FYE: No Kids Under 18 Allowed Until After 4 P.M.

The bus-eating abominable snowmen that commandeered I-95 early yesterday morning flummoxed our plans to return to New York on the Chinatown bus. As we wandered through Union Station assuring our mother that we would take Amtrak, we came across this magnificent sign in the music store FYE telling kids under 18—presumably a key demographic—to keep away until 4 p.m. As our friend took a picture, a surly FYE employee sternly warned that we were breaking the law.

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/fye_kid_ban1-thumb.jpgTaking pictures is not illegal, but FYE—like any private store—can always ask anyone to leave. We said we deleted the pictures (whoops!), but that false friendly gesture wasn’t enough to get an explanation for the sign. You know FYE employees, the menacing youths might leave you alone if you were nicer. Something to consider. Regardless, thanks for the sign. It made our day.

(Photo: Robert Koeth III)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Fry says:

    Who or what is FYE?

  2. HYPEractive says:

    FYE= For Your Entertainment.

  3. snoop-blog says:

    fye sucks. didn’t it use to be camelot music? that placed sucked also.

  4. elangomatt says:

    FYE stands for “For Your Entertainment” I believe. Basically they sell new and used movies and music. It isn’t a bad store, but I never buy much because even their used stuff is still more money than I would like to pay much of the time.

  5. love the “get used” t-shirt the employee is wearing in the background of the second pic.

  6. nak says:

    Thanks for the double, triple and half speak. Oh and then the kids.

    Wait, I am I drunk too?

  7. forgottenpassword says:

    dont you just love it when people make up BS laws?

    Shoulda asked the employee what law you were breaking & told him to call the police.

  8. cp87 says:

    A lot of places won’t let school-aged kids in until after school hours. I’m not sure if that is what is going on here. Those rules are usually more along the lines of ‘No one under 16 until 3:00 on Weekdays w/o a parent.’

  9. BugMeNot2 says:

    The mall by me does the same, under 18 needs a chaperone. Never bothered me when I worked there, Id rather have 2 over 18 customers than 10 under 18 shoppers in the store at one time.

  10. billbillbillbill says:

    When Media Play/Suncoast Music/Sam Goody closed up shop, FYE opened in the old Media Play stores with the same high prices for DVD’s and Music. I am surprised they are still around. It is hard to imagine a company thinking I am going to open a store that is a mirror copy of the store that used to be here and I will make money even though they went out of business for lack of sales? Anyways, seems like they are turning away their main demographic.

  11. Typhoid says:

    People under that age are supposed to be in school during those hours, or they are truant. I’m guessing FYE got slapped with some “harboring/encouraging truancy” charges or something recently.

    Come on folks, does no one here remember the days of arcades having the same problem?

  12. Fry says:

    @HYPEractive: Okay, what type of store is it?

  13. blainer says:

    As someone who works next to union station, I wish that the entire station would embrace this ban and extend the hours to between 8:00 am and 6:30 pm. Also, in addition to youngsters, tourists should be included in this ban. Perhaps this would negatively affect Amtrak’s business operations, but it’s not like they’ve had a positive cash flow since the 70s.

  14. tedyc03 says:

    @forgottenpassword: Union Station is FAMOUS in DC for having people arrested for photographing things. There’s no law being broken and photography is protected by the First Amendment, but it happens anyway. I guess if you’re photographing things you’re a potential terrorist that they should arrest for trespassing.

    The sign is pretty funny, but it’s need is even sadder. To often, when school gets out the students are little terrors who terrorize everything nearby. I used to live near an elementry school and at 3 PM every day these kids would mill around my front door doing God-only-knows.

  15. Falconfire says:

    Actually if you where outside of the store, then they cant even ask you to leave, its public property. And if you had been arrested, you have a nice little winfall coming to you since that a violation of First Amendment right and not even Mr Bush can take that shit away though he would love to.

  16. DeltaPurser says:

    Any studies been done on who shoplifts more; teens or adults? Curious…

  17. RumorsDaily says:

    Is that in DC? I didn’t realize there was an FYE in there.

    PS. technically taking a photo of their sign could easily be copyright infringement (hence ‘illegal’). As lame as their sign is, and as moderately uncreative as it is, it still would likely be protected. Copyright protects ideas fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The precise word choices used here, along with the font and the sizing choices may very well be enough to qualify it for copyright protection… and at that point creating a copy of the sign (through photography) WOULD be a violation of federal copyright law. Of course, you’re using it for news/critique so you’d be in the clear (say thank you to fair use). People asserting that ‘there is no law’ aren’t really correct. If you were taking photos so you could recreate the sign in your own store, you almost certainly would be violating the law.

