The ethics of the resale

Never let a dirty pseudo-hippie intimidate you with the stink eye!

 

That's because it's personal TO YOU. Not everyone is like you. It's still a physical thing at the end of the day. And it's not up to you to say how a physical music 'thing' is to be enjoyed.

 

If you can explain why some situations feel unethical or immoral, while others do not, that can help you figure out what makes something unethical or immoral.

Someone finds a rare LP for $10 at the Goodwill store, then sells it on eBay for $500. Doesn't feel unethical. In a natural disaster, someone buys all the bottled water at the convenience store for $1, and tries to sell it to people for $10. Feels wrong.

Someone buys a RSD release for $30, then sells it on eBay one year later for $100. Doesn't feel unethical. The store first selling that RSD release decides to mark it up to $100, because they know that's what flippers would get for it. Feels wrong.

Someone buys a ticket to a concert for $100. It's a hot show. They cannot go, and sell the ticket on Stubhub for $500. Doesn't feel unethical. The artist sells tickets directly to fans for the price they know it can be scalped for, $500. Or Ticketmaster tacks on $50 for fees onto the $100 ticket. People complain this is unfair to fans.

 

Is it immoral or unethical, I'm not sure. It is greedy and opportunistic. If you do this, to paraphrase the Big Lewboski, "No you're not immoral, you're just an *ssh*le."[/quote]

I feel that sums it up right there.

Didn't the Dead used to have some type of lottery to get tickets.Maybe the same could be done with all thier new releases.

 

That's insider trading type stuff you're describing. And that's clearly wrong but what we are talking about in this thread (or so I thought) was the average person off the street finds himself in a unique position to buy 5 copies of a record (which is a thing) and decides to save them back thinking one day they will be worth something to someone. And then one day comes and he wagers correctly and find buys for his 5 copies - selling them for double what he paid. Good for him.

 

Feels wrong and is illegal in 34 states as of 2008, according to the always accurate Wikipedia. This is what is known as "price gouging" as was mentioned above.

 

Yeah, I missed out on some profit. What a wuss I am. 'Know what, when I deal with people I don't try to grind every nickel out of every deal, especially if it's someone I have an ongoing relationship with like my gardener or housekeeper. I'm more about a deal that works for all parties. You might want to look up "win-win" some time.

Sheesh.

 

Yes in a moment of a crisis situation that would be unethical.

 

And not everyone is like you -- seems to me that you are no more right or wrong than KOWHeigel on the topic -- it's really just two opinions.

I actually lean more towards your opinion, btw. For me personally it's more about the music than the tactile nature of the media. There are nostalgic exceptions of course, and I buy vinyl today with the hope of better SQ over the alternatives, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way.

 

That's your choice on how you to choose to do your business - but don't tell other people how to do theirs.

 

The bottled water stockpiling is something taking place during a legitimately desperate situation - albums are a far cry from this.

 

Imo, your post should be stickied to the top of the thread -- completely agree and the point being that the act of doing something isn't always unethical -- it really depends on the circumstances.

 

I dunno... Based on myself, I think rock concerts would be the last thing on my mind in that scenario. It's just hard for me to imagine.

Well, thanks for sharing - that's quite compelling. Don't know what to say, really. But I can understand your point of view better now.

 

I agree with you there.

My typical "concern" is usually with high demand / low volume things. I.E. RSD releases, concert tix for certain bands at certain venues, etc...

 

Why should a lottery be necessary? It usually takes a month or two before all the subscriptions for the next year are sold. It seems to me that a Deadhead willing to spend $100 for one show should also be willing and able to buy a subscription for 4 shows when they become available. "You snooze you lose" seems to apply to the stragglers.

 

I don't understand how selling multiple copies of a legitimately-obtained Dave's Picks release is any more "immoral" than finding a rare target in a used bin for $3.99 and "flipping" it, for a high multiple, in the Hoffman classifieds. There are lots of people around here who dabble in precisely that practice. Sorry. It's the same thing.

 

My name is Richard and I'm one of those a**holes. Bought Apple at $125 as well. I would also sooner slit my throat than pay $500 for any cd in existence.

 

Water is a necessity of life, vinyl albums or CDs are not.

 

This nothing new, it happens in every collectible market for years. Every potential collectible has its share of "speculators" that think they can buy low and sell high. The sea thing happened when I bought collectible toys. After a while all the dealers bought up everything, so I gave up and went on to something else.

 

If I buy an item I enjoy and it goes up in value over time, I am happy to cash out.

If you see something at a reasonable price, and you just grab it to make a quick $200 bucks on ebay it's a little sleazy. This is especially true if you are buying from a charitable organization, ie: "Those stupid Nuns sold me this DCC Aqualung for 99 cents, now I gan get $500 bucks on ebay. Orphans don't need money anyway." Better to tell the sisters, you guys have something pretty valuable here.

If you grab as many copies of something as you can and then mark them up 1000% and hoard them it is just usurious price gouging.

It may just be me but on the occasions when I have had tickets to a hot concert and couldn't go I always gave them away to family or friends, or just sold them off for face value. I wasn't buying the tickets as a business proposition to begin with, so it is assumed I didn't really need the money.

 

There are a few around.

 

Making profit is wrong?

If the nuns are in the business of selling things - they should know the price or at least hire someone/or someone to volunteer to help facilitate the value of items they are selling - IF indeed they are selling items for orphans as you have stated for a premise. If they were selling items to make money for orphans don't you think they owe it to the orphans to price items accordingly to make the most money for orphans? Surely you aren't suggesting nuns don't have brains to figure that out?[/quote]

In some cases that would be wrong - like food/energy in the case of calamity/disaster but in the case of music media I don't see the problem with this premise as a customer in a store. A store can put limits on quantities so this kind of practice doesn't happen in the cases of limited quantities from a supplier to begin with but otherwise if no such restrictions are in place by the seller - it's anyone's game.

That's nice of you but you aren't obligated to do that. And you have every right to do what you do. There's no right or wrong in what you did with those tickets - as long as you are satisfied with the results, that's what matters.

 

I think they should be able to. And I will not visit their store nor buy from them - instead I will go elsewhere - it's a big world out there. See how long their inflated price business model holds up (not too long).

 

I think you are nuts to invest in music for a return profit. The market is wishy washy at best.

 

Is this what they call postmodern ethics?