Hey there,
I need to alert you to the future...
A man with special talents.
His name is Neil Mayo.
He used to work for Sony New Zealand Ltd.
He is from South Africa, thus, he probably likes to have fried chips with mayonnaise on them (yuckie).
Here is his blog addy...
www.neilmayo.blogspot.com
Also, check this out, it is one of his short films... Click the image to see it...
The legal stakeholders are the lawyers and attorneys. An example of this group are James and Wells who view their role as “offering expertise in protecting, exploiting and enforcing IP rights.”10
This somewhat ambiguous description describes their standpoint within the free music debate. The legal stakeholders tend to exist within and outside of the interests of other stakeholder groups. Duane Northcutt has remarked that "... a unique situation makes this possible -- the fact that lawyers are the only group that provide both supply and demand for a service. To my way of thinking, this allows this positive-feedback effect to take place, where the very presence of lawyers demands additional lawyers to be there, and so on, without any counterbalancing force to limit it."11
The main legal stakeholder argument is that under IP laws the person who holds the protection gains benefits through the rights of an exclusive monopoly, which in turn prevents others from copying the product.12 However, as James and Wells note in their 1999 guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill “the number of businesses deterred from copying a particular product or process by the existence of a patent or registered design may never be known.”13
The next group of stakeholders are the distributors and producers. On one hand, we have Napster and on the other hand, we have the distributors and producers, in short, the recording industry.
Napster claimed that their service did not breach any copyright laws. Specifically, Napster and its proponents cite “that downloading music files constituted "fair use" under the provisions of copyright law, that users were only downloading samples of the music before buying it, and that users often already owned the songs on CD's they had purchased. “14
The recording industry on the other hand cites that through the transfer of music files across the Napster service, the artists and record companies forfeit potential income. Tommy Boy Records CEO Tom Silverman states that music companies are "losing money every time a user downloads a copy of a recording."15 To add strength to this claim, a study conducted by Reciprocal Music of 67 American University and college campuses, showed that overall retail music sales had increased 20% over the 1997-2000 period. It also showed that retail sales near university campuses, reported to be the location of the highest amount of Napster users, showed a decrease of four percent over the same period. Larry Miller, President of Reciprocal Music, said in a statement, "It is now clear that the controversial practices of companies that provide directories and an easy interface to libraries of unlicensed music are in fact detrimental to the growth of the music business and those artists whom they claim to support. Record sales are up despite the widespread use of MP3, not because of it. These figures should put to rest the ongoing debate about the effects of online file sharing.''16
On one side, we have Napster claiming fair use of copyrighted material and the recording industry claiming that digital transfer of music is detrimental to the industry and the artists, this argument supported by a study showing a 4% decrease in music retail consumption amongst 0.0436% (3 s.f.) of all American universities and campuses.17
The next stakeholder group are the artists, that is, the musicians. The following section is comprised from many interviews with different musicians from different publications. Each artist was interviewed regarding his or her thoughts on Napster.
The most common view amongst artists is that they will benefit from record sales: "Most people I know who use Napster listen to stuff they've never heard before. And then they get psyched and go out and buy the damn records. It's more like a sampler."18 Other benefits alluded to are increased merchandise and concert ticket sales.
When an artist signs a recording contract, the record company becomes responsible for marketing the artist and taking the role of all administration to do with the artist and their music. In some cases, this means changing the sound of the music or the image of the artist so that they become more marketable, and will sell. In response to this, Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics said "[Napster] makes artists ask why they are not in control of what they are doing. Artists of any worth or strength will rise up and take control of the situation."19
In addition, a widely circulated speech by singer Courtney Love praised the Internet as an alternative distribution vehicle for artists abused by the industry.20 But what of the smaller artists who may have not had the chance to become part of that system.
Chuck D called companies such as Napster and MP3.com "the radio of the new millennium." He states that many artists do not get the chance to gain access to mediums such as radio, television etc… “This is how they get heard. Why would you want to deny them that?"21 Artists like Chuck D, and Courtney Love believe that the distribution companies such as BMG or Sony Music have stagnated the amount of creative work coming into the marketplace.