  18. Scuba Steve says:

    I honestly can’t think of a better store to be completely replaced with web based businesses.

    Then I realize who would be left to shop at these overpriced, understocked bastions of culture, and suddenly realize why they need the sign.

  19. stopNgoBeau says:

    @RumorsDaily: Strict copywrite infringement isn’t a criminal act. You can be sued in a civil case though. The FBI warnings you see at the beginning of movies are special allocations under law for those types of media.

    Also, I don’t think taking a picture of something in the public view would be copywrite infringment. Taking the sign and copying it using a scanner or (dare I say) Xerox machine would be infringement.

  20. snoop-blog says:

    @DeltaPurser: what about adults who’ve been shoplifting since they were kids?

  21. bravo369 says:

    i don’t necessarily agree with this but i guess this is similar to how movie theaters don’t allow children under a certain age into a movie theather even with a parent after 10 pm which I completely agree with.

    • ShizaMinelli says:

      @bravo369: What theater do you go to?!? Any time of day, any day of the week, down here in South FL you can expect a teenage bratgroup to ruin the movie for you!

  22. RumorsDaily says:

    @stopNgoBeau: Right, I didn’t say it was criminal, but it is potentially a violation of copyright law. It’s still ‘against the law.’

    The fact that something is in public view is not a defense for copyright infringement when taking photographs of signs, sculptures, literature, artwork or almost anything else. The only thing it IS a defense for is for claims of copyright infringement when taking photographs of building designs in a public place.

    Copyright over building design, 17 USC 120, has the following exemption:

    (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. – The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

    No other type of copyrightted work has this exemption, hence the fact that something is in public view is not, by itself, a defense to a copyright infringement claim. You’ll need to fall back on the fair use arguments, relying, presumably, most heavily on the “effect on the work’s value” prong of the test.

  23. sir_eccles says:

    It’s Shakespeare isn’t it? as in:

    “Fye upon thee foul retailer, ’tis verily going to eat into your profit margins”.

    On a more serious note, if it is viewable from a public place then you can photograph it. So for example if you are standing on a sidewalk outside a Fye store on the high street no problem. They could perhaps ask you to move along and not block the sidewalk but that is all.

    The question here might be if the station concourse is public? Places like malls are technically private property for example and if they clearly have a no photography policy clearly displayed they can ask you to move along. Otherwise you can assume photography is allowed. Of course in this instance it would have to be station security not store security doing the asking (politely of course).

  24. morganlh85 says:

    @billbillbillbill: Mediayplay’s prices weren’t NEARLY as bad as FYE. I routinely got good deals at Mediaplay and I was disappointed when ours closed. I’m surprised FYE can even make ends meet with their $17 CDs.

  25. blainer says:

    @RumorsDaily: I’m not sure that you fully understand the range of works that are subject to copyright protections. As described in Section 102, [quote]Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

    (1) literary works;

    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

    (7) sound recordings; and

    (8) architectural works.[/quote]

  26. Shmonkmonk says:

    I think this was done to have a “legitimate” reason to kick out annoying teenagers simply because they are annoying teenagers rather than to prevent any stealing (although, I’m sure that’s the excuse they’ll give when asked). Granted, watching the loud, awkward mating rituals of teens is nauseating but can any of us say that we were perfectly behaved at all times when we were 16?
    Turning away customers, even if they are bratty little twits, is bad business, especially if you’re on the brink of bankruptcy. If teens are being annoying, all you have to do is walk over and ask them to stop being an idiot (or leave). I’m guessing everyone that works there is 18 or over and if you don’t have to balls to stand up to a 14 year old, than maybe you shouldn’t work where 14 year olds shop.
    I’m sure the sign the was something the store management came up of with after a group of kids accidentally knocked over a display while shoving and loudly calling each other “fags” to get the attention of some cute girl on the other side of the store. Maybe their DM (District Manager) will see it and put a stop to it.

  27. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    There can’t be a copyright to this sign by FYE as both identical & similar signs have been used for years.
    If there is a copyright violation, it’s FYE that is the violator.
    Plus, there is the fair use doctrine which allows you to quote from copyrighted materials. Photographing this short [38 words] sign would almost definitely fall into that category.

