Rite Aid: DVD Boxed Sets for $10

I was doing some research on these DVD boxed sets and as it turns ouot, these DVD boxed sets were sold by a company who had told Warner Brothers that they had destroyed these boxed sets. The mess is in the middle of a $10 Million Dollar Lawsuit.

At any rate, I heard that Rite Aid stores also stocked some of these sets as well, so you may want to hurry down to your local Rite Aid stores and check out their stock. I heard they're selling them for $10 per set. 

Excuse me?

Technically, Rite Aid and Big Lots did not "steal" these DVD's. They bought the merchandise legitimately. It's those two companies that were supposed to destroy the DVD's that are to blame. 

Apparently, they vary from store to store. 

Actually, they've already paid for the product so they aren't actually liable for it.

The problem is that you're under the belief that Big Lots and Rite Aid is required to return those DVD's.There are only two methods in which they are required to return DVD's:

1. If the studio who manufacturered the DVD's issues a recall and this would affect every retailer who sold those particular titles that were subject of the recall notice.

2. If Big Lots received the titles directly from Warner Brothers.

Since neither is the case here, and that Big Lots and Rite Aid received the titles from a secondary and third party, there's nothing Warner Brothers can do except to file a lawsuit against those two companies who were responsible for the destruction of those titles.

Even if these retailers are now aware of this, they aren't under any legal obligation to return those titles to Warner Brothers. Officially, they weren't "stolen."  They were merely sold off to other discount retailers because someone at these companies was greedy and saw an opportunity to make some extra money. Considering the fact that Warner Brothers will never recover those titles, as if evidenced among this community that everyone has been buying up these titles like crazy, that I would estimate that 90% of these titles that were available for sale have already been sold.

Cees, I understand what you're trying to say. But, you're confusing the issue behind this.



The problem that you're confusing, Cees, is that even if those retailers knew that the merchandise was appropriated through nefarious means by IWMB, the retailers who purchased that inventory are under no legal obligation to return that merchandise. After all, it would be no different than if Best Buy or Target obtained that merchandise.

Now, the only problem here might be a moral issue. The question that needs to be asked is 'do I consider it immoral?' For myself? It's not even an issue because I'm buying the DVD boxed sets legally. It's not like a television set or a DVD player, which can be traced via serial numbers. With TV's or DVD players it's more of a clear issue and I probably wouldn't buy it. But, when it comes to national retailers, that questions isn't even a question.

Someone is going to buy it and even if I knew the details on how those sets were being sold by Big Lots, I would still buy them. Big Lots did not steal those DVD boxed sets and if they decide not to return that merchandise, they still aren't liable for the original acquisition of those sets.

Warner Brothers is upset at IWMB and the other other company which sold that inventory. Neither IWMB, Big Lots or any of the retailers who sold those sets are liable for this unfortunate incident. Rightfully, so. The company that Warner Brothers is suing is the company that IWMB sub-contracted the destruction of those DVD titles to since they not only accepted the sub-contract but also issued a 'false certificate of destruction' then turned around and sold that inventory to various retailers.

Consumers have the questions on whether to pay $3 or $6 for a brand new DVD boxed set versus paying $30, $40 or $50. When a consumer visits a local or national retailer, they don't think about how that retailer acquired their merchandise. 99% of all consumers only think about one thing ... what's the lowest price they can get on the purchase for that title.

If Big Lots gets more shipments in, I'll still end up buying whatever titles interest me. Why? Because I'm buying the titles legally. Now, if Big Lots directly stole that merchandise, I might have a harder time doing business with that retailer because it would be more shaky. Nevertheless, Big Lots did not have any participation in the theft of those DVD titles so I'll continue buying these sets from them, as long as they continue receiving more shipments.

I'm sure most of the community here agree with me on this. While some may say that they wouldn't, I can tell you that they probably would still continue to buy them.

Cees, the problem is that no retailer would act on merchandise received without proof of that. Since Warner Brothers and just about every other studio who produces DVD's on content they produce, is very reluctant on comment or elaborate on their business affairs.

