My physical store has a software system that's similar to many systems, in that it has built-in fail safes. For instance, when each item is entered, the COGS is entered, as well as the retail price and the lowest price that we'd take for it. Anything lower than that lowest price requires an override.
If similar safeties were built into the Zappos system, this wouldn't have happened. This isn't an isolated incident - the only thing that makes it really news-worthy is Zappos' positive response to it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I sympathize with Zappos, but the fact that it happened in the first place and went on so long is their fault, and absolutely could have been prevented, just as it can be prevented in a brick-and-mortar store when people with sense are paying attention.
With that in mind, I don't see why their customers should be punished for their regrettable lack of foresight.
I want to say that in my store, as in many stores, our prices and tags are created by a computer program, so glitches are possible - and have happened before. In both cases, I caught it when I came in. Once it was after a few hours, once it was three days. Neither time did we punish the customers by demanding that they return the jewelry or pay a higher price, even when we still had the jewelry in our custody.
The second time, the sales associates spent the day busily and happily overriding the system, sure in their knowledge that a certain category was being eliminated and that's why we were offering such deep discounts. :P Once again, we didn't punish the customers, even when we could have.
You can choose to take a different job. Children can't choose to attend different schools.
Further, schools are government institutions. Assuming that you live in America, how would you feel if you were treated like a school child is today when you enter a government office?
I disagree. If sales associates think a category is on sale, they'll likely process those sales all day long, until someone comes in the next morning and notices it.
That seems to be exactly what happened here, except the misinformation went to a digital system, rather than a human one. :)
I have long been concerned about the tyrannical situations that our school children have to deal with, day after day. There have been a few cases that generated publicity, but they've been too few and far-between to affect any real change on a large level.
Hopefully, with all of the publicity that these recent cases have gotten, people will start paying attention to what's going on in our public schools.
Adults would never stand for the level of scrutiny and illegal behavior that these children are forced to deal with.
Also, (apparently I can't put my thoughts into one comment today...) I agree that a number based on the cost of goods sold would be reasonable, but I've seen too many situations where spin won over reason to assume that they're being reasonable here.
To be clear, I'm not trying to assume that you believe that, but it seems like that's what you're trying to say. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. :)
...you're much more likely to catch that quickly at a store. In the online world, where news and transactions can spread in a split-second, thousands of people can get in on a "deal" before anyone notices.
So you believe that once sales pass a certain volume, the rules change?
I disagree. There may have been a smaller number of errors, resulting in a lower amount of losses, but that's just to scale. Several thousand dollars to us is the same as several million to them. Several customers to us is several thousand customers to them, and so on.
So you believe that once sales pass a certain volume, the rules change?
I disagree. There may have been a smaller number of errors, resulting in a lower amount of losses, but that's just to scale. Several thousand dollars to us is the same as several million to them.
I actually have no problem with this, though some people think it's horribly evil.
I've never seen anyone call it 'horribly evil' or the like. I have seen people who look at it from the view of the consumer, who may have to wait a week or more for the refund they'll be getting instead of the item that they ordered. Your statement makes it sound as though everyone who disagrees is horribly unreasonable, which isn't the case.
Indeed, when I managed a jewelry store, our policy was to stand by our pricing, even when there were errors, regardless of whether or not we were responsible for those errors. In other words, the buck stopped with us.
I don't take the view that doing otherwise is 'horrible evil', but it is bad business.
...even though the mistakes would end up costing the company (now owned by Amazon) $1.6 million...
Exactly how did they 'lose' 1.6 million dollars? Did they 'lose' it the way that the producers of The Hurt Locker 'lost' millions of dollars to illegal downloads?
It seems reasonable to assume that 1.6 million is the number of dollars that the items would have cost if purchased at full price, or that it's the number of dollars that Zappos, Et Al would have made if the items were purchased at full price, or some other version of the old 'lost sales' argument.
The true number of dollars lost would be the cost of the items, minus the amount paid, which would be $49.95 in this case. I haven't seen any sort of information that leads me to believe that Zappos is using this number, as opposed to an inflated one intended to garner sympathy and publicity for what was simple good business.
Leave it to Doctorow to put it succinctly. The perfect answer to all of the people who insist that copyright is perfect just how it is:
As a practical matter, we live in the 21st century and anything anybody wants to copy they will be able to copy.
If you are building a business model that says that people can only copy things with your permission, your business is going to fail because whether or not you like it, people will be able to copy your product without your permission.
The question is: what are you going to do about that? Are you going call them thieves or are you going to find a way to make money from them?
It's actually not hard to make a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. You can buy them today, on the Internet or in stores. It's not legal but it happens, anyway. Since it's already happening, I can tell you that people still value the original far above the copies, and that waving a piece of paper with US laws doesn't stop those sales.
Let me repeat this: Current copyright laws don't work. Instead of defending this failed system, why not look for something new?
...without copyright protection there is no scarcity...
The government may have conferred rights on these people, but they simply don't work. You can find anything you want on the Internet for free and there isn't anything stopped people from taking advantage of that. You can wave a piece of paper detailing the law and the idea of an artificial scarcity at these downloads all you want, but it doesn't stop them.
So your solution is to continue to wave that paper?
I didn't come close to implying that, although it's a nice straw man to knock down, isn't it?
Please don't 'begin to imply' that any law can be easily traced to 50 BC. As a history buff, I know that's total bunk.