  28. Witera33it says:

    I guess no one here has heard of “swarming?” It’s the delightful criminal tactic used primarily by teens and preteens. One kid will enter looking unthreatening to case the joint, then a whole swarm of them will enter the store creating distractions to make shoplifing by a portion of them easier.
    In other words FYE should not be getting business from school age children during school hours without a parent present. THEY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOL. If they are not in school, and not with a parent, then they are TRUANT, hence troublemakers and potential thieves.

  29. Televiper says:

    @Falconfire: The inside of a mall is not public property. The inside of a mall is not public property. Why do people make this weird assumption that every square of common space is public property?

  30. Antediluvian says:

    Anybody else gonna call them on the misuse of “till”?

    How about the fact that a “group” (2 or more?) may not enter without a chaperone, regardless of the ages of the group members?

  31. Televiper says:

    I have friends who run a record store. It’s generally the teenagers and young college students that shoplift.

  32. ptkdude says:

    @Antediluvian: I will! “Till” = where you put money in a cash register. ” ’til” = slang for “until”. This drives me insane, along with people getting insure & ensure and inquire & enquire mixed up.

  33. ianmac47 says:

    Does anyone under 18 buy music anyway?

  34. Mr. Gunn says:

    This is starting to become a trend. The mall in a suburb of New Orleans is now requiring under 18 kids to be chaperoned, but it’s after 8 on weekends, not before 4.

    Too many Boomers have lawns now, and want kids off it.

  35. Robobot says:

    Thank God these rules didn’t apply when I was a minor. I started working young and I spent a lot of my extra income at CD and book stores in the mall; places like FYE. Even before I worked I would shop alone, probably starting around 12. I never caused trouble and rules policing minors would have really inconvenienced my busy parents and I.

    There are a lot of little punks out there, but I am amazed at how many mature teenagers I see. A lot of them are more mature than people who are old enough to be their parents.

    When I worked retail a huge amount of our income came from working teenagers. I realize that a lot of shoplifters are teenagers, but is it really worth losing this much business? Kids aren’t going to ask their parents to accompany them into a store, they’re just going to go somewhere else to shop.

  36. dorkins says:

    Somehow I don’t think these teens are regarded as potential customers.

    Probably loud and scary thug types or shoplifters.

  37. juri squared says:

    I have a feeling the weird ‘group’ clause is there because lots of school groups would ostensibly pass through a train station.

    It’s still asinine, though.

  38. k6richar says:

    I know in Canada a store got in trouble for doing this as it was age discrimination. Although a loophole in the law allowed them to change the sign to say no more then 2 students at a time as apparently you can discriminate against students but not the young.

  39. scoobydoo says:

    FYE = the next CompUSA. Overpriced crap, shitty staff and poor selection.

    Thankfully they already closed many if their stores.

  40. Steve Trachsel, Ace says:

    @Quietly: These “rules” are selectively enforced. Usually the kids with backpacks that are loitering will be kicked out, the kid with the nametag from another store or who looks like they are shopping will not be bothered.
    They just post the sign so people cant claim discrimination when they are asked to leave.

  41. katylostherart says:

    So are they doing this for truancy compliance or to get obnoxious kids out of their store? Which is a bit self defeating in entertainment retail.

  42. snoop-blog says:

    @katylostherart: if it was for truency, it should be 3pm, and exclude weekends (which i’m not sure if they take the sign down on weekends, but i’d bet not.

    @Tracy Ham and Eggs: exactly.

  43. jamesdenver says:

    re: photographers rights. anyone who enjoys taking photos in public (or in public on private grounds) should carry around this little sheet in their wallet


    someone sent it to me after I has this ridiculous run in with a Safeway clerk.

  44. scoosdad says:

    @Televiper: Union Station is owned by the federal government, and the retail area is
    managed by a private real estate company.

    It is, technically public property, and you and I both own it.

  45. sharki3232 says:

    @Fry: It’s a music and DVD store. A business pretty much in its death throws these days. There is one at the Pembrook mall here in Norfolk but I’ve never been in it. I have bought a DVD or CD from a brick and mortor store in months.

  46. Atomike says:

    If you disagree with this store’s reasonable policy, then either:
    1. You don’t have kids, OR
    2. You’re a kid, OR
    3. You’re as dumb as a kid.