Since this wasn't revealed until recently, many of these retailers would not be required to return that merchandise. Warners is reluctant to file lawsuits against the retailers because it would involve many retailers (Big Lots, Rite Aid, Dollar Tree, Dollar Store, Family Dollar, Dollar World, Dollar Maxx) including those that aren't listed here. The bad press that would follow would be a public relations nightmare for Warner Brothers.

I don't disagree with you that those retailers who knowingly received stolen merchandise could be held liable. However, the problem stems from the fact that DVD's are harder to trace unless that retailer was in business with the company who was responsible for the destruction of those DVD's and if that retailer knew that the DVD's were suppose to be destroyed and were being sold to that retailer outside of legal channels.

I can assure you that many national retailers, Target, Best Buy, Big Lots, etc, get their product or merchandise from a national distributor. That distributor probably knew nothing about the origin of those DVD titles and were probably told that they were liquidated from a video store or video retailer who went out of business. This happens all of the time. As a result, and with so many DVD's involved, over 100 million boxed sets, that company who should have destroyed that merchandise decided to spread those DVD titles around to various distributors who also provided merchandise to discount or "dollar store" type retailers.

I seriously doubt that this company would have parlayed those DVD's to retailers like Target and Best Buy because red flags would be going up in the air. Cees, the problem with this is that the Big Lots franchise bought a large supply of these titles as an effort to get new merchandise into their stores. They would have no reason to ask how this merchandise was acquired because if they did, it would be counter-productive. You would have every retailer asking the origin of where each piece of merchandise was acquired from.

Now, if the retailer discovered, after they had purchased the merchandise, that the merchandise was obtained outside of legal circles, I doubt that that retailer could be held liable since they did not know the origin of the merchandise and that they had purchased it from one of their many "legal" distributors.

I'm also thinking that Big Lots may have contacted Warner Brothers, if they had discovered that their company may have purchased some of this merchandise. This would explain why a lot of Big Lots stores did not received any of these boxed sets and why each store that received these DVD titles had different selections. By the time that this information floated around, Big Lots would need to confirm these rumors before they pulled the merchandise, Warner Brothers may have simply told them not to worry about it since the stock had already been sold.

At this stage in the game, Warner probably did the only thing they could do, file a $10 Million Dollar lawsuit against that second unidentified company, who should have destroyed that stock, instead of selling it off, and forcing Warners to defraud the IRS and Warners own stockholders.

Cees, I'm not disagreeing with you totally. I think you're correct, in a manner of speaking, and your argument would be fine if Big Lots knowingly had knowledge that those DVD's they were selling weren't authorized to be sold on the retail market. There's still a lot that is not known but I'm thinkint that Warners didn't discover this scheme until after the majority of that stock had been sold by those retailers that had received that stock.

The one thing I can say for certain is that many of us who have bought these sets probably wouldn't contact Warners indicating that we had bought some of this merchandise. The only resource that Warner Brothers would have would be to file a lawsuit against both companies who were contracted and sub-contracted to destroy that merchandise. Warner Brothers may be forced to add IWMB to its $10+ Million Dollar Lawsuit since they also bear some of the responsibility over this.

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm simply trying not to offend the staff here. But, you are right. There is a lot of speculation running rampant and since the only news we've heard has come from Warner Brothers and their report that they filed a lawsuit, everyone is looking so far left that everyone is merely speculating.

The only thing I've said about the issue is that if Big Lots received some of the merchandise that was supposed to be destroyed that they cannot be held liable if it's discovered that Big Lots did receive some of the merchandise through their distributors. Cees has been speculating, or rather this is what I understood from what he posted, that Big Lots would be obligated to return that merchandise. While I do understand the point he's trying to makenone of these retailers who received this merchandise questioned where the merchandise had come from.

While this is a worst-case scenario, retailers aren't in the habit of questioning where their merchandise originated from, especially from distributors they have done business with for years and over extended periods of time. If retailers did that, they wouldn't be getting half of the merchandise into their stores that they ordered because they would spend too much time asking where the merchandise originated from.

