Buy: Sountrack to "Fast & Furious"

Well, that's cool. I'm glad you're a big fucking pushover that likes getting fucked in the ass all over the place. I myself would rather not buy defective shit or get overcharged by $100 on my phone bill (true story), but that's me. Know what? That $100 went toward something better, and I never would have gotten it back if I didn't call and say "hey, you guys screwed up."

Congrats on having no backbone.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Well, that's cool. I'm glad you're a big fucking pushover that likes getting fucked in the ass all over the place. I myself would rather not buy defective shit or get overcharged by $100 on my phone bill (true story), but that's me. Know what? That $100 went toward something better, and I never would have gotten it back if I didn't call and say "hey, you guys screwed up."

Congrats on having no backbone.

First off, dham, you keep referring to "damaged" and "defective" goods. This CD would be neither...it is simply incompatible for use on a Mac or Linux system (according to the article I read on zdnet).

Secondly, is there any type of warning on this CD regarding its playability? I am assuming that this is just now starting (given that this article just came out last Wednesday), along with the fact that the CD has been out for several months. Perhaps this "new" version is not yet on store shelves?

Third, technically, you're not actually buying "damaged goods" in this situation. You are attempting to protest a decision made by VivendiUniversal using a risky method that could leave you out of money.

Fourth, the number of people that will probably be affected by this would appear to be rather minute. Truth be told (for good or bad), most people either have a standard audio CD player or use a Windows-based computer.

Lastly, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a problem or error. However, the problem is not with the retailer in this situation, but with VivendiUniversal. And if the retailers don't yet have the information, why should they deserve the brunt of anyone's anger?

[Undertoad]

What if sales of the CD are tracked independently of returns? RIAA could use the sales numbers as evidence that copy-prevention works.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju2112
Customers who throw fits to get what they want are babies who have never bothered to grow up. You want something (milk, toys, a refund), so you whine, bitch, complain, and generally throw a bit hissy fit until someone gives you your damned milk just to shut you up.

In this instance, I could understand a person getting pissed off...especially if the CD is not labeled AND the retailer is well aware of the situation. That would simply be unfair.

I just did a whole rant about customers on my forum, called "God Bless the Customers." As a whole, it comes back to this, IMO: The customer is NOT always right. I've been in the business over 10 years now, 5 of them in retail, and about 3 of those years as a manager. I will give some of the best customer service you have ever received, but there has to be policies and procedures involved. If there were none, businesses would NEVER make money. I can sympathize with places like Best Buy that charge a restocking fee...even though it sucks if it's an expensive item.

syc - they shouldn't. But there's something called "the cost of doing business." If you are a business, you want to keep customers. Sometimes there are going to be problems, and you want to make them right, even if you have to eat $3. I never said anything about getting angry. I really didn't. The fact of the matter is, a business is nothing without its customers, and there are some people out there that will not tolerate being fucked with. It's stupid business, and it's likely to lose you money in the long run.

Now, if I buy something and it is marketed as a "compact disc", then it supposed to meet a certain set of criteria. If it does not, it is defective, even if that defect is intentional. If I sell you a computer with no processor, but still label it as a "computer", you are getting a <b>defective product</b> and I am <b>cheating you</b>. Regardless of policies, if a store is willing to bear the responsibility of selling you an item, they're going to have to take that responsibility - like when it goes bad. Because this specific situation is a new one, Universal is offering to eat the cost of it themselves. But it applies in any situation - if you are a business, you understand that there are risks involved, and you're willing to take them. It is the <b>cost of doing business</b>.

I've dealt with shitty customers too, you know. I deal with government idiots that can't get my software to run correctly because they didn't read the installation procedure. We've all been there. But as a business, your job is to make sure that the customer receives what they want (within reason, of course), because without them, <b>you are out of a fucking job</b>. If they are willing to sell defective merchandise (or if they are so ignorant as to not know what is going on), then they must also accept responsibility when that defective merchandise is returned for a full refund. Period.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Now, if I buy something and it is marketed as a "compact disc", then it supposed to meet a certain set of criteria. If it does not, it is defective, even if that defect is intentional. If I sell you a computer with no processor, but still label it as a "computer", you are getting a <b>defective product</b> and I am <b>cheating you</b>.

Again, is the product being marked as not-compatible on Macs and Linux? Also, read my post again regarding the gap in dates between this new technology and the original release of the CD.

Regardless of policies, if a store is willing to bear the responsibility of selling you an item, they're going to have to take that responsibility - like when it goes bad. Because this specific situation is a new one, Universal is offering to eat the cost of it themselves. But it applies in any situation - if you are a business, you understand that there are risks involved, and you're willing to take them. It is the <b>cost of doing business</b>.

But if the store is not being properly informed by VivendiUniversal, how can they fairly assume responsibility? As far as they know, it's just another CD.

