Blockbuster's "No Late Fees" Program

Blockbuster has been sued by the Attorney General's office of the filthy, dirty state of New Jersey. They are saying that the new "No Late Fees" program is deceptive to consumers because Blockbuster: 1) charges a $1.25 "restocking fee;" 2) charges you for the price of the movie if kept beyond the 1 week grace period; and 3) because Blockbuster is a franchise and each franchise can choose whether to participate in the "No Late Fees" program. Although various sources on the net are saying that attorney general offices from 35 states are investigating the matter, New Jersey seems to be the first to sue. Here is a link to the article.

Blockbuster Sued Over Late Fees

I personally hate the program basically for one reason. I think it makes people lazy and will make it harder to keep certain items in stock. I personally have rented 3 movies under this program and kept them far longer than I would have before, and not because I "needed an extra day" with it, but simply because I didn't feel like driving an extra few miles to return the video. This program may or may not have a big impact on new releases (although even before the program it was not uncommon for certain new releases to be all out), however, it will really make a difference when you want to rent a non-new release. Blockbuster usually only stocks 1-3 copies of movies that are a few years old or more. Now, when you want to rent one of these, don't even bother asking when it's due back because it could be anywhere from 1 day to a month and a half under their "No Late Fees" program. My understanding of the policy is this:
- You have 7 days (I think) to keep a movie when you rent it (for new releases)
- After it is due, you have a 1 week "grace period"
- After the grace period, you are charged the cost of the film (i.e. $19.99)
- From this point, you have 30 days to return the film
- If you return the film, you are charged a $1.25 restocking fee (trust me, you don't want to hear my opinion on restocking fees), you are also re-credited the cost of the film that you were charged. However, the re-credit is in the form of store credit that, obviously, locks you into using that money at Blockbuster.

So, when you rent a movie from Blockbuster now, you can keep it for a month and a half and only pay the cost of the rental + $1.25, as long as you don't mind devoting $20 or so to Blockbuster rentals in the near future (which is basically just 4-6 rentals).

As for the lawsuit, I'm sure the AG's office wouldn't be suing unless they had a legitimate reason (it's not like they are a private person looking for a huge money settlement). What do I think will happen? Blockbuster will likely just revise their advertising campaign to alleviate the legal problems with the program. I would like to hear your thoughts on the program and/or lawsuit.

Hunter becomes hunted, sues bullet manufacturer

I found this relatively old news and thought it would be a good follow up to our cookie discussion. Note that this text was taken from the website of the law firm involved in the defense, so it is somewhat defense-oriented.

MINNEAPOLIS – (Jan. 3, 2004) – A lawsuit that made headlines around the world has been dismissed. In 2000, a professional big-game hunter was injured by a lion that was shot in the paw and shoulder. The injured lion attacked the hunter, walked away, lay down and died from its wounds. In 2003, the hunter sued the manufacturer of the bullets that were used.

The hunter claimed that a bullet defect prevented the lion from instantaneously stopping or dying, giving the lion time to attack. LeMire asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of credible evidence. After reviewing the case, the court agreed and dismissed the case.

“A product liability claim must be supported by genuine evidence that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury,” said attorney Bill LeMire who represented the bullet manufacturer. “In this case, such evidence was clearly absent and the judge reached the only conclusion he could reach in dismissing the entire lawsuit.”

Both parties’ experts testified that a lion would not be effectively stopped from attacking by shots to the paw and shoulder. The manufacturer also provided tests conducted before and after the incident that demonstrated that the bullet was not flawed. The bullet in question has been in circulation without complaint since 1985. Further reason to dismiss the lawsuit included lack of evidence at the scene. No photographs were taken, no one inspected the lion’s wounds, the bullet was lost and the carcass was discarded.

Now this is a frivolous lawsuit.

Want to make a post?

Would you like to make an audio post on Scott's Blogtastic Blog for everyone to listen to and enjoy? It's free, quick, and quite simple. You need only 2 things: 1) a phone, 2) my phone number (sorry if you don't know me, but if I posted my number online, I'm sure it would be ringing off the hook with the millions of fans who frequent this site). Here's how you do it:

1) Dial (661) 716-2564 (regular long distance rates apply if you're a loser and don't have free long distance with your cell phone plan)
2) Enter in my cell phone number when asked for the "primary telephone number"
3) Enter the last 4 digits of my cell phone number when asked for the PIN number
4) Follow the prompts to record your post!

After finishing, it usually takes just seconds to show up on this site as an audio file you can listen to. Try it while drunk.