  47. k6richar says:

    In Canada this was illegal as it was age discrimination. A loophole let them put up a sign saying only 2 students in the store at one time.

  48. SaraAB87 says:

    This might be a real problem for this store and a problem that is detracting from its sales and legitimate customers with money to spend. If the store isn’t making any money, they have to do something. I think this is targeted at the groups of kids that hang out in the stores and don’t buy anything and possibly at parents who bring in large groups of kids and expect the store staff to supervise them. These stores can be dumping grounds for kids while parents shop elsewhere. I know the gamestops here are like that and it happens especially in the summer, parents just leave their kids there to play the demos for hours and hours on end. But the stores here are very strict about that, if a kid is there for more than 15 min without buying anything they are told to leave, if they don’t leave the police are called for trespassing.

    I hate FYE, they are even worse than gamestop. They charge 40$ for GBA games, which are out of date now. They never update their prices to reflect current price drops on video games. I didn’t mind media play because it was a huge store and they did have good deals ALL the time here so I miss them as well. You just had to be careful not to buy the overpriced stuff and just buy the stuff that was on sale.

  49. StevieD says:

    The customer or employee shown in the photo is not a public figure and is located on private property and has an expectation of privacy, thus can decline to be photographed.

    Remember that the next time you take her picture and she then kicks your arse for doing so.

  50. Antediluvian says:

    @jamesdenver: Thanks for that link to the “Photographer’s Right[sic]” pamphlet.

    I think I’ve seen it before, but I’m pleased to see it again (or learn of it for the first time; I can’t wait for the Alzheimers to kick in fully so I can meet new people — every day).

    Something to put in the camera bag and link to on the cell phone.

  51. sir_eccles says:

    @StevieD: You might have an expectation of privacy in say a changing room in a clothes store, but an employee on the sales floor would be unlikely to attract such an expectation.

  52. FishingCrue says:

    Kids don’t steal music from stores, they steal it from the internet!

  53. vision646 says:

    @RumorsDaily: In order for it to be copyright infringement, they would first have to copyright it. And I doubt FYE took the time to copyright their anti-truancy sign.

  54. XianZomby says:

    @ianmac47: No. They steal it by downloaidng it off LimeWire.

  55. snoop-blog says:

    @XianZomby: please limewire is like an accient relic. they use torrent downloading programs now. much more faster, efficient, and can download entire retail cd’s in a mere minutes. no more fishing for random intro’s and outros for complete cd’s. these puppies are identical to the real thing when in your player.

  56. lukobe says:

    @vision646: Copyright begins when the work is created–you don’t have to register it. @Antediluvian: “Till” is fine.

  57. snoop-blog says:

    i’m baffled as to why there hasn’t been a music cd version of netflix?

  58. HooFoot says:

    I’m not suprised by this sign at all. The last time I was in Union Station, a group of teenagers begged me for subway fare. When I refused, they followed me from the subway area into the retail area calling me all sorts of insults and racial slurs along the way. And yes, this occurred during daytime hours when those kids should have been in school.

  59. blainer says:

    @vision646: Not true. While registering a copyright will probably make it easier to defend against violations, you don’t need to register in order to attempt to enforce your copyright rights.

  60. bombaxstar says:

    @Quietly: Well-made point.

    I’m glad this hasn’t been happening around here yet. I’m still in high school and in the middle of the day, I have an hour and a half long lunch break (between pre-CNA classes at another school in my area and classes at my regular school) and sometimes I like to go shopping. This lunch period is from 11:30-1:00. Oh well, FYE sucks anyway (we don’t have any here, but I used to have a friend in Tampa that I would visit, and FYE was…meh.)

  61. Antediluvian says:

    @Antediluvian: I put the [sic] in the title because it really feels just plain wrong to call it “The Photographer’s Right” which implies one of the following:

    a. The photographer has only one right (and this pamphlet explains that single right) (but not the rest of them)

    – or –

    b. The photographer is correct (and this pamphlet arrogantly proves it)

    when in fact, it’s actually

    c. The photographer has many rights, but is not always correct*

    I’m sure the author, Attorney Bert Krages II, chose this title deliberately and thoughtfully, so I might be hasty in my “thus”-ing him, but the singular “right” in the title still feels, well, wrong.



    * While the photographer is not always right, of course “the customer is always right.” Except when they’re not.