Not only that, but retailers won't act just on "rumors" or "speculation" about what others are saying. If a retailer receives a rumor that some merchandise they received was stolen from the manufacturer and that their store received that merchandise from a distributor, they would require doucmentation or "proof" that the merchandise was indeed acquired by illegal means.

These days, retailers don't usually act on rumors or reports unless they receive recall notices from the manufacturer about that particular product. Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine which retailers received the product and since this story just recently came out, it's all merely speculation on who received it. Sinice the bulk of the merchandise/DVD's has already been sold, it's not worth it to Warner Brothers to require the remaining stock be returned to the studio. With 250,000 DVD sets still uncovered/missing in the pipeline, the cost to Warner Brothers is already going to be great and it wouldn't be worth it to Warners to require the remaining unsold DVD's to be returned.

Because of this, Warner Brothers only recourse is file the lawsuit against IWMB and that other company who were required, by contract, to destroy that merchandise. Since that did not happen, Warner Brother's was forced to notify the IRS, since they WB claimed the destruction of those one million DVD sets as a business loss. Warner Brothers also had to notify shareholders and the SEC over this since this "theft" is going to have an impact on Warner Brothers' stock prices as well as their profits for the last quarter. The "theft" of these DVD's just created a big problem for Warner Brothers with the IRS, the SEC and the stockholders.

By the time that Warners discovers where those remaining DVD sets are, its not going to be worth it to Warners to require that those sets be returned to the studio. Since they have already announced that a lawsuit has been filed against that second company, my guess is that the attorney's for that second company are going to petition the judge hearing this lawsuit to force Warner Brothers to also hold IWMB liable for the lawsuit as well. They're going to be seeking to offset the cost of the lawsuit and claim that IWMB was also responsible for the acquisition of those DVD's.

I do think you're right about consumers not willing to return those sets that they purchased. While I would probably testify that I purchase certain sets at Big Lots, I know I wouldn't feel obligated to return those sets to Warner Brothers.

It's just too late for Warners to stop this beast, now that it has mostly ran its course. The only thing they can do now is attempt some form of damage control and they have taken that first step by filing the initial lawsuit against the second company. My guess is that the lawsuit process won't stop there. I would suspect that IWMB will be named as well as a countless number of distributors who received that merchandise if they are discovered to have knowledge of how those sets were obtained. The retailers will, more than likely, dismissed from any lawsuits, since they wouldn't even have known where this product came from.

I would surmise that those retailers will probably be called forth to testify on Warner Brothers behalf, testifying where they recieved the DVD sets from and from there, Warner Brothers can further direct additional investigations/lawsuits. I would also expect that the IRS and the SEC may be investigating these two companies as well as the distributors who received that merchandise as well. I think there may be criminal charges of fraud that will be filed against those two companies as well as the distributors involved. After all, the IRS and the SEC were defrauded by this outcome.

Cess, U.S. Law does have protections that state that if you are the receiver of stolen goods that you can be charged with "receiving stolen property." This is provided that you knew the merchandise was stolen.

I know about ten years ago I was heading home, about a block or two from my home, and this guy approached me, said he was a good friend of my dad and asked me if I wanted to buy a VHS (or was that DVD player) for $50. He said it was brand new and that there was nothing wrong with it. I immediately was suspiciuous over that deal and I told him that I already had one and I didn't need another and I declined to buy it. I remember thinking that it was, more than likely, "hot" property, which is another term for stolen merchandise.

It just depends on the situation. When you walk into a national retail or a local retailer, the last thing you ask yourself is if that merchandise is stolen because you trust that retakiler since you're more than likely have been doing business with that retailer for a long time. This is the same attitude that retailers have with their distributors and they don't question where the merchandise has come from.

Whenever you purchase anything from a retailer, that merchandise is scanned and logged by their system, which is also logged and that retailer can print a report on every piece of merchandise that was purchased that day. These reports are very detailed and broken down by department.

Tell me about. I originally started this topic to inform everyone about these DVD sets at Rite Aid and instead, everyone had turned it into a litigation topic.