Ebay Ethics

[dcowboys311]

Or even more morally reprehensible: how do we know the seller on Ebay aren't actually band related, and thus funneling money back to the band? It's capitalism. It's supply and demand. And it would be unethical as all hell.

Not saying that's how it is but an interesting what if since I agree with you that the band does bear a moral and ethical responsibility in this as well.

See, I'm torn with this....bands don't OWE people anything. For most trying to make music for a living, the band is a business. A vehicle to some sort of financial sustainability. Not to say that there is no artistic reason behind the career choice, but at the end of the day, you've gotta eat. So why should someone feel the need to limit the amount of money someone is willing to pay for their work? Honestly, if someone wanted to pay $300 for my t-shirt (who really wouldn't want a preworn dcowboys311 t-shirt???)....I'd probably let them. Bills are bills. Feels sort of bad, man, but I'm not forcing them to, nor would I be asking that price. And you can't blame someone for selling a record for $200 when they were only asking for $20 at the start of the auction.

On the other hand, it does almost seem like extortion to an extent. Taking advantage of your fans. But a lot of people who would be willing to pay that amount for a piece of merch have the 'collector' mentality going on, and shelling out $$$$$ for rare items is definitely not limited to the music collecting world.

 

[rms]

See, I'm torn with this....bands don't OWE people anything. For most trying to make music for a living, the band is a business. A vehicle to some sort of financial sustainability. Not to say that there is no artistic reason behind the career choice, but at the end of the day, you've gotta eat. So why should someone feel the need to limit the amount of money someone is willing to pay for their work? Honestly, if someone wanted to pay $300 for my t-shirt (who really wouldn't want a preworn dcowboys311 t-shirt???)....I'd probably let them. Bills are bills. Feels sort of bad, man, but I'm not forcing them to, nor would I be asking that price. And you can't blame someone for selling a record for $200 when they were only asking for $20 at the start of the auction.

On the other hand, it does almost seem like extortion to an extent. Taking advantage of your fans. But a lot of people who would be willing to pay that amount for a piece of merch have the 'collector' mentality going on, and shelling out $$$$$ for rare items is definitely not limited to the music collecting world.

There are plenty of bands who are not financially motivated..but that's why you listen to crap still

 

[dcowboys311]

There are plenty of bands who are not financially motivated..but that's why you listen to crap still

Right, and that's why I said I was talking about bands trying to make music for a living, not the "release an album every 4 years and play 2 fests a year" bands you ride the jocks of

 

[Cheiron]

Looks to me like Agalloch is missing out on some earning potential. They need a better manager.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Or even more morally reprehensible: how do we know the seller on Ebay aren't actually band related, and thus funneling money back to the band? It's capitalism. It's supply and demand. And it would be unethical as all hell.

Not saying that's how it is but an interesting what if since I agree with you that the band does bear a moral and ethical responsibility in this as well.

I know of a few bands (of course, they shall remain nameless) that know full well that some of their rare limited material is worth money on EPs and so they sell some of their own stock at inflated prices as a means of paying the bills. As dcowboys said, I'm torn on this notion as well. Not sure about Agalloch, but I'd like to think they don't, haha.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

There are plenty of bands who are not financially motivated..but that's why you listen to crap still

Nobody cares bro.

 

[Jasonic]

I know of a few bands (of course, they shall remain nameless) that know full well that some of their rare limited material is worth money on EPs and so they sell some of their own stock at inflated prices as a means of paying the bills. As dcowboys said, I'm torn on this notion as well. Not sure about Agalloch, but I'd like to think they don't, haha.

No shit sherlock.
As well as labels who make limited runs and special pressings.
It's called capitalism.

Are you saying that any art dealer is NOT a fan of art and is unethical because the market has driven the price of the said piece far beyond what was originally paid for? So, if someone, fan or not, wanted to sell an item, they are unethical if they sell for the "going rate"?

This discussion of ethics is 100% bullshit.
Does that mean that my company should sell its stocks far below market value, because if we have a high performing quarter, it would be unethical since maybe in the previous quarter the stock was going at half the rate?

