Do you have that in writing???

[shadow1186]

You've made valid points, and I'm not on here to argue my reasons for saying the things I do to appease guests to the best of my ability. I stick to the "it's store policy" as much as possible to clear the issue up. Perhaps when I go to work next time I'll clarify this policy with my upper-management so that "I know what I'm talking about"

When I was trained I didn't see the need to question everything they told me, I'm not that type of paranoid person that thinks everyone's out to tell me the wrong thing and seek undeniable proof before I carry out their policies. It's like playing a role, and saying the right things at the right time to help get to the next guest in line with an actual issue, more so than an excuse "it was inappropriate" which was not of our concern because we did not force them in any way to buy it in the first place.

[South Texan]

I am going to chime in here as this issue goes beyond mere store policy and does, in fact, involve Federal statues.

It is not so much the threat of copying the work that is at issue as it is interference with the right of the copyright owner regarding what is to be done with the copyrighted work. The owner has the sole authority to determine whether to sell or to lend the work out. By allowing a customer to buy a DVD/CD/program, open it and view/hear/play it, then return it for a different DVD/CD/program, the store is thwarting the rights of the owner as it is allowing the customer to view/hear/play the work without paying for such use as the owner has determined should be done with the work.

Title 17 of the United States Code
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

[wolfie]

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.

Having played it (fairly cartoonish, no in-game sign that tanks, SAM launchers, helicopters, etc. are manned rather than merely machines), I'd say that A-10 Tank Killer would be "safe" for kids to play, despite having "Killer" in its name.

[Pedersen]

It is not so much the threat of copying the work that is at issue as it is interference with the right of the copyright owner regarding what is to be done with the copyrighted work. The owner has the sole authority to determine whether to sell or to lend the work out.

South Texan, I find this interesting. From what you are saying, you have a number of misconceptions about copyright here in the United States.

You state:

By allowing a customer to buy a DVD/CD/program, open it and view/hear/play it, then return it for a different DVD/CD/program, the store is thwarting the rights of the owner as it is allowing the customer to view/hear/play the work without paying for such use as the owner has determined should be done with the work.

By attaching the conditions under which an individual may view a copyrighted work, you are attaching moral rights, which is not something that applies here in the US. Copyrights are about the rights of the owners of the copyrights to determine who may make copies of a work (not just digital).

As a result, you are attempting to grant rightsholders more authority than they have at this time.After reading that link I provided, I'm not even sure that moral rights would grant you what you zre stating exists. I'd go so far as to say that there is no legal backing, in fact.

Copyright owners are allowed to dictate when/how copies are made, but that is it. Go, re-read the section of law you quoted. It does not dictate who is allowed to view a copy. If it did, you would not be able to have friends over to watch a movie you have bought (or rented). They could not listen to a CD, or play a game, or even read a book, since that would be depriving rights owners of revenue. Book burnings would be illegal, since rights owners would be able to dictate what could be done with the works after they have been purchased.

The copyright owner may only dictate the terms under which a new copy of the work may be produced.

To put it another way, consider what happens with stores like Borders, Barnes & Noble, and the like. People come in, read fragments of books (sometimes the whole book), all without paying for those books. Again, depriving copyrights owners of revenue. And yet, these stores are 100% legal. Same for libraries.

So, yes, the entire issue comes down to lost revenue for the stores. That is why the policies are in place. And I agree with those policies. I don't agree with telling people it's being done due to non-existent laws.

[friendofjimmyk]

I LOVE TRUE BLOOD!

[South Texan]

Sorry, Pedersen, but I know what I am talking about. It is far more than a moral right. It is a true, legal right the owner of the work has regarding how the work will be distributed to the public. The section I quoted insures that right.

You might want to read the sections regarding libraries and fair use. Then you might want to read the sections regarding the rights and limitations of the owner of the copy. (I have had to do so many times.) They address much of what you posted. Remember, though, that the store selling the DVD rarely is the owner of the copy it is selling.

The retail stores are very correct in saying their inability to accept an opened copy of a DVD for refund or a different DVD is based on Federal law if the owner has dictated they are to sell rather than lend out the copy.

[Pedersen]

Sorry, Pedersen, but I know what I am talking about. It is far more than a moral right. It is a true, legal right the owner of the work has regarding how the work will be distributed to the public. The section I quoted insures that right.