This they believe is because of the long held power of music distribution by the record companies.
Chuck D of Public Enemy said "We should think of (Napster) as a new kind of radio--a promotional tool that can help artists who don't have the opportunity to get their music played on mainstream radio or on MTV,"22
Overwhelmingly, artists have come forth both famous and not so famous, they say that the greatest benefit of services like Napster and the internet is that these media provide the artist with a new distribution channel. "Napster: It is the future, in my opinion. That's the way music is going to be communicated around the world. The most important thing now is to embrace it.”23 Services like Napster provide the perfect opportunity to bring awareness to an artists work.
Every artist regardless of discipline enjoys receiving gratification for his or her work. This view is enforced by U2’s Bono, “My feeling, is that it's cool for people to share our music…we tell people who come to our concerts that they can tape the shows if they want. I think it's cool that people are so passionate about our music"24 This is also reflected by Moby, "Most people I know who listen to a lot of MP3s will download a lot of different songs. And if they like the song, they'll go out and buy the album. The record company doesn't want me to say this, but out of the millions of MP3 files that are out there, if someone chooses to download one of my songs or an album of mine, I'm very flattered."25
Many artists believe that the freeing up of the digital transfer of music means a person can listen to a broader range of music.
Artists such as the artist formerly known as Prince have said "What record companies don't really understand is that Napster is just one illustration of the growing frustration over how much the record companies control what music people get to hear…why should the record company have such control over how he, the music lover, wants to experience the music?"26
The last of the stakeholder groups are the users.
The users are the people who use their computers to transfer music in a digital format. Most users support Napster on the grounds that “for each CD currently sold, only a tiny percentage passes to the original artist - the rest is creamed off by a plethora of "middle men".”27
Furthermore, they believe that the reason Napster was attacked is because of the greed of the multinationals and not the individuals. Most users believe that copyright is used for continual financial gain regardless of whether a person has purchased a CD. There is the belief that the record companies prime motivation is control and profit.
The amount of people seeking digital music across the Internet is as seen as coming purely as a “public distaste for the excessive, draconian copyright laws wielded by unelected quangos (the RIAA) and profiteering corporations (Microsoft, Disney, etc etc).”28
Price is a strong argument that is often cited. Many users and I include myself resent paying at least NZ$30.00 for a CD that we know does not wholly go to the artist. The cost for stamping an audio CD is within the vicinity of NZ$2.00.29
Using Napster-like services means that we, the users, can alleviate the costs involved with purchase. In regards to the recording industry one user wrote “they have been scared as their lucrative distribution monopoly slipped through their fingers…I agree with the sentiment that Napster deprived artists of their rightful royalties but the majority of CD prices go nowhere near them.”30
The users seem to be extremely annoyed that they are being “ripped off” and charged outrageous prices. “I will never forgive the record companies for charging extra for CDs. They were cheaper to make than records or tapes. They just wanted to cash in on what people didn't know.”31
However there is some division regarding the issue of price, “People talk about overpriced CD's and lack of availability in some countries re [sic] certain CD's. Firstly, a CD sells at a certain price, people may want them cheaper, but then people want everything cheaper…It's just another cost-dodging excuse. Pay the price for good music.”32
This leads us to a related argument of price vs. quality. Many users have alluded to the fact that the recording industry constricts the flow of music available. Artists as outlined in the previous section also reflect this.
“More real music and less of that produced rubbish such as Hearsay boy bands etc and I might start buying CDs instead of copying them and taking them back, I resent having to pay x amount of pounds to some huge wealthy company that only puts it back into teeny rubbish and cheaper goods for the American market. “33
One of the most common arguments in support of freeing up music is that the public gains the ability to preview music before purchase. A common misbelief is that this will not happen. Speaking from personal experience, there is nothing like listening to a wonderful new piece of music, furthermore, there is nothing like owning it as well. As one person pointed out “the public want to sample what they are buying before they fork out £13 for an overpriced CD”34
Napster provides a platform for artists to develop an audience. Through freely distributing music, the artist benefits by gaining a wider global audience. This translates into record sales and concert tickets etc… Through eliminating the middle persons the artist retains total artistic control and can deal direct with fans. However, whereas net distribution is a great tool for amateur groups there is a concern that as a result, mid range performers, that is, those who rely on their music to make a living may get crowded out. “If royalties are uncollectible, the midrange workaday performer gets squeezed out. Ironically, record companies are blamed for this kind of bifurcation, but free Web distribution makes it worse.” 35
The Problems with Intellectual Property Regimes
Given the history of IP rights, there comes to mind two main ideas that cause conflict. These are:
Given their history and the particular governmental outcomes that these policies were first devised for, it should come as no surprise that IP rights collide with actual property rights.