[begin countdown until I realize this was a bad idea - basically whenever Drew stumbles onto this site]

Woman sues teenagers who brought her cookies

If you haven't heard about this story check out this article before reading further. I watched a Court TV segment addressing the "Cookie" Lawsuit. They spoke to three people involved in the lawsuit: The plaintiff, her husband, and their attorney. I'll refer to the woman who sued as "the plaintiff" and the teenage girls as "the defendants." Here are some of my notes from the show:

- Incident occurred at 10:30pm

- Defendants drove to Plaintiff's house located in a rural community approximately 12 miles from where the defendants live

- Plaintiff's closest neighbor is 1/4 away

- Defendants parked their car down the road from plaintiff's house

- Defendants crossed plaintiff's property by walking across a field and climbing over a fence

- Defendants went to the back door

- Defendants admitted to banging loudly on the door

- Defendants did not respond to plaintiff asking "who is there?"

- Defendants jumped and hid when plaintiff looked out the window

- Plaintiff went to hospital with "symptoms of a heart attack" (pressure in chest, rapid heart rate)

- Plaintiff was diagnosed with having an anxiety attack

- The mothers of the defendants visited plaintiff 3 days after incident and offered to pay plaintiff's medical bills

- Plaintiff agreed to defendants paying medical bills and sent both families proof of her $890 bill (it was to be split between the defendants)

- Plaintiff then received a legal document (a "release") from defendants asking for her to waive all legal rights in consideration for the $890 (payment was not included with document)

[I'm uncertain about the chronology from here but it seems to me that it was at this point that she decided to file a lawsuit. However, she claims she decided to sue after calling one of the defendants' parents who responded that they were advised by legal counsel not to speak to plaintiff.]

- Plaintiff and her family have received death threats and harassing phone calls/mail from all over the country

-------

My opinion on this (I've only heard plaintiff's side) is that the defendants were probably trying to be funny and didn't have the most sincere intentions. They probably knew who the family was and were trying to harass them without looking like they were trying to harass (why else would they choose such an out of the way and seemingly random house?).

As for the lawsuit, I don't think it falls into the category of "frivolous." The woman was caused some distress but, to me, it falls into the category of things that people need to just suck it up and accept as being part of life. People get so wrapped up in the idea that they could sue that they never stop to think whether they should. People need to realize that life involves mental, emotional, and physical highs and lows that are not always controllable. Basically, things like this will happen from time to time and you can't look to litigation to relieve the "stresses" of ordinary life.

To me, the real cause of the lawsuit is the greater problem of social distrust and insecurity. People simply don't trust each other, so they run to an attorney to make sure they're protected. This lawsuit would likely never have been filed if the defendants didn't send the release document. But you can't blame them for wanting to make sure that this was sufficient to end the dispute. So then, you have the plaintiff facing a serious and imposing document she doesn't understand. Instead of just signing it without fully understanding it, she has two options: 1) call the defendants to ask why this is necessary (which she did and was informed they would not speak for legal reasons); or 2) contact an attorney who will likely cost at least half of the $890 just to look at the release and give a recommendation and may also inform her of potential "damages" she could win if she filed a lawsuit. The problem is that Option 1 will usually result in Option 2 and Option 2 will almost always result in litigation. So, the parties find themselves quickly sliding into a lawsuit.

Is there anything that can be done? Probably not. The parties did the right thing in the beginning by simply talking and informally agreeing to a simple settlement. But fear then took over and the defendants insisted on a formal release (which was reasonable but likely unnecessary) which caused fear in the plaintiff (which was reasonable but likely unnecessary). Then the legal process took over and personal visits turned into phone calls, phone calls turned into letters, and letters turned into legal documents. It's too bad, but that's just how it is today.

All in all, is the plaintiff a cranky, old, insensitive bitch? No, in fact, she's too sensitive. Are the defendants sweet, innocent girl scouts? No, they were likely trying to be little smart asses. I hope I've offered a different perspective on how this story initially sounded. This story is not about an old woman, two teenagers, and some cookies. It's about the inherent problems with society's modern way of resolving disputes.

What is RSS/XML?

Have you seen this icon?

Do you visit a bunch of websites on a daily basis? Do you hate having to bookmark each of these sites and keep checking back to see if there are new articles? Do you wish your favorite sites would let you know when there is something new to read? Then you need an RSS application. RSS stands for "Real Simple Syndication." It is a simple application that allows you to subscribe (for free) to each of your favorite sites and lets you know when those sites change. They basically check each of the websites you subscribe to every 30 minutes or so to see if any new articles have been posted. If there is a new article, a visual indicator is displayed on your screen to let you know. You can then view the title of the article or even read the entire article on your RSS reader without ever having to go to the site. Pictures are usually visible also.