Further, this site doesn't have to propose a business model for there to be a business model. Without copy protection, creative businesses will go on as they have gone on for thousands of years.
All of the models that you mention involve an artificial scarcity. In economics, the costs of these things tend to zero. Unfortunately, you can't wish away economics.
You can choose to use zero to your advantage, rather than failing to legislate it away.
At the end of the day, copy protection doesn't work If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since it doesn't work, shouldn't you be trying to find a model that does?
What do you think the appropriate legal punishment should be for being an accessory to a successful attempt to slow down a website during a legitimate protest?
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
If similar safeties were built into the Zappos system, this wouldn't have happened. This isn't an isolated incident - the only thing that makes it really news-worthy is Zappos' positive response to it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I sympathize with Zappos, but the fact that it happened in the first place and went on so long is their fault, and absolutely could have been prevented, just as it can be prevented in a brick-and-mortar store when people with sense are paying attention.
With that in mind, I don't see why their customers should be punished for their regrettable lack of foresight.
I want to say that in my store, as in many stores, our prices and tags are created by a computer program, so glitches are possible - and have happened before. In both cases, I caught it when I came in. Once it was after a few hours, once it was three days. Neither time did we punish the customers by demanding that they return the jewelry or pay a higher price, even when we still had the jewelry in our custody.
The second time, the sales associates spent the day busily and happily overriding the system, sure in their knowledge that a certain category was being eliminated and that's why we were offering such deep discounts. :P Once again, we didn't punish the customers, even when we could have.
On the post: Student Sues School For Privacy Invasion After School Found Nude Photos On Her Phone
Re: Re:
Further, schools are government institutions. Assuming that you live in America, how would you feel if you were treated like a school child is today when you enter a government office?
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
That seems to be exactly what happened here, except the misinformation went to a digital system, rather than a human one. :)
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: When Architects Sue
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re:
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Student Sues School For Privacy Invasion After School Found Nude Photos On Her Phone
I have long been concerned about the tyrannical situations that our school children have to deal with, day after day. There have been a few cases that generated publicity, but they've been too few and far-between to affect any real change on a large level.
Hopefully, with all of the publicity that these recent cases have gotten, people will start paying attention to what's going on in our public schools.
Adults would never stand for the level of scrutiny and illegal behavior that these children are forced to deal with.
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
So you believe that once sales pass a certain volume, the rules change?
I disagree. There may have been a smaller number of errors, resulting in a lower amount of losses, but that's just to scale. Several thousand dollars to us is the same as several million to them. Several customers to us is several thousand customers to them, and so on.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: Re:
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re:
I disagree. There may have been a smaller number of errors, resulting in a lower amount of losses, but that's just to scale. Several thousand dollars to us is the same as several million to them.
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
1.6 million? Really?
I've never seen anyone call it 'horribly evil' or the like. I have seen people who look at it from the view of the consumer, who may have to wait a week or more for the refund they'll be getting instead of the item that they ordered. Your statement makes it sound as though everyone who disagrees is horribly unreasonable, which isn't the case.
Indeed, when I managed a jewelry store, our policy was to stand by our pricing, even when there were errors, regardless of whether or not we were responsible for those errors. In other words, the buck stopped with us.
I don't take the view that doing otherwise is 'horrible evil', but it is bad business.
...even though the mistakes would end up costing the company (now owned by Amazon) $1.6 million...
Exactly how did they 'lose' 1.6 million dollars? Did they 'lose' it the way that the producers of The Hurt Locker 'lost' millions of dollars to illegal downloads?
It seems reasonable to assume that 1.6 million is the number of dollars that the items would have cost if purchased at full price, or that it's the number of dollars that Zappos, Et Al would have made if the items were purchased at full price, or some other version of the old 'lost sales' argument.
The true number of dollars lost would be the cost of the items, minus the amount paid, which would be $49.95 in this case. I haven't seen any sort of information that leads me to believe that Zappos is using this number, as opposed to an inflated one intended to garner sympathy and publicity for what was simple good business.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
As a practical matter, we live in the 21st century and anything anybody wants to copy they will be able to copy.
If you are building a business model that says that people can only copy things with your permission, your business is going to fail because whether or not you like it, people will be able to copy your product without your permission.
The question is: what are you going to do about that? Are you going call them thieves or are you going to find a way to make money from them?
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: murder
Let me repeat this: Current copyright laws don't work. Instead of defending this failed system, why not look for something new?
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government may have conferred rights on these people, but they simply don't work. You can find anything you want on the Internet for free and there isn't anything stopped people from taking advantage of that. You can wave a piece of paper detailing the law and the idea of an artificial scarcity at these downloads all you want, but it doesn't stop them.
So your solution is to continue to wave that paper?
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: This book is very popular and sells well.
B: There isn't a chain that has an accurate system for viewing in-store inventory online.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please don't 'begin to imply' that any law can be easily traced to 50 BC. As a history buff, I know that's total bunk.
Further, this site doesn't have to propose a business model for there to be a business model. Without copy protection, creative businesses will go on as they have gone on for thousands of years.
All of the models that you mention involve an artificial scarcity. In economics, the costs of these things tend to zero. Unfortunately, you can't wish away economics.
You can choose to use zero to your advantage, rather than failing to legislate it away.
At the end of the day, copy protection doesn't work If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since it doesn't work, shouldn't you be trying to find a model that does?
On the post: Is Telling People To Visit A Certain Website A Denial Of Service Attack?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Obstacle
Next >>