Aeonic...I know you are going to take this the wrong way, but I do have to ask......... How old are you? Do you own a car, house, business? Do you support yourself, or are you dependent on someone else? I am 100% serious with these questions and am in NO way trying to insult you.

Your comments in this thread are coming off as a teenage punk rocker who lives at home and tries to defeat "the man"

 

[Jasonic]

Tonight at the Dawnbringer show they had a very limited run poster for the show tonight and people were trying to buy 10 at a time because they were going to resell them on Ebay. Band cut them off and allowed 1 only since they knew what was going on. It was nice to see a band do this where they easily could have made a profit quickly decided not to and let others get the chance to get something that is special and limited.

Well, then they really were off on how "true" their fans are, as about 1/5th of all posters made are on ebay right now.......

http://cgi.ebay.com/DawnBringer-Chi...90516705523?pt=Art_Prints&hash=item2c5bae38f3

 

[dcowboys311]

No shit sherlock.
As well as labels who make limited runs and special pressings.
It's called capitalism.

Are you saying that any art dealer is NOT a fan of art and is unethical because the market has driven the price of the said piece far beyond what was originally paid for? So, if someone, fan or not, wanted to sell an item, they are unethical if they sell for the "going rate"?

This discussion of ethics is 100% bullshit.
Does that mean that my company should sell its stocks far below market value, because if we have a high performing quarter, it would be unethical since maybe in the previous quarter the stock was going at half the rate?

Aeonic...I know you are going to take this the wrong way, but I do have to ask......... How old are you? Do you own a car, house, business? Do you support yourself, or are you dependent on someone else? I am 100% serious with these questions and am in NO way trying to insult you.

Your comments in this thread are coming off as a teenage punk rocker who lives at home and tries to defeat "the man"

The key difference here is that with your company and your art, you need time for those items to appreciate in value. Your stock probably isn't going to be going for $250/share at the IPO unless the company has already proven its worth. People probably aren't going to want to shell out tens of thousands for a painting by some dweeb down the street. I could be wrong, but I think Aeonic's focus was more on the guys who buy a record tonight with the intention of listing it on Ebay in the morning. Different circumstances completely.

 

[Jasonic]

The key difference here is that with your company and your art, you need time for those items to appreciate in value. Your stock probably isn't going to be going for $250/share at the IPO unless the company has already proven its worth. People probably aren't going to want to shell out tens of thousands for a painting by some dweeb down the street. I could be wrong, but I think Aeonic's focus was more on the guys who buy a record tonight with the intention of listing it on Ebay in the morning. Different circumstances completely.

You are missing one VERY key point tough my friend....

The reason that record can be sold the next morning for an inflated price on eBay is because that is the price that the "market" can bear........

How is selling something at the "going rate" unethical, regardless if it was purchased as an investment or not?

What would a band who produces a limited item honestly expect?

With the ease of getting the "going rate" its not just the investors or creepy store owners selling rarities for absurd prices.

Regardless of what the item being sold, there is nothing illegal or unethical about purchasing a good for one price, and then reselling the same item at the going rate..........

As someone pointed out, if this is a MAJOR concern as a music fan, then blame the bands and labels for this. They know what they are doing.

In Agalloch's case, it is fookin' brilliant. They have generated a TON of buzz over the years due to the insane prices their rarities fetch on eBay. Trust me, no band who has their product sold for absurd prices has ANY issue with this, even if they say they do. You can't buy that type of publicity.

 

[Fizrider]

Another one to miss the point entirely.

And by the way, legally speaking this is NOT always the case.

If there were not a market for this limited release stuff, the resellers couldn't get away with it.

An Agalloch fan in Topeka really likes something which is sold ONLY at a show in Miami. If it is not resold, the Topeka fan would have to buy a round-trip ticket to Miami, probably a hotel room, a show ticket AND buy the actual item. Probably cheaper to pay the reseller's rate.

There are ways to increase chances that "true fans" get the merch (limit sales per person, sell only through a fan-based website), but all these can be scammed.