For example, I go to a store and purchase a cutlery set. I am the purchaser and the property that I have purchased is the cutlery set. I have paid for the cutlery set. Therefore, it is mine. Now that I own the cutlery set I may throw it away, I may give it to someone else to use, I may try to develop a better fork and I may destroy it. Why? Because these are things that I have purchased and now own. Under IP laws some of these things I may not do, because someone else owns part of the property that I purchased.
“Although I own the object I bought, I am being kept on a leash, with a remote power restraining my freedom over my justly acquired property. This situation is similar in absurdity as if a hammer bought in a hardware store were tied to the restriction that it would only be legal to use on a particular brand of nails, but illegal for any other brand or purpose.”36
The purpose of IP laws is to protect ideas and concepts from being used by others. This enables the holder of the copyright or patent to further develop their ideas without the threat of others developing it themselves. Thus, the potential creative processes that could improve the idea even further are halted, "thus creating scarcity where it is most damaging to all of humanity and where a rich bounty of wealth could exist instead.”37
To further clarify this, I will use an example. Imagine an engineer who comes across a problem. The first thing that the engineer thinks is that “I need to solve this problem”. So, the engineer sets about describing the problem, looking at the parameters of the problem and seeking a solution. Eventually the engineer comes up with a solution that works and goes about constructing the device. The device is so useful that the engineer tells his peers about it. Eventually word gets out, and the owner of the patent, who lives in another country, contacts their lawyers. The following week the engineer receives a letter in the mail to desist any further development of the idea or face charges of litigation. Had the engineer first looked for a solution in a patent registration manual this could have all been avoided. However, the engineer did what was natural, the engineer solved the problem.
“Many simultaneously thinking humans exist on this planet. It should come as no surprise that the same ideas will present themselves to different minds, sometimes even almost at the same time. That one of these persons can obtain a license to block all other co-inventors from using their own conclusions, just by virtue of having gone to the patent office one day earlier, contradicts the principle "freedom of thought" directly, and is outrageous.”38
IP laws prevent people from thinking about and solving problems. Essentially, creating artificial scarcity where there is none.
Ethical Considerations
There are different ideals concerned with the ethics of IP laws. The most cited being the redistribution of property enforced by the utilitarian argument “that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing about the most happiness of all those affected by it.” Another argument of interest is the Libertarian argument believing that people should be free to think and behave as they want and should not have limits put on them by governments. Within the Libertarian argument there exists dialectic. There are those who strongly support IP laws such as Ayn Rand and then there are those who stand in a somewhat ambiguous position such as Thomas Jefferson. Both of these ethical perspectives are analysed in the following section.
Redistribution of Property and the Utilitarianism Defence
The utilitarian defence of IP rights stems from the idea of property redistribution. Under property redistribution rights, IP legislation allows partial ownership of a piece of work by the creator of that work. This in turn prohibits certain uses of a piece of property.
For example, if a person purchases a piece of music, then by law they own that piece of music or more specifically the medium upon which that music lies. However, if I have copyrighted that piece of music then I own a portion of that person’s property. As holder of that copyright, I inhibit the amount of uses for that piece of music. For example, the purchaser may not copy or re-use parts of that music whether for commercial or other uses. In effect, I own a part of that which the purchaser owns. Therefore, IP laws conflict with property laws by transferring partial ownership of an item, whether it is music or a product of some other type, to the creator.