    ** I am not a lawyer nor a professional photographer

  62. B says:

    @DeltaPurser: My guess is a higher percentage of shoplifters are teens, but they don’t steal as much stuff as the adults. Teens might steal cds or cigarettes or porno mags, but adults would steal dvd players and more expensive stuff.

  63. Antediluvian says:

    So it is.
    Dang, hoisted by my own Picard.

  64. Xerloq says:

    @Fry: It’s a Shakespearian curse. Fie on Fye!

  65. meneye says:

    @RumorsDaily: as long as the picture is used for personal use, there can’t be any violation. Otherwise, I don’t see how this picture couldn’t be used under the fair use act since this blog is a news-oriented site.

  66. LionelEHutz says:

    Since when did FYE start making laws? A-holes.

  67. s35flyer says:

    Good. Kids should be in school.

  68. MMD says:

    @Atomike: Or, maybe you’re a thinking person with a different point of view.

    Such policies are simply an invasion of privacy. Who are retailers to decide where people – regardless of age – should or should not be? And if this kind of policy can stand what’s to prevent them from placing other kinds restrictions to access based on other arbitrary criteria? Following the whole “the store is private property” logic, they could just as easily put up a sign barring access to people of a specific race.

    Of course, they wouldn’t. Imagine the outcry. But in my mind, an arbitrary age restriction is the same thing.

  69. cde says:

    @RumorsDaily: Facts arn’t copyrightable. A sign stating that fact (Like the Store’s policy) also lacks copyright protection.

  70. JustAGuy2 says:

    In your mind, yes. In the law, no.

  71. gd1 says:

    @ Televiper: I’m sick of people who think the inside of malls ARN’T public property. The esteemed Supreme Court said that malls in the state of California serve a public function and therefore must allow for First Amendment rights. If you wanted to stand outside a store in the mall giving out fliers to people about how the store uses child labor, you can. See PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins.

    Don’t make assumptions without, um…. facts to support your assertions?

  72. Jesusz says:

    In Philadelphia,we have a major problem with truancy. Many businesses don’t allow minors in their store until after school hours. It gives them less places to hide. Malls in this city are often places for truants to hide during the day.

  73. Atomike says:

    An invasion of privacy? No no no.
    I simply think you haven’t thought about this at all before posting. At all.
    As far as law goes, race discrimination is illegal. This store’s policy is not. Legally speaking, your argument is nonsensical at BEST.
    Non-legally speaking, are you saying that stores have no rights whatever to have or enforce any rules of their own? Please.

  74. cde says:

    @Televiper: Because the mall is a place of public accommodation, even if it is private. They must still allow for first amendment rights and cannot arbitrarily ban someone (In some cases)

    //Free speech rights remain on privatized pedestrian mall

    American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (public pedestrian mall remains a public forum where first amendment protects leafleting even when city contracts with private entity that invests substantially in renovating the area and seeks to compete with private malls that do have the right to exclude leafletters).//

    //The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed its earlier ruling in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 469 A.2d 1201 (Conn. 1984), which interpreted the state constitutional free speech guarantee only to apply to public actors and facilities. Justice Joette Katz noted that almost all states have agreed, and that only five jurisdictions, (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington) interpret their state constitutions to allow some petitioning activity in private shopping centers//

    My state recognizes malls as places where freedom of speech still applies.

    Then again:
    //1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Lloyd vs. Tanner that shopping centers were considered private entities, and could therefore limit speech activities on their premises.//

    But as we all know, the stricter law applies (Malls cannot [completely] limit free speech vs malls can.)

    And currently the trend is to go towards citizens/free speech instead of towards malls/squelching speech.
    This is mostly due to the fact that malls are heavily subsidized by taxpayers, both directly and by tax breaks.

    But this does not apply to the stores in the mall, just the common areas.

  75. FLConsumer says:

    @cde: The mall itself is, but individual stores are another story.

  76. cde says:

    @RumorsDaily: You also have to take into account, aside form the sign being a stated fact, it is also devoid of any literary, scholarly or artistic value. If it has neither, it is not a copywriteable “work”.
    See Jstor: American Law Register


    //PUBLIC DOMAIN: when a copyright or a patent does not protect a an artistic or literary work or invention it is said to be in the public domain and can be used by anyone without liability for infringement.//

    Also, copyrights are for original works. There is nothing original about the sign or its content.