Most RSS applications are completely free to download and use. Check some of your favorite sites now and look on the main page for "RSS" or "XML" words, links, or logos (they are usually at the bottom of the page). All types of websites can be subscribed to using an RSS reader. A few examples include: CNN, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and even Scott's Blogtastic Blog (see the "Resources" section on the right). For the major sites, you can even subscribe to just the sections you prefer (i.e. entertainment, world news, business). Check it out if it sounds like something you could use. It's just a good way to save time and organize the news and information you want. And don't make fun of me because I know most of you love killing time by surfing the web, especially you business school dorks who can't get enough of Business Week Online which also offers RSS feeds here.

Give it a shot, go download an RSS application by clicking on one of the links below. To subscribe to my RSS/XML feed, look on the right of this page under "Resources" and click on the XML icon. Copy the url of the page it takes you to. Then click on "Subscribe" in your RSS reader and paste the url in. It's that simple and you'll never have to wonder when I've updated my site.

Here are some links to free RSS readers for you to download.

Windows

RSS Reader
FeedReader

Mac

Net News Wire Lite

Trivia Night 2/14

As a result of your votes (67% said to go to Trivia Night), I chose to hang out with my girlfriend and then go to trivia (no pictures because I forgot to bring the camera). However, only 2 other people showed up, Jaimie and her brother Trevor. Trevor is held in high regard with the members of our trivia team and was a welcome addition last night. Here's a breakdown on the team members and why they didn't show up: Garth was a no-call no-show (which is standard for when he is with his girlfriend), although he's only been to one trivia night so I guess he's not really a team member; Mora gave 2 hours notice that she was stressing over her upcoming GRE test and needed to study (FYI- trivia is studying); Moto had to work (which he told us last week).

The night started off with some tough questions about drug/alcohol use in the US. There were quite a few Saturday Night Live questions which Moto claims to be an expert on (if he were there, we probably would have gotten all the SNL questions). The "All Things Geek" category was tougher than I thought it would be. There was also a "60's History" category which was tough. All in all, it was a good night to miss because most of the questions we missed wouldn't have been known by any of the missing team members.

Rankings:

1) Me - I thought I did well overall in the movies, geek and hodge podge categories (although I directly cost us at least 2 answers).
2) Trevor - Seemed to have a better working knowledge of general history than Jaimie and I. Also, he is quite good at using logic to make an educated guess on tough questions.
3) Jaimie - Actually knew that a particular picture was from a commercial for the candy "Bonkers."
4) Moto - Although not present, I felt strangely knowledgeable about SNL (SH club?).
NR) Mora - Needs to come up huge next week on the GRE and Trivia Night, both of which she will be alone on absent a heartfelt post on this website.

Other memorable moments:
- Adopting a couple sitting next to us who was in their early 40's and answering at least 5 questions because of them.

- My cell phone falling between the seats we were sitting in (a long cushioned, bench style seat where 8-10 people can sit on and cannot be reached under) and not being able to retrieve it until trivia night was over and nobody was sitting on it.

Valentine's Day vs Trivia Night

I need your help. I have a purely hypothetical question that I just randomly thought of. Say you spent the entire weekend immediately before Valentine's day with your girlfriend/boyfriend. Let's also say that you both agreed to "celebrate" Valentine's Day on Saturday night by making dinner together, exchanging gifts, and hanging out. Would you then feel compelled to spend the entire night hanging out with him or her on the actual Valentine's Day? What if it happened to fall on the same night as your favorite local event, Trivia Night? What if your girlfriend/boyfriend was known for falling asleep at around 10:00pm and trivia starts at 9:30pm? Please post your comments on this hypothetical situation.

Michigan Basketball

This is almost a week old, but Dave, Patty, Max, Moto and myself attended the Michigan game versus #1 ranked Illinois last Tuesday. Although Michigan led for most of the game, the last 6 minutes were owned by the Illinois defense and Michigan lost 57-51.

Aside from Dave yelling at Tommy Amaker, the only other interesting part was these two fat, ugly Illinois fans (both girls) who believed that sports bras and warm-up pants were the only comfortable and appropriate clothing options for attending the game. However, the game brought back fond memories of the greatest impulse decision I've ever witnessed at a sporting event. I won't say any more now, but I'll try to find the pictures for everyone's enjoyment. Check back later this week.