But as a business, your job is to make sure that the customer receives what they want (within reason, of course), because without them, <b>you are out of a fucking job</b>. If they are willing to sell defective merchandise (or if they are so ignorant as to not know what is going on), then they must also accept responsibility when that defective merchandise is returned for a full refund. Period.

You hit the nail on the head--"within reason." Let's say I'm Joe Schmoe running the Customer Service desk at Best Buy. I know nothing of this CD from either the internet or from any notice sent by VivendiUniversal. And then you come in and feed me some "spiel" (this is just an example...obviously, we know that this situation with the CD is true) about how this CD won't work b/c it won't play on a Mac. Could you really fault me if I smiled and politely said, "I'm sorry, but we are unable to take opened CDs back"? Is that service within reason? Certainly...b/c as far I as know, you're on crack trying to con me out of store money and committing a possible violation of US copyright laws.

And realistically, am I overly concerned about losing your business? In the long run, not really. You're returning a $15 CD, on which Best Buy is making little or no money. Sure, you may want to buy a computer or HDTV down the line, but there are millions in front of you that are still going to come in. Would a complaint to the Attorney General or the BBB hold up? Nope...especially when shown that the store had no knowledge of this situation. Does that attitude suck? Certainly...but that is ALSO a cost of doing business. You can't please all the people all the time.

In that situation, I would politely ask "Are you in a position that you can tell me 'Yes'?" When they say "No", I say "then please put me in touch with someone who is."

The fact of the matter is, stores still have to be responsible for what they sell. Do they have the time to do checking on every single they they sell? Of course not. They would never make any money. But that's not my fault. If they're selling laser printers that happen to explode when they try to print, well, if I take it back to Best Buy, I want a refund, even if they haven't been notified that this line of LaserJets is filled with nitroglycerin.

Let's put it this way: if I go in to return my copy of "The Fast and the Furious Motion Picture Soundtrack" and it's all scratched up on the bottom and the liner notes are broken, well, then I wouldn't expect my money back. That is unreasonable.

However, if I take it in, talk to a manager and say "Look, I bought this CD the other day 'cause I really liked the movie and I wanted to have the soundtrack. I got it home and popped it in my Macintosh so I could listen to it and it didn't work. At all. So I thought my CD drive was bad and I was complaining about it on a newsgroup when someone pointed out to me that this CD is purposefully manufactured with certain defects so that it won't play on a Macintosh. I did a little bit of research and found out that Universal is accepting opened returns and will compensate for the opened ones that are returned to them. Since this CD is now useless to me, I'd like a refund, please."

Most of the time, they're going to do something for you. Especially if you're dressed well and talk to them with respect. Older persons tend to have better luck with this than younger ones do, because managers know that younger ones are less likely to be making serious money and therefore are less likely to be spending it. It's also more difficult to take someone that's younger than you seriously.

Anyway. It works. It always does, and it always will. Obviously, there are things that you can't get a refund for - your cell phone stories, for example. But I think that they're also tainting your view - you've been trained to hate the customer, it seems. "Customers are annoying" - no. I know this, because I have customers too - customers give you their money so you'll smile at them when they take your product home, and without them, you don't get paid. I know some customers are assholes and ask for way too much, but the fact remains that if I buy something from Best Buy or CompUSA or MicroCenter or whereever, get it home and find it to be dysfunctional... I'm getting my money back (or an exchange, if I so desire). Period.

Now, as far as you being concerned about losing my business... well, that all depends. Big chains like Best Buy are not. Bank of America is not. Which is why you say to them, when all else has failed:

"Look, I know it's a hassle for you to refund the money I spent on this defective CD, but it's much less of a hassle than a letter to the editor campaign might be."

Though I make a lot of money and buy a lot of things, I know I don't have the monetary power to hurt Best Buy. But I sure as shit will rally the troops if I find you doing something to fuck the customer. Fortunately, I have not yet had to start writing letters to the editor...

Originally posted by Undertoad
What if sales of the CD are tracked independently of returns? RIAA could use the sales numbers as evidence that copy-prevention works.

The RIAA would be fooling themselves. They might want to preach this to the public about how no one dislikes copy protection - it's all copacetic, etc. But the fact of the matter is, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they ignored the numbers. Suppose that copy protection really <b>does</b> piss people off. Say 50% of all purchased CDs are returned (I know this is way high, but let's ignore that for the sake of the argument). Say the CD sells 1 million copies. Well, now 500,000 CDs are returned 'cause they're suffering from DRM. Maybe the RIAA washes their hands of them, saying "hey, we showed you that DRM works and is no big deal, so we're not paying for returns." Well, then the chains like Best Buy, etc go "fuck Vivendi! We're not selling their shit any more" and then refuse to stock it because it means that they'll lose money. So, now the RIAA companies don't sell as many copies and lose money.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
The fact of the matter is, stores still have to be responsible for what they sell. Do they have the time to do checking on every single they they sell? Of course not. They would never make any money. But that's not my fault. If they're selling laser printers that happen to explode when they try to print, well, if I take it back to Best Buy, I want a refund, even if they haven't been notified that this line of LaserJets is filled with nitroglycerin.

