Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[madelf]

Its just friendly advice- don't get physical with someone who thinks you're a shoplifter.

Nah. Even if they really pissed me off I wouldn't get physical. Initiating violence seldom helps anything. I'd just demand that they either call the police to perform the search or let me go.

If they refused to call the police and tried to physically force a search themselves, I suspect I'd end up with some extra spending money.

 

[dshai527]

I understand your complaint- frequently it seems that their sensitivity is set too high or there is a short...

But that, as they say, is a question of fact, and would be decided upon by a jury of your peers.

After you had been arrested.

And searched.

Possibly beaten up by some guy in holding.

Its just friendly advice- don't get physical with someone who thinks you're a shoplifter.

Talk is cheaper. So is showing your reciept.

I have always thought that the store must have absolute proof before detaining a suspected shoplifter, but I am not a lawyer. Texas may have more lenient laws, but a quick google check came up with this. http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting2.htm Now it says should follow these guidelines, so I guess they still do have some detention rights.

"Before detaining anyone, you must establish Shoplifting Probable Cause. To establish a solid base for probable cause and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should follow before deciding to stop someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store"


Are Door Bag Searches Legal?

Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search

 

[madelf]

DriveThruRPG's FAQ says: As long as the eBook in question allows you to print from it, then you may print it at a printing store.

RPG Now's says: Print unlimited copies (for your own use): write on them, draw on them, make notes in the margins.
But that's listed as a benefit of PDF. It don't think it mentions copyright issues directly at all.

That's a bit more reassuring.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Note that key word "should."

It isn't the same as "has to."

Those are guidelines to protect the retailers from claims of false imprisonment and the like.

Technically speaking, the crime of shoplifting is complete when the item is grasped with the intent to steal it. If you actually had "thought police" they could arrest you then, even if you put the item back.

Once someone sees you (or really, thinks they see you) pocket merchandise, they can detain you. The reason they tell merchants to wait until the person is outside is to have clear evidence of the intent not to pay for the goods in your possession.

As for bag checks and the like- I'm starting to see more of them, as well as signs asking people to check their bags and similar large recepticles at the counter.

I went to 2 trade/hobby shows this month- one for guitars, one for gems. Bags were searched on entry. Strollers were not allowed. Some large items of clothing were also searched- could they have been more obvious- a trenchcoat in Dallas in May?

 

[madelf]

I went to 2 trade/hobby shows this month- one for guitars, one for gems. Bags were searched on entry. Strollers were not allowed. Some large items of clothing were also searched- could they have been more obvious- a trenchcoat in Dallas in May?

Thank you. I now have the very amusing image ingrained in my brain of some clown trying to shoplift a guitar by hiding it under his trenchcoat, or wrapping it in a baby blanket sticking out of a stroller.

 

[Morrus]

Any time that pdf has a copyright notice that includes verbage to the effect of "no reproduction except for personal use", if I make a copy of it and sell it to you I am breaking copyright, because I am printing it for profit.

Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand! We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use. Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher. I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand! We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use. Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher. I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.

I think that he is under the impression that a copy shop is selling the printed product itself when somebody comes in with a document and asks them to print it, which isn't the case. They charge for the service (and materials needed to perform the service). They are not actually re-selling the product itself. This is a common misconception among consumers (sadly, amongst many copy shop employees, as well).

 

[madelf]

Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand! We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use. Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher. I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.

Agreed.
The copy center isn't selling a printed product (in the situation under discussion here), they're selling a printing service. If that service provides the purchaser of the PDF with a print copy they're legally entitled to have, I can't see how there's any resemblance to a copyright violation involved.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

This is the reason that I think both copyright and patent law simply needs to be done away with completely. As far as either is concerned the original creator should get a share of profit from use of their material, but not necessarily have any ability at all to control how others use that material so long as they aren't making a profit. If they are making a profit the limit of the law should be a share of the profit made off their idea, no more.

 

[Jim Hague]

This is the reason that I think both copyright and patent law simply needs to be done away with completely. As far as either is concerned the original creator should get a share of profit from use of their material, but not necessarily have any ability at all to control how others use that material so long as they aren't making a profit. If they are making a profit the limit of the law should be a share of the profit made off their idea, no more.

So a content creator should have no control over how their intellectual property is used by others? Ridiculous. Ludicrous, even. And how, exactly would you determine the extent others are using it, if there's no laws regulating it. In an ideal, utopian society, where everyone is honest, this idea might work. In the real world, it's hogwash. Or perhaps you'd expect content producers to just take it when, under your idea, someone took their IP and used it for, say, kiddie porn? Or even something as relatively mundane as advertising? No thanks - beyond enjoyment of a product, one person should benefit from the creation of intellectual property, and that is the creator of that property.