No, it is not. You are making the assertion that the rights owner has the right to dictate how you, the viewer of the work, may use/view the product. The closest you can get to being correct is in the case of a commercial use of a copyrighted work (such as having a TV in a bar, or playing music in a store). Those fall under the sections of the law regarding performing a work. When dealing with private use, you are not performing a work, and therefore those sections do not apply.

Now, I will admit to possibly being wrong. If I am, then there will be at least one case that has been decided, or one piece of codified law has been written, and can be shown that will reveal the error of my ways. Please cite the relevant case or law, since you do apparently know it, and I do not.

You might want to read the sections regarding libraries and fair use. Then you might want to read the sections regarding the rights and limitations of the owner of the copy. (I have had to do so many times.)

Ah, fair use argument. Interesting that you would trot that out in defense of your position. Maybe I'll trot out first sale doctrine. Of course, they're both irrelevant for this, so I won't even try to make the claim that mine matters.

As for the rights and limitations, you're claiming that, somewhere in Title 17 USC, the consumer is actually prohibited from returning a product that they have purchased if they have opened it. To bolster your opinion, you have cited § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, which governs the reproduction and public performance of copyrighted works. It does not cover the return of opened copyrighted items.

Furthermore, I did not discuss libraries. I spoke of commercial entities allowing (and sometimes apparently encouraging) patrons of a separate segment of their business (the coffee shop) to pick up a book off the shelf, sit down, and read it, without any need to actually buy it. This practice deprives copyright owners of revenue, and the consumer gets to view the entire thing. If anything, this practice is more detrimental to the copyright holder, and yet it is legal. This significantly reduces the claim you make that the store would be unable to take back copies due to federal law and/or copyright revenue reduction.

The reason that stores do not allow it is on the basis that people have, repeatedly, bought an item, made a full digital copy, and then returned that item, thus depriving the store of the profit of the sale, and costing the store the employee's time to make the sale and then process the return.

Again, I will admit that I could be wrong. If I am, point me to the place that shows it. It would have to exist. Show me a reference. As it is, you've shown a place that says that I may not illegally copy material. Not much of a surprise there.

They address much of what you posted. Remember, though, that the store selling the DVD rarely is the owner of the copy it is selling.

Now this is news to me. The store did not purchase the copy they are selling? They are allowing another company to use their floor space, and just charging them rent? Or did you mean that the store does not own the copyrights for the item being sold? That would be no big surprise, either, and does nothing for the argument either way. It's no surprise that the stores don't own the copyrights.

It would be a big surprise for the store not to have purchased that copy of the media, though. Any citations for this? Or was that a strange way of phrasing what you meant?

The retail stores are very correct in saying their inability to accept an opened copy of a DVD for refund or a different DVD is based on Federal law if the owner has dictated they are to sell rather than lend out the copy.

Actually, I was wrong: First sale doctrine may very well be very important. If the store did actually purchase the copy of the media that they are selling to the customer (as I suspect, and will be calling some stores tomorrow to check), then the copyright owner loses the ability to say what happens to that copy once the money has changed hands. They simply have the right to dictate how future copies are made.

Again, for the (far-too-many'th) time, I could be wrong. I'll even broadcast it. Show me the reference. As I've stated often enough, you've shown me that copyright holders are able to dictate how copies are made. I agree. As I've also stated, if the stores want to refuse opened returns based on store policy, I agree. And, if the store wants to say they're doing so to avoid the costs of people making copies and returning, I agree.

Where I disagree is in the spreading of misinformation about the full reach of copyright law. Don't make up new rights that dont' exist. Don't make up new laws that don't exist. Be factual. Simple as that.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

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

The first day I worked in a video store, I found a copy of "Akira" and several violent anime on the shelf in the Kids' section. I was the first person to point out the "Not recommended for viewers under 18" warning on the boxes and suggested that they should be with the Care Bears...

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

While I don't disagree with you Pedersen, most retail workers are not legal experts nor are they required to be. When I first worked at a games store, we also had the "no returns on opened new product" policy and the manager who trained me told me the policy existed due to "copyright law".

I admit I didn't research it for myself, but it seemed a reasonable enough explanation to me that I didn't question it, at the same time I wouldn't have argued with someone who actually did show the law as written to me and demand we take back their game.