Depends on the situation. First off, bear in mind that most stores reserve the right to refuse ANY refund (and most of them state this at their stores). Secondly, there will undoubtedly be situations where the returns are handled directly by the manufacturer and not the store.

Anyway. It works. It always does, and it always will. Obviously, there are things that you can't get a refund for - your cell phone stories, for example. But I think that they're also tainting your view - you've been trained to hate the customer, it seems.

With all due respect, I've been doing this since 1991, across various situations (call center, mail center, internet, banking, retail, insurance, and restaurant). I would go so far as to say I am a professional in this field, and probably do it better than 90% of the service industry. Part of the reason I'm trying to get out of the field is because most companies DON'T care about the service their customers receive.

In this case, my attitude has nothing to do with it. Each company has a specific set of policies and procedures. Sometimes, the rules are flexible, sometimes not. I can't count the times I took back opened CDs when I worked for Venture (a former discount retailer in the midwest). Why? Because my bosses gave me the power to make decisions like that. I took back a TON of things that I was deadset against. But my company was more willing to part with their money, so I gave it away.

In the end, it is a combination of a company's policies and a manager's willingness to take responsibility. But in a situation where CDs are *not* allowed to be returned once opened, and the company has a hard line policy against this (say, one that could result in disciplinary action), quite frankly, you would not be worth it. Because while you may be paying my salary, you sure as hell won't be when I'm fired for violation of company policy. (I'm sure that a company like Best Buy isn't that hardline against something like this, but it's an example.)

"Look, I know it's a hassle for you to refund the money I spent on this defective CD, but it's much less of a hassle than a letter to the editor campaign might be."

That line is always used against companies as well, again, with mixed results. More power to you if you feel a need to use it. Secondly, again, I think you are misusing the term "defective." If it works as it is supposed to (i.e. On an audio CD player or on a Windows operating system), it is not defective, unless it is not properly marked as such (i.e. "Not for use on Macintosh and Linux systems").

As for the CD itself, basically, these CDs do not fit into the CDDA spec. If they are marked and sold as such (which I honestly <b>do not know</b>, but will find out shortly), then they are being mismarketed and are therefore defective. There is a certain set of criteria a music CD must fit into, and it definitely isn't "can't play on anything but a Windows computer and a regular CD player." But now we're talking specifics of the CD itself, something both of us are ignorant on.

I'll get back to this later, I need to get some cleaning done.

[juju]

Dham, I would like for you to try this out at Best Buy, and tell us how it goes. What say you?

Gimme a couple days. I don't drive so I have to arrange transportation. But it definitely will be done.

[juju]

Cool... this is gonna be fun. :)

[vsp]

Juju pretty much covered and expanded my views on the subject, but I'll add this:

* It is nearly impossible to underestimate the level of stupidity and/or stubbornness that a retail salesdroid can have, regardless of the actual pertinent facts. I will wager BIG BUCKS that, even in the post-Christmas aftermath (where more items are returned than any other time of the year), you will find some stores reluctant to accept your opened F&F return. Some will, to avoid a fuss. Some won't. Few will without a fight, regardless of what Universal has said, and will point to their "We don't take back opened CDs" policy on the wall.

* You're also likely to run into a particularly obstinate store manager who'll run through a riff like the following:

"Look, I've read about this 'screw Universal' return thing on the Web. You saw the store policy that said 'We don't take back opened CDs' before you bought it. You saw our new policy that imposes a restocking fee on returns before you bought it. You saw the "This CD is copy-protected" sticker before you bought it, and I know that you KNEW it wouldn't work on your system before you bought it.

Come here -- (plays disc on demo PC in store, running Windows) -- see, it works fine unless you're trying to copy it, return the original and screw my store out of what you paid for it. So here's my answer: NO. Even if I did let you return it, we'd charge you the 15% restocking fee. Don't like it? Sue our store. Find a lawyer and start a civil suit. Either take us to court, where we'll tell the technophobic judge that you saw the warning sticker AND the store policies before buying this AND that the disc is fine when played in a normal way, or go take your CD and go home. Not coming back? Boo hoo -- look around you, we've got 4,999 customers in the store right now who look just like you."

Note that the above rant is NOT my opinion in any way on the situation -- it's just the logical extreme of the potential opposition.

If you run into someone like this, you have two choices; find a lawyer who'll work for free and buys your arguments, take the time and effort to go through with the suit and attempt to get your $19.99 back, certainly spending more than that in lost time and fees and effort in the process, or sit there with a disc full of bad songs and not go back to that store again.

