Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[Psion]

That's because only a court can decide that.

Absolutely. That's because Copyright law is crappy law.

But anyways, you are correct, but as has been demonstrated by citations earlier in this thread, Kinkos and Staples are preventing cases that have not (and AFAICT, would NEVER) go to court based on entirely dissimilar court cases.

Think of it this way. If you, as a driver, decide to do 60 in a 55 zone, no one's going to care[1]. You could get pulled over by a cop, and you could get a ticket. But realistically, chances of that are tiny. On the other hand, if you're in a cab, and you want your driver to speed, odds are good that the company policy specifically prohibits that.

No, it's not quite the same

No, not "not quite the same". Not the same. Because, you see, traffic law, unlike Copyright law, is not so unamiguous. There is no "fair speeding law." The police officer does not need to take me to court to issue a citation in that instance. It's clear that he can.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Plus, if you really need it printed out, buy a $50 printer and some ink and have at it... It would probably work out to nearly the price, depending on the page count.

That is so not the point. I have a printer here. I'm perfectly capable of printing it myself, but I don't want to fork over $50 in ink. All this does is hurt the bottom line of small PDF companies.

I know I make a hell of a better margin on a PDF. Next time I look at a PDF that is 50 or more pages, I'll see if there is a print or POD version. If not, I probably won't bother buying it so I don't have to deal with all of the hassle.

Might not be a widespread problem yet, but if I had customers emailing me and saying they won't buy my PDFs because they can't get them printed, I'd be super pissed.

 

[JVisgaitis]

The big difference is the quality of the design. Joe's looks like his brother in law made it up on Cute pdf, while CW has a higher production value.

OK. So if I'm some lame RPG company that uses all clip art, you'll print my stuff. If I do high quality work it doesn't get printed. How is that fair?

 

[wingsandsword]

It isn't staples "job" to make people happy. It helps, and that ensures return customers. It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples. Sure, they are preventing themselves from being sued. But in a way, that is good sound customer service policy. Who do you think is going to pay for legal suits? The future customers, that's who! By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.

It is their job to make me happy, because if they don't make me (and other customers) happy, then we don't shop at Staples, sales drop, profit drops, thus the stock price drops, and eventually Staples is either bought out or closes down.

The job of any business is to make money, not to obey the law. Obeying the law is something they have to incidentally to do continue to make money, not their objective in and of itself. Currently their upper management believes that they are making more money with an overconservative copyright policy to avoid even the remotest possibility of a lawsuit than they are losing by alienating paying customers by implying they are violating copyright and treating them like thieves.

Yes, Kinkos was successfully sued for copyright violations, but as it was noted, that was when they copying entire textbooks and selling them for profit to compete with other textbook stores selling the originals. That's pretty much a textbook case of copyright violation, the kind that the copyright laws were enacted to deal with in the first place.

Overreaction to this leads to refusing to print any copyrighted work, even when permission to reprint is included on the document, or the copyright holder himself is standing right there.

I've been told at Kinko's they won't print files, at all. I had a term paper that needed printing, my own printer was out of ink (and I didn't want to have to buy a $50 ink cartridge for it), and it was quicker to walk to the Kinkos down the street than the campus computer lab the other direction down the street. The Kinko-drone told me they didn't print files out. I asked if it was a matter of file format or the media, but he just plain told me that I couldn't come there with a file and have it printed out, which I thought was very odd since I'd seen ads on TV for that very thing, but he just refused. Don't know if it was copyright paranoia, or he was just too lazy to actually work, but that was my only experience with printing out a file at Kinkos.

It's all about Copyright Paranoia, not Copyright. Thanks to some high profile lawsuits and a lot of propaganda, it makes life miserable on the consumer as people get it in their heads that "copyright infringement" is "theft" (when they are completely different things) and the idea that copyright is somehow sacred and it's an evil, thieving, dastardly, vile act to do anything that smacks of not being to the letter of copyright law. Some days it seems like you have to be an IP attorney just to be a geek these days.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

Originally Posted by the Jester

You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that you have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that they don't have permission to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Morrus
I don't know about US law, but I find that extremely unlikely. It's certainly not true elsewhere. Unless you have a specific cite, I'm going to have a hard time believing this.

The store employee is acting as your agent in this regard. If you mail something, the post office isn't liable for "distributing" it.

I don't understand Copyright law completely myself (I don't think anyone does), but I'm with Morrus on this one.

I tried to have Office Max/Depot copy some Sunday School materials that stated "You have permision to copy this material", and was quoted almost exactly what Jester stated -- "I" had permission, but "They" did not. So they walked me over to the stand-alone copier, placed the document for me, and pressed the print button.

Anymore, I just print/scan/copy everything I need at home, and only go to a "Print" shop to have something bound.

 

[Technomancer]

Try an Office Depot or Office Max. They'd probably do it.

