Based on the cover what could she have possibly thought the show would be about that it would be appropriate for her kids?

[Imogene]

I'm curious. Based on the cover what could she have possibly thought the show would be about that it would be appropriate for her kids?

Licking her mouth= food? Maybe it's a cooking show? About blood?

[El Pollo Guerrera]

I'm curious. Based on the cover what could she have possibly thought the show would be about that it would be appropriate for her kids?

I was wondering that too, but shadow1186 didn't say that the woman said it was 'inappropriate for her kids', just that they were 'inappropriate'.

I'm wondering if she just watched it herself and didn't like it.

Maybe, if it was the kids, the kids themselves picked it out for her to buy and she did without knowing what it was (or even looking at it). I've worked in a video store before... that happened all the time. "My 9-year old son and his friends want to rent 'Wild Things', 'Natural Born Killers' and all of these 'Friday the 13th' movies... are they appropriate for someone their age?"



What's worse was I had a co-irker that didn't know how to help pick movies appropriate for people. A 70-year old grandmother came in and tore a strip off him because he recommended "Scary Movie" for her and her grandchildren, all less than 10 years old.

[shadow1186]

She didn't really clarify whether it was inappropriate for herself or the kids, only that she turned it off after the first 10 minutes. If the kids indeed picked it up for her to buy, she should've been looking at what it was, especially since it's right around the 40 dollar mark for pricing.

[EricKei]

We had the same issue at the GameStore. The thing is, while MOST parents will say "NO GAME FOR YOU" when we explain to them that a "Rated M For Money" game isn't appropriate for widdle Jimmy, we also get the ones who came in -- in drives -- for GTA 3 at its release "because it keeps them quiet". My favorite rationale: "It's OK, I just keep the volume turned off so they don't hear any bad words"....I'm beginning to think Kyle's Mom was right in the South Park movie >_>

to wit:

Remember: horrific, terrible violence is O-K, as long as there are no naughty words!

It does scare the heck out of me that ANYONE would think that a game with words like Grand Theft, Mortal, Killer, or something similar in the name would, in any way, be considered "safe" for kids to play. We had the rating signs posted all over the store, and we were always VERY happy to lose a sale rather than send a 5-year old home with an M-Rated game...

[tropicsgoddess]

I just don't see how anybody would think a movie like that would be anything near appropriate for kids to see! Apparently for her the concept movie ratings let alone rentals is foreign to her. Idiot.

[Teskeria]

Obviously she thinks (ok not the right word), make that decided:

M=Mommy approved

[EricKei]

M=Mommy approved

Kids have tried to make this argument in store, before; some even convinced their parents of it. We corrected THAT error really quickly...

[Pedersen]

I'll admit I nearly laughed, but I told her we couldn't take the return due to federal laws, and of course she pulls the "Can I see this in writing" and I told her to flip her receipt over where it was clearly stated.

Ah, the joys of the misconceptions about copyright law here in these United States. This particular statement gets made every so often, and I then find myself obliged to point out that nowhere in Title 17, USC (you know, the section of the federal law in the United States that dictates the copyright code) is it rendered illegal for a seller to accept returns on opened (and copyrighted) material.

I admit that it is possible that individual states might have stricter laws, but have never heard of such laws. If they do exist, please respond with the state and a link that shows the relevant section of the law, preferably on a state owned/operated website, so that I may read such for myself.

Store policy is a fine reason, and I have no objection to refusing returns on the grounds of it being against store policy. But if you ever come across me, and that is not an explicit written store policy, and you pull that line, I can promise you that I will show you the relevant section of the law right then (wireless internet is a wonderful thing), and ask you to show me where you would be violating the law. You will really not like me right then, and neither will your manager.

Using the federal laws bit here in the US makes you look foolish to the people who do know the law. Don't use it.

Now, show me where the law shows me to be wrong (here in the US), and you'll get a public apology from me. I made that offer here, too. Nobody's ever taken me up on it.