Cheesy, ain't it? But nobody ever said that civil disobedience would be cheap, easy, or obviously or immediately effective. Even if the plan works as anticipated (five outlets, five returns), you're spending money for gas to drive to each outlet, spending your valuable time to return these items, and ending up with nothing tangible to show for it except having stuck it to THE MAN, who will then spin it to the press as "This proves that our copy protection works, because the pirates are returning lots of CDs that they can't copy." Which would be a silly statement to make, but it fits right in with their usual output. And if just one out of five decides to screw with you, you're out either $19.99 for a lousy CD that you can't use or you're out a lot of time and effort (and might STILL be out the original $19.99 if the judge hears the word "piracy" and shuts his ears to all else).

Now, back to other points:

* If the CD doesn't play on anything designed for normal CDs, it's not Redbook audio. It's as simple as that. The problem is that it will play on 90% of the CD players out there, which will make Judge X more reluctant to accept that it's truly "defective," particularly if it does bear a sticker on it (which it will) saying "This CD is copy-protected, may not work on non-standard equipment yadda yadda."

dh wrote:

"Say 50% of all purchased CDs are returned (I know this is way high, but let's ignore that for the sake of the argument). Say the CD sells 1 million copies. Well, now 500,000 CDs are returned 'cause they're suffering from DRM. Maybe the RIAA washes their hands of them, saying "hey, we showed you that DRM works and is no big deal, so we're not paying for returns." Well, then the chains like Best Buy, etc go "fuck Vivendi! We're not selling their shit any more" and then refuse to stock it because it means that they'll lose money. So, now the RIAA companies don't sell as many copies and lose money."

Another likely ending to this scenario:

The RIAA says "See? 50% of the music buyers out there are pirates. This demonstrates the need for continued vigilance" and sends out press releases to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Congress. Best Buy and other retailers begin to say "Hey, you KNOW these CDs are out there with DRM. You might not have known before F&F, but it's been all over the newspapers and magazines and TV since then. Don't cry to us if you buy a labeled product and it doesn't work, PIRATE." They continue to sell the CDs to the Britney Spears fans of the world and big business continues as normal.

The "CD Copy Protection Problem" is no different from the endless wars over software piracy. The aim of the RIAA et al. isn't to stamp out "piracy" once and for all; it's to shut off the easily-accessible methods that bring it to the masses. In the 80's, they didn't go after Joe down the block with a pirated copy of Castle Wolfenstein; they went after the makers of Locksmith and similar programs that did the hard work for average users, and they went after the actual cracker groups once in a while to get some PR and act like they were taking a real stand. Some of the arguments being put forth by both sides are even the same as those found in software piracy arguments, particularly the oft-used "We'd buy it if you didn't intentionally jack up the price so high." While I sympathize with the argument (and have voiced it or quietly acted on it myself, and have abused it for years via game console emulation), if I steal a Lexus and say "I'd have bought one if you didn't charge $36,000 for it", I'm going to jail. It's a matter of scale in this case.

The RIAA-types know damn well that if Bob the Hacker wants a copy of Britney's new album without paying for it, he'll get it one way or another. But if they can set up a rudimentary roadblock that'll keep Britney disciples from buying one copy and ripping off 'n' CDRs for friends, that's a gain in their minds -- they're losing 'x' sales from those with Macs or otherwise pissed at the protection, but (theoretically and ONLY theoretically, but this is how their minds work) gaining 'n' sales from the friends who don't get CDRs, and figure that n > x because it's the clueless masses who buy most of the musical pap being pumped out there ANYWAY.

Those of us who are savvy, who do keep up with these issues and feel the need to fight unreasonable restrictions will continue to do so, but the sad reality is that we're generally a small minority. Universal will likely GLADLY take a financial hit on F&F to be able to claim success and demonstrate the need for the protection (which is win-win for them. If nobody returns it, they say "See? Nobody noticed the protection, so it'll stay." If lots return it, they say "See? The piracy problem is HUGE and we need more protection."). The average soccer mom or Britney fan will continue buying CDs as usual and the bottom line will barely twitch.

Do I _want_ anti-rip protection, or feel that it's a valid restriction of my rights to use my purchased CD in any way I see fit? No, I don't. Do I believe it's coming en masse, no matter what the tech-savvy want or believe? Damn right. Will someone find a way to hack it about eight hours after it's released, followed by a new system to foil the hack, followed by a newer hack, etc.? Of course. Will some enterprising hacker be sued under the DMCA for his rip-enabling hack? Absolutely. Things are going to get messy out there.

[mbpark]

Hello,

It doesn't work on my DVD drive . Therefore, I can rip to my heart's content.

I think I may just have to auction this drive off on eBay and use the proceeds to buy a new one and some beer.

Mitch