It is this conflict and redistribution of property that must be justified in order for copyright law to be valid and this is where the utilitarian defence takes place.
The utilitarian defence argues that creativity and wealth are increased through IP laws by granting monopolies to people. Utilitarians believe that through granting monopolies to people, that is, rewarding people financially, creativity is encouraged. “Without a copyright in their works, many authors would not bother to write novels, software, or other types of works.”39 If this were the case, there would be no reason for most people to be creative.
Roderick T. Long makes the following point:
“Is it credible that authors, in a world without copyrights, will be deprived of remuneration for their work? …not likely. In the 19th century, British authors had no copyright protection under American law, yet they received royalties from American publishers nonetheless.” 40
Ultimately, under conventional utilitarian arguments, it is not apparent that through the establishment of IP laws there has been an increase in creativity. The fact that it is difficult to quantify the utilitarian defence of IP puts its defence in to some question. “The utilitarian weighing of costs against benefits requires the impossible be done, namely making interpersonal utility comparisons, as when the "costs" of copyright laws are subtracted from the "benefits" to determine whether such laws are a net benefit.”41
Essentially, under utilitarian reasoning there is no easy way of measuring the benefit of IP laws to the author or creator of a piece of work to the detriment of the lost ownership of the property by the purchaser because there is no basic scale upon which to measure this.
Libertarianism
There are two perspectives of IP rights amongst Libertarians.
IP rights:
The libertarian defence of IP rights revolves around the argument that as a creator of a piece of work, whether literary, musical or mechanical, the creator has the rights to own the fruits of their labour. However, if two people in different countries, perhaps with a similar base of knowledge as a result of their labour, both create a piece of work that is similar or exact, then it is the right of whoever registers the patent first that is entitled to the fruits of their labour.
Under the belief that an individual has rights to the fruits of their labour, then logically both people in this example should be able to own their respective works. However, this is not the case.
Ayn Rand explains this as follows:
"As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn't. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition."42
Ayn Rand’s comments state that an individual has the right to claim the products of their labour, if and only if, they are first to register a patent. Any other individual who creates a similar or same piece of work as a result of their labour must then forfeit the products of their labour. Clearly there is some confliction here and this is surely a “reductio ad absurdum” of the whole notion of IP laws.
The second notion of the libertarian arguments is concerned with the belief that IP rights are unjust monopolies granted by governments. In this case, the belief is that appointing IP rights to a piece of work gives it an unfair advantage over other bodies of work in a similar field. That is, over other competition.
British philosopher, sociologist and Libertarian Herbert Spencer attempted to justify the use of IP laws in his autobiography. He had created a new hospital bed, and as a gift to all humanity offered it to the market place patent-free. Unexpectedly, there were no companies prepared to manufacture the new hospital bed. This was because no parties would invest in a product that did not come with the assurance of a monopoly. Roderick T. Long writes, “the companies who rejected Spencer's bed in favor of other uses for their capital were choosing between producing a commodity in which they would have a monopoly and producing a commodity in which they would not have a monopoly. Faced with that choice, they went for the patented commodity as the less risky option.”43
This shows that IP laws give protected items an unfair advantage over non-patented items. In essence, they create an artificial scarcity. In a society without IP laws there would be no disadvantage in comparison with other similar products.
The libertarian perspective can be summarised as follows: Firstly, an individual is entitled to the fruits of their labour unless another person has registered those fruits previously, then an individual is not entitled to the fruits of their labour, and Secondly, IP laws create an artificial scarcity through allowing one product an unfair competitive advantage over other similar products. Since IP laws are pieces of legislation that are enforced by governments, this shows that true libertarian beliefs should be as far removed from IP regimes as their doctrine of beliefs are from the intervention of governments.
Conclusion
The free music philosophy promotes free music as a means to further nourish creativity. It is not centred on freeing music though this is a common misconception amongst some stakeholders. Napster was set up as a means to find music across the Internet, the majority of artists and the users supported it. Napster enabled musicians famous and not so famous to reach a larger audience. Its greatest opponents, the recording companies, claim that royalties are lost to the artist because of these services. IP legislation conflicts with rights of property ownership in that they allow third party ownership, they effectively inhibit what someone can do with their own property and they place the status of scarcity on a process, which is natural and abundant. Furthermore, supporters of IP rights claim that benefits are derived from the monopoly that these laws create. Yet, some of its greatest proponents argue with forms of reasoning that are either difficult to quantify, or are contradictory.
Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." IP laws seek to halt the flow of creation for purely financial reasons by reducing one of the most powerful abilities that humans have, the power to create.
Footnotes
1 Samudrala, R. June 17, 1998, The Free Music Philosophy V 1.4 [Online], Available: www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html [2001, Oct. 29th]
2 Samudrala, R. June 17, 1998, The Free Music Philosophy V 1.4 [Online], Available: www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html [2001, Oct. 29th]
3 Samudrala, R. June 17, 1998, The Free Music Philosophy V 1.4 [Online], Available: www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html [2001, Oct. 29th]
4 Samudrala, R. June 17, 1998, The Free Music Philosophy V 1.4 [Online], Available: www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html [2001, Oct. 29th]
5 James and Wells. December 1999, “Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill”, pp. 30
6 Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill, James and Wells, December 1999
7 Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill, James and Wells, December 1999
8 Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill, James and Wells, December 1999
9 World Intellectual Property Organisation, http://www.wipo.org/
10 James and Wells, Patent and trademark Attorneys, Intellectual Property lawyers, http://www.jaws.co.nz/index.html
11 Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? Markus Krummenacker
12 Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill, James and Wells, December 1999
13 Guide to the protection of innovation and goodwill, James and Wells, December 1999
14 Appeals court rules that Napster violates copyright law, The Chronicle of Higher Education; Washington; Feb 23, 2001; Scott Carlson;
15 Online Music Debate Storms Capitol Hill, By Lori Enos & Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times , May 25, 2000
16 Online Music Debate Storms Capitol Hill, By Lori Enos & Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times , May 25, 2000
17 Calculation based on information from information at www.americanuniversities.com/
18 Ian MacKaye, recording artist, Fugazi and co-owner of Dischord Records, Salon.com, 1/8/2001
19 Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics
20 Can the Record Industry Beat Free Web Music? --- Industry's Public-Relations Blitz Includes Pop Stars, Speeches, Appeals to `Good Citizenship' Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Jun 20, 2000; By Anna Wilde Mathews;
21 Chuck D, New York Times, 4/30/2000
22 Chuck D, New York Times, 4/30/2000
23 Dave Matthews (Dave Matthews Band), referring to his band's recent Featured Music promotion with Napster, Billboard.com, 2/9/2001
24 Bono on The Edge (U2), Billboard.com, 9/29/2000
25 Moby, Macaddict.com
26 Prince, NPGonlineLTD.com
27 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
28 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
29 Unchained Melody, The digitisation of music has industry execs in a twist., Brett May and Marc Singer, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2001 Number 1
30 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
32 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
33 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
34 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1373000/1373072.stm
35 O, freedom, The American Prospect; Princeton; Aug 28, 2000; Robert Kuttner;
36 Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? Markus Krummenacker
37 Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? Markus Krummenacker
38 Are " Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? Markus Krummenacker
39 In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule, by N. Stephan Kinsella
40 The Libertarian Case Against IP Rights, by Roderick T. Long, Formulationsa, Autumn 1995
41 In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule, by N. Stephan Kinsella
42 Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: New American Library, 1967), p. 133.)
43 The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights, by Roderick T. Long, Formulationsa, Autumn 1995
I just found this in Gizmodo then checked the site. This keyboard is awesome, you'd probably get sick of it after awhile - but looks sweet.
was spent...
1. Doing next months roster
2. Redoing next months roster because some people couldn't work
3. Pretending that I remembered about a meeting on Wednesday at 10:00
4. Learning how to say "I am waiting to die" in Chinese - something like 'wo dang shurrr'
5. Convincing a customer to spend $2500.00 on some 'Pounamu' (NZ jade)
6. Smoking cigarettes
7. Working out which suppliers of one of my categories had lost sales ground versus the previous financial year
The time is 16:42.
