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.

In case some people forgot when they signed up....

YOUR MEMBERSHIP TO THE DVD TALK FORUM IS ALSO PREDICATED ON YOUR ADHERENCE TO THESE RULES. If you violate any of these rules your account will be suspended and you may be permanently banned from membership at our discretion:

ABSOLUTELY NO:
• Posting Information on how to defraud any company or promotion of any kind of illegal or unethical activity

Yeah, seriously...

let me be clear: i don't think it's wrong if you tell them that the item you're exchanging was not purchased there and they still agree to process the exchange. that is something else entirely.

I have often thought about doing this, but chickened out. I mostly do my shopping at CH anyway so DVDs are normally only about 5 bucks a piece anyways.

Not to play the devil's advocate here but what if they don't ask if you bought it there?

I agree there is something unethical about lying and saying you got something at a place when you didn't but anytime I have ever exchanged anything, especially lately, the process is so fast an automated that I don't believe they honestly care nor have they ever asked.

As long as you are not misrepresenting the item you purchased and they do not specifically have a policy against it or ask you and receive a dishonest answer in return, I can't fathom anything being remotely wrong with this.

i would argue that by attempting to return an item to a store where it was not purchased, you are "misrepresenting the item." i just quickly did a search for return policies of major retailers and every one begins with something like the following: "You may return merchandise purchased at [insert store name] if it meets the following guidelines..."

What about buying a dvd with a slipcover, and you make sure the one you are buying has the price on both the dvd and the slipcover. Then keeping the slipcover and returning the movie. In essence, getting the slipcover for a movie you have without the slipcover. I don't see how the store is losing money, since it was their merchandise, and there were dvd's on the shelves with and without slipcovers. I often swap dvd's and slipcovers anyway to make sure I get a copy that is as mint as possible. I hate peeling those sealed stickers on the top of the dvd and ruining the artwork because it was sticking out from under the plastic.

The thread starter definitely needs to be banned. This is the stupidest thread I've ever seen. What are you, a 12 year old?

die thread! die!

Slipcovers are an incentive. More people will purchase a DVD if it has a slipcover. It's why they make them.

So "stealing" the slipcover is obviously wrong. It deprives the retailer of an increased opportunity to actually sell the product.

I disagree. Not only do I not think they are incentive for most people (us collectors being the exception but I dont have a single friend that cares about them) but I think they were first created as an extra theft deterrent. I remember a friend that worked retail explaining the process of how people steal by tearing of the wrapping and a whole process and surprisingly, these covers are just an extra step to make it harder.

It makes sense since most companies stop manufacturing the slipcases after they are no longer a "new release" and thus not as in demand.

Kind of what I was thinking.

This tag switching...Yeah, I gotta say the THOUGHT has occurred to me in the past...when I was younger, much younger, and ONLY as a joke idea. Nothing I ever would have seen through.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are people who also got the same idea and pulled it off, but really...are any mature adults out there doing this? If you have money issues that severe that you have to cheat a store in to selling you a DVD that costs a few more dollars for less then you have serious issues that should be resolved before you consider buying DVDs at all.

Wal Mart was my first job experience, and that was when pterodactyls ruled the skies, so I can't really speak for their security measures today, but I know back when I worked for them they were on the cashier's asses to make sure that customers were doing the type of thing the OP suggested, among other tricks we were advised customers would pull to get merchandise out of the store unpaid for.

So I guess my point is I am sure they certainly have measures in place to prevent this from happening at the self check out. I am not sure what...and I am not going to be applying for a job there any time soon to find out...but it boggles my mind how much work and effort people will exert just to "save" a few dollars on something like a DVD or some other crappy merchandise. Maybe it's more of a psychological thing that they "got one over" on the store, a rush or something.

I disagree also...if I want a DVD, I don't stop to think could it have a slip cover at another store? I will just pick it up. It's not a big deal to me. But if I do get a DVD with a slip cover, I want it to be in good condition, and not damaged when I take the stickers off. But most of the time I actually find them annoying. They are nice when they are on the DVD and you can keep it in good condition, but it's not something that would make me pass a DVD up if it didn't have a slip cover.

I think most of the time it is psychological. Look at Winona Ryder. Does anybody think she was really trying to save a buck? She had the money. These chronic thieves have a sickness.

Obviously some people do it to try to save a buck...but the people that do it constantly have some sort of compulsive disorder.

With me, I get a rush from finding something on sale at a ridiculous price.