DVD Covers - Who Does This?
 

Some movies with DVD covers cover the whole DVD case, including the bar code. Does anybody use the slipcover to cover ANOTHER movie (preferably a more expensive one) so you can buy it for a cheaper price? Is that even legal? Does it work? I'm not saying I'm going to do that but...just curious.

well people used to do that which is why they started making the slipcovers with slits for the bar code on the regular case. its definitely not legal and is on the same ground as tag switching.

Wow...but still, you can find some DVD covers that still cover the whole DVD, like AVP.

I'm pretty sure all slipcovers now have the barcode hole because of this practice.

Do you really think it could possibly be legal?

I must say the thought never really occurred to me. And yes, I'm quite confident that it's not legal.

I never did understand why they started cutting out holes for barcodes... But I guess now I know. :|

I would never try to steal a DVD by those means, but I have to admit that I slipped a Hellboy: Blood and Iron slipcover over a cheap DVD I was buying so that I could throw it on my copy.

The Best Buy exclusive version didn't come with a slipcase.

Yeah, I love slipcovers and I always wanted to get some from other stores because in the stores that I buy the movies, they don't have slipcovers. I wonder if we can get them for free...

I have thought about doing something similar to that except I usually buy from deepdiscount.com (though not so much anymore) and 50% of the time the movies dont come with slip covers. I have thought about taking it back still unopened and exchanging it for one with a slip cover but deepdiscount doesnt demagnetize their DVDs.

I did do something similar to that once or twice after I bought a dvd online and found out another place had a exclusive disc. Usually its a few bucks more so I have to pay the difference and technically the store isnt losing any money so I doubt what I did was illegal.

It is somewhat similar to getting something as a gift and exchanging it without the receipt. You're not trying to get money so I dont think its wrong or illegal.

I always wanted to buy a movie that now had a slipcover (especially the lenticular ones) and return just the movie and keep the new slipcover to go w/ my old dvd. Havent done it..... yet.

I never thought about that. And now that you mention it, a self-check out at walmart would make it much easier; the [absent] cashier wouldn't suspect something when it rings up Zoolander but has a lenticular Lord Of War slipcover haha. But considering I'm hardly ever at walmart (especially the one with those selfs) it will be awhile until I try this out, if I do.

The award for dumbest post of the day goes to...

technically the store is losing money in all of those cases. doing an exchange like that at a store where the original item was not purchased results in the store giving you something that they never received any money for. even if they resell the item that was returned, the store gave out two items and only received money for one. i don't see how anyone could possibly think the store isn't losing money. you may not classify it as theft, since you paid someone for what you ended up with, but it's certainly fraud if you don't tell the store where you try to make the exchange that the item was not purchased there.

Keep in mind that security at Walmart is unbelievable. If they see you shuffling around DVDs they will be on your ass even if you aren't technically ripping them off for any money. So self checkout may make it a tad easier but I would really reassess attempting changing the slipcovers just to get one for you already purchased dvd.

what?

That makes no sense at all.

Customer exchanges an item they didn't buy there for another item. Customer has item. Store has item. Store sells this item, they get money for it. If they're priced the same it comes out equal.

Seconded.

Yeah, the morality of the exchange-at-another-store can be debated, but as long as the store sells the item, I don't see how they're losing money off the bat. The potential for losing a sale is there, of course, if the exchanged item is something that won't sell at that store, but quantitatively, it should be even. They did only receive money for one, but they received asset for the other.

Slipcover switching, however, it definitely wrong and illegal. Pre-cutout, it's the exact same thing as price tag switching.

ha, yes good point. but as dtcarson pointed out, for the store not to lose money, they have to eventually sell the item that was exchanged and there is no guarantee of that. it is certainly sketchy if not definitely wrong.

Not to mention the labor cost in processing the return, then retagging, restocking, and the checkout of the subsequent sale. May seem insignificant, but it's something.

It's not that hard to understand.

Stores use careful research to buy exactly how many items they think they will sell of item x, buying them at wholesale prices.

When we return an item that was not bought at that store, and get full retail price, the store loses in at least three ways.

One, they lose the profit they should have made.

Two, they end up with an extra item that they likely won't sell, as they already ordered however many of that item they wanted.

Three, We defend doing it because we ignore the realities of retailing and use the fuzzy logic to justify our actions. We say it all evens out and its not fraud or stealing. I've done it myself, but I admit it does not come out equal.

That's my favorite part. Why not slip it over a $60 PS3 game? And maybe slip a gold necklace in there if you can? And if the cashier turns away for a few seconds, pull some twenties out of the drawer, and put them inside the slipcover before she notices...

How about if I take the price tag off a Swatch and put it on a Rolex, is that legal?

Maybe you should have read the quote I was responding to before you responded, since that post said " even if they resell the item that was returned" Or is reading too hard to understand?

Again, even if they resell the item, they still lose money. They lose that profit.

And I was responding as much to the whole forum as to your post specifically. A lot of people here have the thinking that it "all evens out". It doesn't.

This isn't the deal people make it out to be. Ever since I was a kid, stores would exchange items that were not purchased there as a "courtesy" to maintain business. I can't tell you how many birthdays I had as a child where I received two identical items. These were in the days before gift receipts so we would just go to any old store and exchange the item for something else. They either resell it or send it back to the distributor.

Any unsold item is almost always used as a tax write off in addition to the excessive amount of tax write offs and other deductions given to corporations. The labor that it takes to scan an item in and restock it etc. etc. costs fractions of a penny for the corporation. Of course, it could be argued that these businesses aren't paying their employees decent wages to begin with so the whole idea of a place like Walmart losing a penny or two when they rip off employees, consumers, and communities for thousands of dollars seems a bit ridiculous. If it is so detrimental to Walmart then they should require a receipt for all exchanges. The times when I have done this they never asked if I bought it there nor does it state anywhere in the store that all exchanges need to be from purchases made at a Walmart store to begin with.