I doubt Office Depot would do it. I printed out a pdf on my own and brought it in to have them bind it, and they wouldn't even do that because it had a copyright notice.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I don't know where you work, but you are cracking me up with these assertions.

I work for a network design and management company.
By your definitions, it is our job to make a working network, and to troubleshoot failures.
But not to make the customers happy.

If you are going to respond to my posts, please read them for my intent of words rather than misconstruing my point in an attempt to make me look silly. I've already spoken in this thread that pleasing the customer is necessary for return business. I shouldn't have to repeat it time and time again.

Having said that, I truly believe that there are multiple kinds of people out there. I still do not believe that making customers "happy" is part of the job. It is part of being a company-concerned employee, and it certainly can contributes to one's length of employment. But, let's be honest.

When I drive up to McDonalds, I don't really care if the person made me smile or not. It's nice, but I'm mostly concerned about the food being appropriately cooked and my order filled accurately. If they make me smile and apreciate life in the process, that's gravy.

If I go into Lowe's or Home Depot and want to buy something for home improvement, my top concern is that the person who helps me out is competant and can do their job appropriately. I dont want them to get me to spend more money than I actually need, but I also want them to anticipate my needs and help me to the best of their ability. If I enjoy my time with them, that's pure gravy.

To use you as an example, if I were to hire your company to make a network ... my primary concern is that you make the best one for the money I give you and in a timely manner. If you make me smile, that is gravy. But if you are the best customer service rep you can be but do crappy networking work, I'll be less likely to come back to your business than if you do stellar work and crappy public relations.

In all these cases, if they go out of their way to irritate me, I'll talk with their boss. But I have never claimed that a customer service rep who is "intentionally irritating people" are doing their job. That's just silly.

In any job, I as a customer am far more concerned with competance than "chipperness." I've worked with customer service reps who were very friendly but had nothing upstairs. They didn't last very long. I've worked with customer service reps who were brilliant, got results, but we just ornary people. Those people usually last longer than the ones with nothing upstairs, but they got promoted off the customer service line to keep their brains around and get them out of the public's way. Then, I've worked with people who do both reasonably well. These are the kind of people that you want working customer service.

Same thing here. The problem isn't the customer service rep. The problem is the policy. If the guy smiled and spoke in a warm loving voice, "No sir, we cannot copy that," the person is still going to be irritated. And that is the heart of this issue.

I have learned something about people through life in general. Everyone laughs now because everything you buy has warning labels on it. Ever laugh at the fact that your Wal-mart bag has "Warning: Choking Hazard" printed right on it? Ever laugh when you get a cup of coffee and you look down and usually in multiple places there is a warning to the effect of "Warning: Contents could be hot and burn your skin." The reason that these warnings are there is because there are idiots out there who will look for any loophole to sue and make easy money. I can't blame any company for taking the law seriously. If they don't, they might just find themselves at the hands of an idiot sawsuit!

Specifically for the printing business, I think it would be very easy for a company like Staples and Kinkos to be in the middle of a legitimate lawsuit, not even an "idiot lawsuit." But I maintain that the solution is simple. Find out the stores policies and meet them. It isn't really that hard.

 

[wingsandsword]

But I maintain that the solution is simple. Find out the stores policies and meet them. It isn't really that hard.

What about when the policy of the store is nigh impossible to meet? Reasonable copyright policies to ensure that they aren't condoning piracy is, well, reasonable. Not printing a document that appears to be a commercial document protected by copyright (like a pirated .pdf) is one thing, proving you have a receipt for the legal download of it and the file includes print permissions on it (especially when in the text it includes print permissions) is a little less reasonable.

"We don't print any copyrighted materials, even if you have permission or own the copyright yourself" as some people have run across at Kinkos is pretty unreasonable. Requiring documented proof of copyright ownership from the Library of Congress (as has also been run across) is also unreasonable.

As for making customers happy, I'm not talking about walking around with a fake smile plastered on your face and being sappy and saying "Have a nice day", I'm talking about making the customer pleased with their experience at your business and wanting to return. Dealing with overly cumbersome and awkward policies makes customers unhappy and want to take their business to a competitor.

Requiring a written form signed by the copyright owner, for a document that included permission to print right on it (like say the D&D character sheet) is going to be pretty hard to meet. Is somebody at Hasbro Legal Department really going to fill out a copyright permission form for Staples and send it in for each person who wants to print out character sheets there? Isn't somebody going to say "that's why we put that little disclaimer on there in the first place?"

 

[lukelightning]

Another alignment debate! "Lawful vs. Chaotic."

Staples is obviously being Lawful Neutral. They have a rule, and they are following it.

 

[jgbrowning]

But I maintain that the solution is simple.

And it's the one that most people are doing: going to another copy shop.

joe b.