Are you upset with Agalloch who creates the environment in which this occurs, or with the resellers who take advantage of a situation presented?

 

[rms]

Right, and that's why I said I was talking about bands trying to make music for a living, not the "release an album every 4 years and play 2 fests a year" bands you ride the jocks of

I wish they played a fest a year

 

[AMBR]

The reason that record can be sold the next morning for an inflated price on eBay is because that is the price that the "market" can bear........

How is selling something at the "going rate" unethical, regardless if it was purchased as an investment or not?

What would a band who produces a limited item honestly expect?

With the ease of getting the "going rate" its not just the investors or creepy store owners selling rarities for absurd prices.

Regardless of what the item being sold, there is nothing illegal or unethical about purchasing a good for one price, and then reselling the same item at the going rate..........

Simple fact there. Whether or not it's "ethical" or "right" is based on someone's personal emotional involvement in the item. There's really no way to argue the "ethics" of it. Whoever takes the time to know the band's touring schedule, buy the ticket, transport themselves to the show, stand in line, buy the items, make themselves knowledgeable about the market value of the items, get an ebay account, post the items AND ship them deserves to make the profit the market will bear. People who were not willing or able to get themselves to a place to buy the items at the starting price AND are still WILLING to pay what the market will bear, are not being taken advantage of, they are buying the efforts of the seller.

Is it any different then the guy who is willing to camp out for hours at the Apple store for a newly released product, gets two and sells one? No. Now if Apple decides to limit purchases, well, there is only a limited value on spending all that time getting the item to sell. If bands don't like the practice, they can do the same.

 

[dcowboys311]

Is it any different then the guy who is willing to camp out for hours at the Apple store for a newly released product, gets two and sells one? No. Now if Apple decides to limit purchases, well, there is only a limited value on spending all that time getting the item to sell. If bands don't like the practice, they can do the same.

This is completely different.

 

[AMBR]

This is completely different.

I totally don't see how.

 

[rms]

art =/= bs technology

 

[AeonicSlumber]

No shit sherlock.
As well as labels who make limited runs and special pressings.
It's called capitalism.

Are you saying that any art dealer is NOT a fan of art and is unethical because the market has driven the price of the said piece far beyond what was originally paid for? So, if someone, fan or not, wanted to sell an item, they are unethical if they sell for the "going rate"?

This discussion of ethics is 100% bullshit.
Does that mean that my company should sell its stocks far below market value, because if we have a high performing quarter, it would be unethical since maybe in the previous quarter the stock was going at half the rate?

Aeonic...I know you are going to take this the wrong way, but I do have to ask......... How old are you? Do you own a car, house, business? Do you support yourself, or are you dependent on someone else? I am 100% serious with these questions and am in NO way trying to insult you.

Your comments in this thread are coming off as a teenage punk rocker who lives at home and tries to defeat "the man"

I'm not going to even comment on this post. I will PM you with my actual feelings.

 

[dcowboys311]

I totally don't see how.

In the Apple example, you can just wait a day or two and go back to the store and get the item for the retail price. Not so with limited merch.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Is it any different then the guy who is willing to camp out for hours at the Apple store for a newly released product, gets two and sells one? No. Now if Apple decides to limit purchases, well, there is only a limited value on spending all that time getting the item to sell. If bands don't like the practice, they can do the same.

Yes, because this practice hasn't affected Apple financially yet. Apple is one of the most successful companies in existence. Agalloch on the other hand isn't even a career band, they barely make any money whatsoever doing it.

And no offense, but to say there isn't an ethical debate to this just because you don't agree is ridiculous. That's like saying there shouldn't be an ethical debate as to whether the by stander should have sacrificed his own life to save a child from a car crash because standing idly by is perfectly legal and OK. And before any of the reading sleuths on this board misconstrue the previous statement as though I've taken a side on it, I haven't. I'm objectively noting that it's a valid scenario for ethical to debate.

 

[TENTH DREAMER DECEIVER]

If anything deserves an ethical debate it is the stealing of music and thus money from artists.