[Nyx]

hmm Reminds me of the covers of "H" movies and the morons who think animated = kid friendly.

[shadow1186]

Ah, the joys of the misconceptions about copyright law here in these United States. This particular statement gets made every so often, and I then find myself obliged to point out that nowhere in Title 17, USC (you know, the section of the federal law in the United States that dictates the copyright code) is it rendered illegal for a seller to accept returns on opened (and copyrighted) material.

I admit that it is possible that individual states might have stricter laws, but have never heard of such laws. If they do exist, please respond with the state and a link that shows the relevant section of the law, preferably on a state owned/operated website, so that I may read such for myself.

Store policy is a fine reason, and I have no objection to refusing returns on the grounds of it being against store policy. But if you ever come across me, and that is not an explicit written store policy, and you pull that line, I can promise you that I will show you the relevant section of the law right then (wireless internet is a wonderful thing), and ask you to show me where you would be violating the law. You will really not like me right then, and neither will your manager.

Using the federal laws bit here in the US makes you look foolish to the people who do know the law. Don't use it.

Now, show me where the law shows me to be wrong (here in the US), and you'll get a public apology from me. I made that offer here, too. Nobody's ever taken me up on it.

Honestly, it's what I've been trained as to why this is our policy, I suppose it is mainly based in the DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act), I've never investigated it myself to find how accurate it is. However, most guests won't take our policy seriously, so it aids as a good back-up help them understand why our computers won't even allow us past a certain point in the transaction to return such items.

[Pedersen]

Honestly, it's what I've been trained as to why this is our policy, I suppose it is mainly based in the DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act), I've never investigated it myself to find how accurate it is. However, most guests won't take our policy seriously, so it aids as a good back-up help them understand why our computers won't even allow us past a certain point in the transaction to return such items.

Actually, it still weakens your position, and using that as your backup weakens it even further. The DMCA's first letter stands for "Digital", and that gives a strong clue as to what it's about. It's about the creation of unauthorized digital copies. The store does not make unauthorized copies, so cannot be found liable for that, especially with the Safe Harbor provisions (which, amusingly enough, talk only about online service providers, not brick and mortar stores).

Your best argument for such a customer (and this is an incredibly weak one) is to try to claim that the store could be found liable for contributory copyright infringement. However, that requires that the store be certain that copyright infringement has occurred. Unless you are going to state that all customers returning open media have copied (and have absolute proof of this), you can only make this statement on a case by case basis, thereby accusing the customer standing in front of you of copyright infringement. If that customer can show you to be wrong, then you can be sued (and likely personally) for slander.

As a final nail in that coffin, making that claim could easily result in someone offering to get a notarized statement claiming that they made no unauthorized copies, which would be an ironclad defense against any contributory copyright infringement ("Here, look, he gave us as close to a sworn statement as he could that he didn't make any. How could we argue differently?").

No, using a non-existent law is the worst way to defend yourself when a customer wants to do that. It weakens your position, and lets the customer who does know the law improve his standing. He can say "You don't even know what you're talking about" and be right, which just makes you and your store look foolish.

The best way to handle it is going to be to tell him the truth: Too many customers were buying media, taking it home, copying it, and returning it. They were deliberately making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, and using the store as the source of the material. They took the time of store employees, effectively either stealing from or defrauding the store, and this, in turn, has resulted in policies preventing the return of any opened and copyrighted material. Until such time as the public can prove that they will not do this to the stores anymore, stores (including yours) have implemented a policy that reduces their operating costs. It may well be unfair to the customer standing in front of you, but the way that customers were using the store was unfair. This policy allows the store to continue selling copyrighted material, and without it, they would have to reconsider selling it at all.

Truth: A much better defense than non-existent laws. Especially since using a non-existent law that you now know is non-existent would basically mean you are lying to the customer in front of you. And, somehow, I don't think you want to be a liar.