  77. cde says:

    @FLConsumer: See the last sentence of my post :P

  78. cde says:

    @Atomike: While a dresscode or anti-truancy sign might not be illegal at face value, if it is applied only to a race or majorly applies only to them, it would be illegal under those anti-racism laws. Like those “pull up your pants” laws that some towns passed that were over turned because they only really targeted minorities.

  79. @Quietly: “There are a lot of little punks out there, but I am amazed at how many mature teenagers I see. A lot of them are more mature than people who are old enough to be their parents.”

    I notice that, locally, it varies quite a bit. There’s one shopping center I won’t visit when school’s out because the teenagers are ASSHOLES there and make it so unpleasant they drive out all the adult business. Those same kids at the indoor mall are sometimes loud and rowdy, but basically polite and pleasant human beings. I really have no idea what the difference is, unless it’s that there are a lot more adults at the mall, while they’ve driven them all away from this other shopping center (which I guess would make both their good and bad behavior self-reinforcing).

    I would think it was ridiculous and punitive and unfair if the mall started restricting teenagers, because they’re never a problem there. But if this shopping center did, I wouldn’t blame them one bit.

  80. cmhbob says:

    Hey, I’ve got another word for school-aged kids who aren’t in a school building during school hours: homeschooled.

    Just because they’re not in a school building doesn’t mean they’re not in school.

  81. cde says:

    @cmhbob: But then in that case, they are with parents/chaperone, not alone.

  82. Chase says:


    It may be bad business, but I rather dislike teenagers, so I much applaud this FYE’s courage. Someone get them a Purple Heart. Maybe an antacid or two.

  83. Annika-Lux says:

    I homeschooled. I was quite often out by myself during “school hours”. I also didn’t cause any trouble. My local mall has a policy that on Friday and Saturday nights, you have to be over 18 to be in the mall alone (without an adult chaperone). I love (hate) it when they try to card me; I’m 22.

  84. thelushie says:

    I love this law. Now if we could get some makeup counters and stores to pass the same rule or at least give us some “adults only” shopping hours, it would be great.

  85. thelushie says:

    Excuse me, I meant rule, not law. I realize this is not a law.

  86. slimdim says:

    There are plenty of businesses, including: CVS, Publix, and Walgreen’s that have these rules because of unruly school children after they get out of school. If I owned a business and the kids were out of control I would have the same sign.
    It’s a private business and if they want to enforce their own rules, then guess what they can. If you choose to not follow the rules you can be trespassed warn by store employees, within the presence of a police officer, and if you violate the trespass you are subject to arrest. That’s how it is in Florida, at least.

  87. SaraAB87 says:

    Pretty much ALL malls at least here have some sort of rule for unsupervised underage customers. Some malls enforce it really well essentially making “adult only” shopping hours and some malls enforce it only as needed, but yes they do enforce it. I have seen troublemaker teens kicked out of malls here.

    Now all we need is a NO HEELYS rule in all the malls here, the malls are nothing but skateparks now and something needs to be done about it.

  88. StevieD says:

    The purpose of such “rules” are generally related to staffing issues, or the above mentioned lack of staffing.

    Obviously it costs $ to pay for extra staff. Not every business can afford to provide extra staff, especially at an attractive business for children to “shop” for hours at end, what we in the business world call “free baby-sitting”.

    That sign has all the “signs” of a temporary policy being applied due to staffing situations.

    Let’s grow up and move on.

  89. StevieD says:


    That no Heelys rule is coming. I saw a young girl knock run into own grandmother at WallyWorld. Grandma lost her balance and fell back unto her scooter seat. Grandma wasn’t hurt (pretty obvious no injury) but The WallyWorld shift-floor manager was a walking trainwreck of concern. IF she had knocked down MY grandmother I would be owning some serious WallyWorld Stock.

    BTW I already outlawed the Heelys in my own business. Not that they have been a big problem as I have about 1 kid per month as a visitor. But the last thing I need is for a kid to loose control and get impaled on a sharp object.

  90. rjhiggins says:

    @RumorsDaily: Your understanding of copyright is so off base you really shouldn’t be posting as if you know what you’re talking about.

    Simply taking a picture of a public sign cannot be a violation in any form. Now if you reproduce it on a commercial website, for example, then you could be opening yourself up to a suit.