Grob
Meaning: to betray, turn in
Example: "fuck, I've been grobbed"
Real Meaning: There are knives in my back
Real Meaning 2: Accounting are only eating with forks today
Netherling
Meaning: Active servant of the devil
Example: "Man, she's a real netherling isn't she!"
Real Meaning: "She is a real hard arse go getter"
Real Meaning 2: The Accountants are now eating with their hands
Treppverter
Meaning: Great comebacks that are thought up too late for the use or after the event
Example: No idea - just sounds fucking classic!
Real Meaning:
Real Meaning 2:
Wammel
Meaning: to vomit
Example: "You make me want to wammel you grobbing netherling!"
Real Meaning: "I'm not comfortable with your proposed highly-focused strategy"
Real Meaning 2: Today the accountants are eating roasted managers arse
Thinking big: The worlds smallest car, 4 nanometres wide. Human hair is 80,000 nanometres. 
The T282B Mining truck - Craziness that you could live in
The Love Parade: Crazy dance celebration of celebrations
Palm Jumeirah (Bottom left Burj Al Arab Hotel) Crazy hotel, Crazier sandy palm thing
Project Genesis: Crazy capacity of 6,400 peopleDactylonomy
Meaning: The art of finger counting
Example: You're a really skilled dactylonomist!
Real Meaning: You're good at counting on your fingers!
Real Meaning 2: Can't you count with excel?
Unasinous
Meaning: Being equally stupid
Example: Your unasinous response to my question proves your level of stupidity
Real Meaning: You really are a thick twit
Real Meaning 2: Burger King is looking for staff
Bargest
Meaning: A portending spirit of misfortune or doom
Example: Flee! Flee! The paragon or bargests this way comes!
Real Meaning: The General Manager is here, did you complete his requested changes?
Real Meaning 2: No I didn't. Is he floating across the floor?
Today I had to deal with an interesting customer. A Baker by trade and a banker before that. His issue was the fact that he was only being charged 11.1% tax. When he should have been charged 12.5%.
My team were finding it difficult to deal with so I came in to level the playing field.
My first solution was to charge him extra and settle the score.
Kidding.
I actually explained how the GST system works, and as a result how the cost price of the product with tax effects the final retail, blah blah blah resulting in 11.1%.
This was of course complete shit and pointless, His actual problem, that I found out later was that he'd received a discount based on showing his passport in a town from the far flung north.
A town called Kawakawa.
He tried the same in my store and my team explained that it was not part of store policy to do so.
He argued.
(At this stage I have broken both of my shoes and am not really looking for a fight with anyone.)
Now, my team did their job and did it well. However, you really need to look at what is going on and figure out the cause of the frustration.
Background
He wanted to purchase 30 items as gifts.
Based on his Kawakawa experience wanted to receive a discount of 12.5% (Stupid Kawakawa gave him more than the GST off... 11.1%)
He now stood before me.
Methodology
Let him vent - not that he needed to, he wasn't angry, he just wanted an explanation.
Work out a solution.
Close the proceedings.
Figure out how to fix my shoes.
Findings
I explained how stores were free to set their own pricing policies and that a tax free price based on showing a passport could be one of those. He went on to explain that the store person wrote his passport number and gave him the discount. DODGY! Even if there is a tax back system in place for this store with NZ Customs then there should have been forms to fill out at least.
He wanted 30 items with a total cost of around a hundred dollars, I gave him 10% off and rounded the cents down. Nice and clean. He was happy. My staff were relaxed and I kept a sale that he could have walked away and given to some other store.
Fortunately I have a spare pair of shoes in my car.
Conclusion
It is not worth having an arm wrestle over small sales especially when it takes small agreements between both parties to settle. Bigger sales and issues with customers require skill and tact and these are the times that you need to be on the ball, broken shoes or not. But for the sake of ten dollars, use your discretion. If you're allowed to.
Happy New Year my brothers and sisters! I can say that because New Zealand is part of Asia-Pacific, thus, we are ALL asian's here. Even my mate from Iraq said he is asian. Wicked. Check out the happiness below.
新年進步 