  91. camille_javal says:


    You also have to take into account, aside form the sign being a stated fact, it is also devoid of any literary, scholarly or artistic value. If it has neither, it is not a copywriteable “work”.

    You are 100% wrong. See Justice Holmes’ opinion in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithgraphing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903) – “It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits.”

    The sign is likely not copyrightable, but because it probably fails even the minimal standard for originality required for copyright, as elucidated in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

    and, copyRIGHT.

  92. lovelygirl says:

    That’s reasonable. And I rather dislike teenagers m’self, even though I am one! lol, but not one of those trouble-making teens.

  93. donTHEd says:

    there are entire malls that have been this policy. they have for years.

  94. thelushie says:

    @SaraAB87: We have those No Heely rules at a couple of our malls but they are not enforced in any manner. I am waiting for someone to be bashed into and for someone to get hurt. If I had kids, I would not let them have those shoes. I guess that would make me “uncool” but it is better than a child with a bashed up face from falling or losing control.

  95. coold8 says:

    Couple things:

    1. Me being 17, would love to go in there, with my overused wallet (I own a business), and ask them for a yonder mountain string band cd, if they kick me out, i will be happy to whip out some nice looking big bills, with a few credit cards, and ask the manager if he wants my business or not!

  96. pinkfreud says:

    * Employee Theft 46%
    * Shoplifting 30.6%
    * Administrative Error 17.6%
    * Vendor Fraud 5.8%

    The study, conducted by the University of Florida with a funding grant from ADT Security Services, Inc., a unit of Tyco Fire and Security Services, discovered that retail security managers attributed more than 46 percent of their losses to the thefts of disgruntled workers. In comparison, 31 percent of retail losses were the result of shoplifters. Employee theft was up 2 percentage points from the previous study.

  97. joellevand says:

    @snoop-blog: You and I both know the greedy bastards at the RIAA will *never* let legal music borrowing like NetFlix happen. Too much potential for them to lose their gold back scratchers and stretch Hummers to some poor students making copies of the CDs they borrow to listen to again later.

  98. frogman31680 says:

    Technically, there is a possibility that it is illegal. If the mall is privately owned such as the one where I live, then it is illegal.

    I used to work for a local news organization and we had to jump through hoops to get permission to film inside the mall.

    So, if you are outside the store, and the mall is “Public property” (Not owned by a private entity) then yes it is not illegal.

    Course, when I was doing TV News filming, this was always a “grey” area that we were able to smudge facts on.

  99. dandd says:

    Why the hell would anyone want to go into FYE anyway? Is this the last town to not have broadband?

    Trust me kids, they are doing you a favor.

  100. SayAhh says:

    @cp87: I remember walking to school and had to walk pass a 24-hour Del Taco. They used to have a sign that said something to the effect of “no school-aged children allowed from 7 am to 2 pm” but they’ve never refused me service when I went in to buy a milkshake before school. I assume that weekends and school holidays would be exceptions, but the sign was stupid and is no longer there.

    The difference between Del Taco is that DT didn’t want to “host” students that were ditching school, and F.Y.E. didn’t want the kids to go in “in swarms,” possibly shoplift and definitely loiter, but losing sales as a result–so why not just close your store altogether? Oh wait, YOU HAVE (in my neighborhood mall, at least).

    BTW F.Y.E. SUCKS, and I only went in there to either browse (kill time) or look for a last-minute gift that I couldn’t find anywhere else…

  101. @cp87: Sharper Image was one. Glad they are going belly up.

  102. tyra_banks says:

    I actually work at an FYE.

    However, we don’t have this policy of 16 or under after 4:00. We will just throw disruptive customers (teenagers) out. One idiot kid was putting some of the “Mature Viewing” DVDs in with the Childrens DVDs! Needless to say, he was thrown out. I think it sends the other delinquents a message when we throw somebody out. We haven’t had any other problems in a while now. It seems like the majority of the degenerates seem to go to the pornography, go figure.

  103. cde says:

    @camille_javal: Can’t believe I made that typo >_< XD


    //outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits//

    I would take simple printed text (and fonts are not copyrightable either) stating a policy to be one of those most obvious limits.

  104. zaidestudios says:

    Various states have legislature in place limiting the activity of minors during school hours, some are limited to specific cities or metropolitan areas in which gang activity is both feared and rampant. Detroit had these laws in place for some time during my youth, I couldn’t tell you if they still do. Now, the reasonable exception, which is mostly ignored on simple signs, is evidence of a minor’s rightful freedom. A home-schooled student could carry the mandatory (in most states) proof of enrollment form, holidays are not often considered weekdays, but a school calendar would suffice to ward off suspicion of truancy and mischief. In other words, deal with it, learn the rules and manipulate them, complaining won’t help you (unless you intend to initiate referendum).

  105. surgesilk says:

    Actually malls are no longer considered private property in terms of gathering and expression. They are now considered public spaces and as such have more liberal use criteria.

  106. Starfury says:

    I will NEVER shop at an FYE store. I have been getting spam from them for at least 5 years and I never signed up for it.

    And I also haven’t bought a CD in years not because of prices but because the music being released is crap. Even the old bands I do like are releasing crap.

  107. jhuang says:

    @cmhbob: right.

    Another word would also be graduated.. not everyone under 18 is still in high school.

  108. drjayphd says:

    @SaraAB87: I’m still amazed people even wear Heelys. Saw some segment on them back when they first came out and thought it was the dumbest thing yet.

  109. SaraAB87 says:


    Its not as big of a problem here as it was last year. Its usually only a problem a week or 2 after Christmas because everyone gets the shoes for Xmess but then the kids realize that the shoes kill their feet and then they stop wearing them. The shoes can cause all kinds of problems though because they alter the way you walk and your posture. Being a podiatrist might be a good field to get into now because all these kids who wear heeleys and other ill-fitting shoes are going to end up having foot problems later on in life. Theres a reason they were voted worst toy/worst Christmas gift of 2005 or 2006 I cannot remember.

    But as a family orientated person who likes to get out to walk in malls and stores, and who likes to shop with her elderly grandmother and mother who is just recovering from a hospital visit I would appreciate if malls and stores would have No Heelys rules that WOULD BE ENFORCED so that I can shop with my family in peace.

    The only place I have seen it enforced is a Kmart, which is now closed, they had a security guard at the entrance looking at kids feet for the shoes and a big sign on the door. Most stores have the signs, but no one listens, they skate as they please and no employees even make an attempt to enforce it.

  110. redwall_hp says:

    @Witera33it Have you ever heard of homeschooling? Normal school hours do not apply in that case.

    Anyway, who cares about FYE. Don’t tell me people actually buy music from stores like that still. Ever heard of iTunes, or other online stores?

  111. Charlotte Rae's Web says:

    Another issue – what about kids in year round schools? My daughter goes to school 9 weeks on, 3 weeks off. So her breaks are at odd times. She’s not truant so why can’t she go in?

    Or even homeschooled kids?

  112. Superawesomerad says:

    @redwall_hp and web_mom: The rule was clearly written to cover the majority of teenagers, those who are enrolled in public high schools with a 180 day, 9 month school year. Your homeschooled/year-round kid just has to suck it up.

  113. Alex Brewer says:

    @ptkdude &

    Actually, “till” is an acceptable, and arguably preferable form. “Till” looks like a misuse of the abbreviated form of “untill,” however, “till” has regularly occurred as a spelling of this word for over 800 years and it’s older than “until.” It is perfectly good English, traceable back to the Old English “til.”

  114. levyzen says:

    I coordinate exchange groups to the US. Last August, I took 36 chinese teens, aged 14-17, to Patrick Henry Mall in Newport News, Va. Within 30 minutes of arriving, several students & myself were approached by mall security, asking that the students not take photos in the mall. Then another security guard informed us we were to leave the mall! I repeated back to him: Let me get this correct. You are telling me that my 36 students, and their thousands of dollars in American money, are not welcome in this mall? He stammered & tried to back down, as he & his partner slithered away. I remained in the food court for the next hour, as gathering 36 students is not an easy task. This wasn’t school hours…it was summer! It was over-zealous security, and paranoid kiosk vendors (ie: “they could have been terrorists, taking pictures of our kiosk!”)

  115. unklegwar says:

    @forgottenpassword: I dunno why, but there seems to be some mass misunderstanding that taking photos of things is illegal.

    I was taking photos of illegally parked cars in my neighborhood (they were blocking the road from emergency vehicle passage), and had an owner come out to tell me it was illegal to photograph his license plate. He backed off when I reminded him that his license plate is on public display and it’s purpose is so his vehicle CAN be identified.

    Where do these brilliant beliefs come from?